Originally Posted by writerdan33
The name of the game, folks, is pitching. This team will score runs without Kearns and Lopez, in my opinion. But how many runs can we keep the other team from scoring with a better bullpen and, in Clayton, a short-term shortstop who at the very least isn't going to kick the routine play?
It's a gamble, I believe, worth taking.
Clayton may not boot the routine play, but Lopez's offensive talents outstripped his defensive liabilities--and its likely that he was destined for a position other than shortstop in 2007 anyway. Clayton is a slight defensive upgrade, and a tremendous offensive downgrade. On no planet that I've inhabited could that be considered a good deal.
As far as the pitching is concerned--again, no one's arguing that the reds didn't need to upgrade their pitching staff. And no one's arguing that this trade didn't acocmplish that. But, good grief, the price to do so was astronomical.
You say that the team will score runs without Lopez and Kearns, but where are those runs going to be coming from? Both players were solid run producers. Even if Denorfia steps in seamlessly to the void kearns left behind--a big if--you still have a blackhole at shortstop that's going to give you nothing in the way of offensive production.
Slice it, dice it, flip it--view it however you wish. This trade is a 1976 Gremlin of a deal that looks bad now, and has a very high likelihood of looking even worse later.