Originally Posted by RFS62
I think a salary dump for next season was a major factor in Krivsky's trading Kearns and Lopez. He saw around 8 or 9 million coming on the books next season between them.
Also, I can't help but think he decided to move Kearns to get him away from Adam as well. All we have is hearsay, but I've always thought he had a sense of entitlement beyond what he's produced thus far. Lopez too has been the subject of many remarks of that nature. I know it's not anything we can verify unless you talk to front office or clubhouse people, but it's just an impression I have.
Once he decided to move them, then it's a matter of what does he get. And what he got, or settled for, as many critics of the trade would put it, was relative to where we were at the time of the deal..... contending for the division.
Keeping the promise Castellini made in his first press conference had to play into that trade in ways that just can't be measured, IMO.
How do you determine the value of staying in contention, even though we fell short? It's a much more complex equation than simple numbers can reflect.
But Dave, as we see so far this offseason, players like Kearns and Lopez have more value in the offseason then a month before the trade deadline.
Thats really what people like myself were objecting to - not that Kearns and Lopez were untouchable - rather that it was a bad time to move them and that they got less value than I/we felt they could have.
If Krivsky caried them into the offseason, put them on the market, let it be known that he was "testing the waters" but nothing more (wink, wink) he most likely could have gotten more for them. Again, like I stated at the time of the trade, it was the bundling plus the return that I hated. Trade Lopez for Bray and I'd have been fine with it. Then you'd have Kearns as a chip this offseason.
As for the stay in contention part, well I never felt the Reds had a shot. Yes, I was in the minority, and the way things fell I will concede I was wrong (but who could have predicted 80 wins would keep them in contention until the final week) but I thought the Reds could make other moves that would have keep them in "contention" while still keeping trading chips.
After all, you and I agree that this being Krivsky's first offseason, this is where he craps or gets off the pot. I'm sure we'd both like it if he had more ammo.