My head is spinning; there are actually a lot of wonderful points in this thread.
Originally Posted by M2
While Arroyo did better than I thought he would, I did think 200+ IP with an ERA in the high 3.00s was in the offing for him. The dude can pitch.
This is a valid point that I think a lot of people overlook. This year, Arroyo performed above expectations, to be sure. But I think that the gap of HOW much better he performed than he was expected to is exaggerated among Reds fans. This is not to belittle Wayne's trade here. He made a good trade because he gave away something rather extraneous on the Reds and got something the team needed. And he also happened to get that player locked up for a few years at a very good price. That's the definition of a good trade. What he did NOT do is pull a diamond from the rough. Beyond the stats that were decent enough to show that Arroyo's relatively poor 2005 was probably an aberration, and his obvious health and focus as a pitcher, I do believe that popular opinion in the AL was far more favorable than what I saw on this board when he was traded. I say this mostly from my experience as a Yankees fan. I can tell you that every Yankee fan I know ALWAYS viewed him as a formidable pitcher, and that is, of course, against a pretty formidable lineup. Frankly I remember being quite surprised at the amount of people on this board who disliked this trade and only didn't say so in so many words because I was still new to the board and didn't want to seem stupid or ignorant. I assumed that any of that hate would have come from love of Pena, but most people seemed to think that Arroyo was a genuinely bad pitcher, which floored me.
I don't think that Wayne and spying scouting staff were able to fritter Arroyo away in the dead of night because Theo Epstein didn't see Arroyo's potential. I believe that the reason Theo gave him up was because a) he overestimated the capabilities and durability of his own pitching staff, and b) he needed another great hitter. In this sense it was a good trade, by the above definition, for the Red Sox too, though Theo's expectations didn't pan out the way he hoped.
Now, I'm becoming more impressed bit by tiny bit every day by Krivsky and I'm definitely erring on the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point. And don't get me wrong, if all of his trades were this cut-and-dry I'd be thrilled. But it was just that: a good trade, cut-and-dry. He did not defy the pitching gods by acquiring a mediocre pitcher who blossomed under his scouting and tutelage. He got a good pitcher who had a particularly good year when he was in a city that allowed him to shine.
re: the Kearns discussion; that trade is actually reason #412 why I believe that Krivsky is holding onto Dunn. If Krivsky was that willing to sacrifice a bit of offense for defense, I see no reason why would have given up Kearns, who has enough pop in his bat and is better than Dunn defensively plus cheaper, rather than pawning off Dunn for pitching.