Turn Off Ads?
Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 221

Thread: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

  1. #151
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,771

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Quote Originally Posted by harangatang
    DanO traded Dustin Moseley for Ortiz last year.
    Yes, you are right. And that might be considered worse than signing him as a FA.
    Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #152
    Pflugerville, Tx. Barbarossa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Pflugerville, Texas
    Posts
    655

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Quote Originally Posted by shredda2000
    To Cincinnati
    SP Clement
    or
    Sp Westbrook & prospect

    Any idea who the prospect might be?
    Doubt anyone knows at this stage of the talks but I did see a couple interesting names mentioned while reading the Cleveland board. They seem to think Clement is too expensive for the Reds and Westbrook would be better suited to our ballpark. They could get Clement if they wanted him but the talk on the street is they will offer Weaver the same one year deal they had with Millwood after they trade Westbrook. So if true, it would seem they would be eager to deal Westbrook to the Reds. Two prospects mentioned on the Tribe's board are Dittler and Snyder. Both are in AA. Jake Dittler is a right handed pitcher and has decent numbers, probably be ready in 07. Brad Snyder is a lefthanded hitting center fielder. A power hitter with some speed. He too could be ready in 07 IMHO. The fans of both the Sox and the Tribe really want this trade. The Reds are lucky to be involved. I'm leaning towards the Westbrook + prospect deal, that contract of Clement scares me.
    "The two most important things in life are good friends and a strong bullpen."
    Bob Lemon

  4. #153
    Fenway
    Guest

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    A couple of observations from someone who saw Clement pitch quite a bit in 2005:

    Much has been made of his 1st half/ 2nd half splits. The numbers are somewhat deceiving as well. I can tell you that Clement had some stretches when he looked great in the 2nd half, then he'd be downright dreadful. This was, in part, due to poor defense and a shaky bullpen. An astounding number of his inherited runners were allowed to score by the bullpen. A fitting example of how Clement's 2nd half went, is one his last starts of the year, he was hammered for 5 or 6 runs in one inning, then was lights out the rest of the way. It was a strange year for him to say the least.

    I can tell you that I see Clement as a #1/#2 starter if he does end up in Cincy. He has done very well limiting the longball (at the expense of his K-rate), and displayed very good stuff overall. A change back to the NL, and with a better defense behind him, he could very well be a 3.50 ERA guy, with a 150-50 K/BB.

    Obviously, I'm not as down on Clement as some Sox fans, or Sox brass for that matter. I can tell you he has been shopped as a way of obtaining a CF, and the Sox are very high on Crisp coming to Boston. This 3 way deal is getting quite a bit of buzz here, it will be interesting to see what happens in the next day or two.
    Last edited by Fenway; 01-25-2006 at 11:41 PM.

  5. #154
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,450

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
    Of course he is. I actually don't think people are so concerned about Kearns exiting (I'm not), but Matt Clement is a monstrous, monstrous question mark that could curtail the likelihood of signing bona fide, no-question-about-it talent: Dunn and Lopez. I'm saying, if you're going to go risky, get guaranteed performance in return (Contreras, Zito). I actually doubt that even half of Clement's problems last year were attributable to the headshot--I just think he's getting older and less effective.
    IMO, Clement's a better bet than Contreras. Clement's pitched well for years. Contreras has had one hot half season.

    I saw Clement a lot last year and I'd love to see him in a Reds uniform. Obviously you want to make sure he's not carrying any significant physcial damage, but barring that I want him.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  6. #155
    smells of rich mahogany deltachi8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,001

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Im with ya M2....
    Nothing to see here. Please disperse.

  7. #156
    Member Sabo Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    848

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    Sabo Fan, my take is that Clement's way more of a sure thing on the mound than Kearns is at the plate.
    You may be right about that, but my major issue with this trade isn't so much that Kearns could break out this year (though I'm cautiously optimistic about it), it's that it would tie up another $9-10 million or so in one guy who is, in my mind, a huge question mark. The Reds simply cannot afford to make another $10 million mistake, and there's enough in Clement's history to make me think that there is a strong possibility he could become one.

    Now Kearns is a huge question mark as well, but he's a cheap one that there is very little downside to keeping. It's likely that the only type of pitcher Kearns can land you right now is someone in the Matt Clement-Jose Contreras-Carl Pavano category, meaning an underachieving, overpaid guy who cashed in on one good year. If that's the market, then I say stand pat and wait to see what kind of a first half Kearns has. His value can't get any lower than it is right now as far as I can tell, so there's little downside to holding on to him for the time being. If after the first half of the season he's played reguarly and is struggling, then I'm fine with taking the best offer out there. I'm confident enough in his actual ability and the perception that other clubs have of his ability that there will be a market for him at any point in the next year that is comparable to what it is now. I suppose that is something of a risk seeing as how he could implode completely, but it's a $1.25 million risk, way better for this club than a $10 million one that Clement presents.
    Last edited by Sabo Fan; 01-26-2006 at 04:12 AM.
    "It's still a long way to the top if we want to rock'n'roll, but at least they dumped the tuba player."
    --M2

  8. #157
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    25,089

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    IMO, Clement's a better bet than Contreras. Clement's pitched well for years. Contreras has had one hot half season.

    I saw Clement a lot last year and I'd love to see him in a Reds uniform. Obviously you want to make sure he's not carrying any significant physcial damage, but barring that I want him.
    Really, just a half a year? I thought he was pretty darn good all year. As opposed to Clement who was pretty decent, but who stopped fooling batters altogether by the second half. Plus--Contreras' deal is cheaper and only one year. Clement's is two years, more expensive--plus, the guy kind of spits the bit during knuckle-down time, IIRC.

  9. #158
    Member corkedbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Lexington
    Posts
    6,436

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Kearns, Milton, Merker and a prospect for Clement and Arroyo or Lester. The BoSox wouldn't do it, but I would.

    Harang
    Claussen
    Clement
    Williams
    Arroyo

  10. #159
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,450

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
    Really, just a half a year? I thought he was pretty darn good all year. As opposed to Clement who was pretty decent, but who stopped fooling batters altogether by the second half. Plus--Contreras' deal is cheaper and only one year. Clement's is two years, more expensive--plus, the guy kind of spits the bit during knuckle-down time, IIRC.
    Actually I went back and looked at it and it turns out that it was in fact 2/3 of a good year. I remembered that in July Contreras was nothing to write home about and then he got crazy hot to close out the season. As it turns out, he had a solid April-May and a bad June-July, then he caught fire.

    Contreras isn't cheaper. He's a lot older. Plus I don't care if it's a one-year deal he's on because I'd prefer a better pitcher thank you.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  11. #160
    Member kbrake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,374

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabo Fan
    His value can't get any lower than it is right now as far as I can tell, so there's little downside to holding on to him for the time being. .
    I think his value can get lower. Eventually this 'potential' effect is going to wear off. I think if Kearns dissapoints again this year he will be worth absolutely nothing. I am honestly suprised some of the names being mentioned in exchange for him. Now on the other hand if he goes out and explodes this year, we still lose games 10-6. I think we can afford to lose some offense, especially if it means adding some good pitching.

  12. #161
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,450

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Quote Originally Posted by kbrake
    I think his value can get lower. Eventually this 'potential' effect is going to wear off. I think if Kearns dissapoints again this year he will be worth absolutely nothing. I am honestly suprised some of the names being mentioned in exchange for him. Now on the other hand if he goes out and explodes this year, we still lose games 10-6. I think we can afford to lose some offense, especially if it means adding some good pitching.
    Great post.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  13. #162
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    7,641

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenway
    I can tell you that Clement had some stretches when he looked great in the 2nd half, then he'd be downright dreadful. This the next day or two.
    I think this has been the book on Matt Clement for years. He's either a no-hitter away from happening or he's a wild pitch away from happening. You never know what you're going to get from start to start.

    But I still think it's worth taking a shot on. I'd rather take a flyer on Clement than Pavano, even if it meant dumping Milton.
    "Strickland Propane... Taste the meat, not the heat." - Hank Hill

  14. #163
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,832

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    I'm saying, if you're going to go risky, get guaranteed performance in return (Contreras, Zito).
    Contreras posted a 5.50 ERA in 2004, but now he's "guaranteed performance?"

    Plus--Contreras' deal is cheaper and only one year. Clement's is two years, more expensive
    Why would you give up Kearns for only one year of a mediocre veteran?
    Last edited by Johnny Footstool; 01-26-2006 at 10:26 AM.
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  15. #164
    Puffy 3:16 Puffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Panama City Beach
    Posts
    13,773

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Kearns and Milton (I repeat, Milton) for Pavano?

    Sign me up! Pavano is a great pitcher for a small market - not sure he has the temperment for the NY market, so get him to Cincy and I think he reverts to 2004 form.
    "I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum... and I'm all out of bubble gum."
    - - Rowdy Roddy Piper

    "It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. I am not a big man"
    - - Fletch

  16. #165
    Member blumj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Northern MA
    Posts
    4,683

    Re: We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns

    Quote Originally Posted by Puffy
    Kearns and Milton (I repeat, Milton) for Pavano?

    Sign me up! Pavano is a great pitcher for a small market - not sure he has the temperment for the NY market, so get him to Cincy and I think he reverts to 2004 form.
    Clement and Pavano are an interesting comparison. Pavano may be a better pitcher, but he's also had a healthy season only 3 times out of his 7 in the league. Pavano has spent more time on the DL in 4 of his 7 seasons than Clement has in his entire 7 year career. Although both have 3-200+ IP seasons, Clement hasn't been under 169 IP in any of his others, while Pavano has had 3 seasons of 100 IP or fewer. I don't really think it's about the small market temperament, I think it's either about real physical damage or an inability to suck it up and pitch when something's a little ouchy.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25