Everyone here has their own rights to an opinion. And most, do have in fact valuable opinions and very educated ones at that.
Did Wayne Krivsky overpay for these last three trades?
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. That's such a subjective topic there probably isn't really a great answer, but the answer lies within the end result.
If you ask me, the end result is two-fold - do the Reds make the playoffs and do they retain the bulk of their future.
In this particular humble opinion - most likely will to the first question and most definitely yes to the second.
But isn't this what everyone wanted?
Goodness, since 1999, everyone here has complained about the Reds being too complacement. They've complained at the near futility of ownership and upper management. They've been upset because they want to see the Reds put a winner on the field.
For the first time in that 6-year span, Wayne Krivsky has quickly cleaned out a very sobering clubhouse and made the Reds a playoff and division contender heading into August. Yes, not only did they start well, but here we are heading into the last 8 weeks of the season and they are in first place for the wildcard and just 3.5 games behind St. Louis.
Think back to the beginning of the season, maybe before the season. How many people would have been absolutely ecstatic if someone had told you that Krivsky would take Cincinnati's bleak pitching staff in March, and molded it to a sufficient, dependable staff by July. You would have all been thrilled.
If Krivsky is nothing else - he's serious and he's determined to field a winner.
So the Reds gave up a couple of moderate pitching prospects. Big deal!
What do you want? Would you rather the Reds sit tight and make no deals whatsoever? I would guarantee anyone that if Krivsky wanted to mortgage the future, he could have made several more trades this week. Homer Bailey and Joey Votto are still in the Reds' organization, which that right there tells me Krivsky doesn't want to risk the future either.
But I've got news for anyone complaining about losing the Justin Germanos and Zach Wards of the world - unless you're willing to take on huge salaries, you don't get something for nothing.
As of April 1-15, it was readily apparent that the Reds severely lacked one thing: a bullpen.
As of August 1, although the Reds are not the perfect team, no one can say any longer there is a glaring weakness. That is the goal here, is it not?
Eddie Guardado, Dave Weathers, Todd Coffey, Billy Bray, Gary Majewski, Rheal Cormier and Kyle Lohse. That's a little better than Weathers, Coffey, Kent Mercker, Matt Belisle, Rick White, Brian Shackelford and Mike Burns.
I happen to think giving up Germano for Cormier is steep, but it was necessary. I also still think giving up Felipe Lopez and Austin Kearns in the same deal for the return the Reds got from the Nationals was too much.
But again, I see the rationale for doing so, and since that trade, I feel the Reds have become a slightly better team if the effects aren't even immediately obvious beyond having a better record after the trade than before.
In any event, I'm going to step down from this soapbox. There's nothing wrong with these opinions... but to those complaining about these trades, what would you rather have?
We're talking about small trades to make the team better for prospects that may project as nothing more than No. 4 starters. Is that really a bad thing for an organization finally in a playoff hunt the last month or two of the season? I would hope not.