We COULD of gotten more .........

[MaineRed]

I keep seeing this in regards to the Kearns, Lopez trade, but I've yet to see anyone say exactly what it is that we COULD of had.

The Reds got two promising relievers. Guys that could/should be here for a long time. 40% of the bullpen might of been taken care of with that trade.

If we were after relievers, what is better than getting two promising arms? I don't have an answer, everyone else seems to though. I just haven't heard it yet.

We weren't going to get Jonathan Papplebom for Kearns and Lopez. That is for sure.

So we are somewhere between what we got and Jonathan Papplebom as the return we COULD of had.

I don't believe anyone thinks we could get a guy like the Boston closer. But so many are upset with the two young, promising arms the team did get.

Anyways, can someone fill me in, who SHOULD be on the Reds right now as a result of trading Kearns and Lopez.

I have yet to see any names. I think after many of you think about it, your response will be, "well we just should of kept them."

Translation, you greatly overvalue your own players.

[Falls City Beer]

I'm of a mind that unless a trade IMPROVES your team, you don't make it.

[MaineRed]

The team is 3-0 since the trade. Tell what proof you have of the trade NOT making the team better.

And before telling me my 3-0 sample size is too small, remember that before criticizing the new Reds bullpen.

[Hubba]

I'm of a mind that unless a trade IMPROVES your team, you don't make it.

I think that it did improve the team but not by a bunch. They had no chance of winning this year with the bullpen they had, I do beleive that they have a better chance of winning now.

[MaineRed]

There are enough threads about whether the trade was good or bad.

I'm wondering about the folks who say, "we could of had more."

I'd like to know what, "more", is?

I do agree with what you said Hubba, the Reds were going nowhere with the bullpen they had.