Ah the internet, the sports radio for the literary crowd.
In other words full of "Lets rush to label the latest example of something as something so extreme that A) no one will remember we made the comments or B) Everyone will remember that we had it on the nose from the start
Great analysis, Steve!Originally Posted by SteveJRogers
It amazes me how shallow some of the analysis of this trade has been, primarily by the national media. I really hate losing Kearns and think he was a hugely undervalued piece of this year's team. But it's about winning now and after seeing a FO sit on its hands so often during the last 10 years, it's nice to see an attempt to win NOW.
These same writers are the type to blast the Reds bullpen in their weekly "power rankings" and other nonsense.
You know what......
I wonder how many times these so called experts actually watched Kearns and Felipe play. I bet for most of them it is very little. They just looked at Kearns' numbers this year, and Felipe's last year and went OMG how can the Reds do this?
Sometimes in baseball it is not just about numbers. Games aren't played in computers.
We live in an instant world these days. We must know now!Originally Posted by MrCinatit
It was a good article though. I had forgotten about a lot of those trades.
Interestingly though, except for Giles-Rincon, those trades later become lopsided because prospects exceeded expectations. At the time of those trades, no one really predicted they would be so lopsided. Even Giles was labeled as a platoon guy back then. He wasn't expected to explode into an allstar.
I read this article earlier today and was quite surprised that the Reds trade was lumped in with these others. None of the 5 even remotely resembles the Reds Nats deal.
I didn't liek the deal when it was announced, but I trust the management. (I have not been able to say that in a long time)
Ron Popeil apologist.
EDITORS NOTE: This article was written notwithstanding the 6 something ERA Wagner carried out of L'ville or the first shelling for the New Orleans Zephyrs.View the deal as a whole, and it may be that the throw-in afterthought (Wagner) turns out to be better than any of the players the Reds received.
Can't win with 'em
Can't win without 'em
True, I guess the writers were assuming Wagner has a shot to regain his rookie form. If he does, then Wagner does have a shot at being the best reliever in the trade. I'm not saying that it's likely (in fact I doubt it) but it's still a good throw in for Washington. IMO, I'd rather have a throw in with a 10% chance to be great than a throw in with 0% chance of being great and a 50% chance of being a utility player.Originally Posted by traderumor
Still, Wagner and the minor league stuff we got from Washington isn't likely to be a factor for either team.
Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
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.