Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 86

Thread: Wickman To The Braves

  1. #31
    RZ Chamber of Commerce Unassisted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    13,463

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    I can understand people being mad at a trade that sends away their favorite Red.

    I also think a lot of folks on both sides of the fence would have been steamed at the big paydays those guys would have gotten next spring in arbitration, after a season of and in Kearns' case, a career of underperformance.

    I hate overpaying, too. But I can accept it more in the thick of a pennant chase than after a mediocre season.

    Back to the topic. This is a nice deal for Atlanta. It will be fun to see whether Guardado or Wickman helps their new team more over the next 10 weeks.
    /r/reds

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,397

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    Wickman, with a 5 Mil/yr salary, would be a rent-a-player.

    The younger arms we got are not.

    Cleveland has been trying to unload him for some time.

    Krivksy knew he was out there, and said pass. I don't blame him one bit either. It was not a cheap price.
    Here's the thing I'm wondering about...

    You've got cash resources and player resources. I've always been of the opinion that you utilize cash resources before player resources because player resources are more difficult to replace.

    One of the many pro-trade arguments I've seen is that acquiring better middle relief could potentially lead to cash resource gains if those acquisitions could bolster the Reds to the point at which attendance gains were probable.

    I'm not saying you've made that argument. However, if the action of acquiring Majewski would lead to attendance-driven revenue gain, wouldn't the acquisition of a similar pitcher (Wickman) do the same? And, if so, wouldn't the revenue gain for late this season and next season (should the Reds make the playoffs), potentially offset the rest of Wickman's contract for 2006 (<2.5M)?

    Secondly, wouldn't the filling of holes this season with a short-term fix or two allow further evaluation time and development time for possible minor league options such as Brad Salmon, Phil Dumatrait, David Shafer, Calvin Medlock, Carlos Guevara. And yes, might not Homer Bailey possibly make the show in a Johathan Papelbon 2005 capacity in 2007 while working on his secondary pitches? Might not the use of the best of the non-Baily options this season provide as much as we might see from Bill Bray in 2006?

    Lastly, do we believe that Kearns and Lopez couldn't possibly garner a Majewski/Bray return after July 2006? Is it entrirely likely that either or both players would suddenly become immovable objects considering that Washington just acquired them knowing what they'll likely cost going forward? Do we really think this was a "move it or lose it" scenario?

    Seems to me that if the thrust is to produce a winning team and thereby increasing revenue, then acquiring equitable arms- regardless of age or how long they're signed- is a shrewd move consdersidering that value-equitable options to the Kearns/Lopez trade should still be around.

    The last question is whether or not the Indians would have accepted anything in the Reds system versus Max Ramirez. Well, Max Ramirez projects projects decently. His IsoD has been climbing. He's a low-level guy at age 21 (he'll be 22 in November). He's smallish (5'11", 170 lbs). So he's got warts like most low-A guys. I can't see how there's not someone in the Reds' system who was value-equitable to Max Ramirez.

    Low-level prospect(s) for Bob Wickman, the potential to acquire gap relievers on the cheap who could possibly garner draft picks if tendered, options in the minors, and a treadeable Kearns and Lopez still on board. Hmn.
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
    --Ted Williams

  4. #33
    "So Fla Red"
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    South Florida - The Real Humidor
    Posts
    5,067

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Cool another thread rehashing the big trade

    The Guardado deal looks better than the Wickman deal just completed (assuming the Braves are taking on the 2M+ left). I think the Reds are paying about 800K for Everyday.

    I doubt Wickman would wave his no-trade to be a setup man but you could have closer by committee I suppose. He's looking for some $$$ again next season as a closer. No one is going to turn down a deal to be a Braves pitcher.

    AL pitchers are probably feeling like its AAA when they hit the Senior Circuit.

  5. #34
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    25,090

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD

    And from what I've seen of Majewski, he's not exactly a stud that you build your pen around. He's adequate, but not spectacular. Certainly not worth Kearns.
    Not worth an Olmedo.

  6. #35
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,832

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Wickman has been getting by with smoke and mirrors for a couple of years. I think Guardado's stuff is better, as illustrated by his good K/9 ratio, but I worry about that frayed labrum (or is it a rotator cuff?) that he's carrying around.

    I do think the Reds gave up more for Guardado than the Braves did for Wickman, though.
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  7. #36
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,345

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Ironically, Wickman and Majewski have almost identical numbers. Forgive me for pimping my own thread:

    http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48929
    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!

  8. #37
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,692

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelSD
    Here's the thing I'm wondering about...

    You've got cash resources and player resources. I've always been of the opinion that you utilize cash resources before player resources because player resources are more difficult to replace.

    One of the many pro-trade arguments I've seen is that acquiring better middle relief could potentially lead to cash resource gains if those acquisitions could bolster the Reds to the point at which attendance gains were probable.

    I'm not saying you've made that argument. However, if the action of acquiring Majewski would lead to attendance-driven revenue gain, wouldn't the acquisition of a similar pitcher (Wickman) do the same? And, if so, wouldn't the revenue gain for late this season and next season (should the Reds make the playoffs), potentially offset the rest of Wickman's contract for 2006 (<2.5M)?
    Didn't we already do that in the Everyday Eddie deal? Gave up a low-level prospect for a closer.

    And it has already been mentioned - but I doubt Wickman would have came here for a set-up role.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  9. #38
    Member smith288's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    New Albany, OH
    Posts
    7,252

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    I cant understand why so many are so quick to compare the Indians trade with the Reds trade with Wash instead of comparing it to the Reds trade with Seattle.

    Its like they are purposely looking for a reason, any reason to go after Krivsky about the washington trade which was about this season and the future instead of just right now (Wickman trade)

  10. #39
    Danger is my business! oneupper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Back in Florida
    Posts
    8,158

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    Didn't we already do that in the Everyday Eddie deal? Gave up a low-level prospect for a closer.

    And it has already been mentioned - but I doubt Wickman would have came here for a set-up role.
    Do we know how much cash came back with Eddie?

    In any case, I agree with GAC. The Wickman deal is comparable to the Guardado deal.

    The Nats deal is a whole different animal.
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

    http://dalmady.blogspot.com

  11. #40
    Please come again pedro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    portland, oregon
    Posts
    14,753

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelSD
    Here's the thing I'm wondering about...

    You've got cash resources and player resources. I've always been of the opinion that you utilize cash resources before player resources because player resources are more difficult to replace.

    One of the many pro-trade arguments I've seen is that acquiring better middle relief could potentially lead to cash resource gains if those acquisitions could bolster the Reds to the point at which attendance gains were probable.

    I'm not saying you've made that argument. However, if the action of acquiring Majewski would lead to attendance-driven revenue gain, wouldn't the acquisition of a similar pitcher (Wickman) do the same? And, if so, wouldn't the revenue gain for late this season and next season (should the Reds make the playoffs), potentially offset the rest of Wickman's contract for 2006 (<2.5M)?

    Secondly, wouldn't the filling of holes this season with a short-term fix or two allow further evaluation time and development time for possible minor league options such as Brad Salmon, Phil Dumatrait, David Shafer, Calvin Medlock, Carlos Guevara. And yes, might not Homer Bailey possibly make the show in a Johathan Papelbon 2005 capacity in 2007 while working on his secondary pitches? Might not the use of the best of the non-Baily options this season provide as much as we might see from Bill Bray in 2006?

    Lastly, do we believe that Kearns and Lopez couldn't possibly garner a Majewski/Bray return after July 2006? Is it entrirely likely that either or both players would suddenly become immovable objects considering that Washington just acquired them knowing what they'll likely cost going forward? Do we really think this was a "move it or lose it" scenario?

    Seems to me that if the thrust is to produce a winning team and thereby increasing revenue, then acquiring equitable arms- regardless of age or how long they're signed- is a shrewd move consdersidering that value-equitable options to the Kearns/Lopez trade should still be around.

    The last question is whether or not the Indians would have accepted anything in the Reds system versus Max Ramirez. Well, Max Ramirez projects projects decently. His IsoD has been climbing. He's a low-level guy at age 21 (he'll be 22 in November). He's smallish (5'11", 170 lbs). So he's got warts like most low-A guys. I can't see how there's not someone in the Reds' system who was value-equitable to Max Ramirez.

    Low-level prospect(s) for Bob Wickman, the potential to acquire gap relievers on the cheap who could possibly garner draft picks if tendered, options in the minors, and a treadeable Kearns and Lopez still on board. Hmn.

    I hear a lot of noise from you about how stupid the trade was and how valuable Lopez was.

    How do you rectify the the fact that Lopez was incapable of playing his position defensively, may have already had his career year, and was about to get really expensive with your contention that he somehow had ton of trade value? Because frankly I don't see it.
    Get your nunchucks and the keys to your dad's car. I know where we can get a gun

  12. #41
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,294

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
    Not worth an Olmedo.
    What a load of crap, seriously a tweener judy middle infielder vs a diminished resource in a tight market.

    What a load....

  13. #42
    Please come again pedro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    portland, oregon
    Posts
    14,753

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
    Not worth an Olmedo.
    that's ridiculous.
    Get your nunchucks and the keys to your dad's car. I know where we can get a gun

  14. #43
    Will post for food BuckeyeRedleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Dublin, OH
    Posts
    5,360

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou
    What a load of crap, seriously a tweener judy middle infielder vs a diminished resource in a tight market.

    What a load....
    I think he was exaggerating a bit, but the point was made nevertheless.

  15. #44
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,294

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Quote Originally Posted by BuckeyeRedleg
    I think he was exaggerating a bit, but the point was made nevertheless.
    What point? The one that makes him his new punching bag?

    When FCB trots out one positive thing about a Reds player please drop me a PM.

    I have to see that.

  16. #45
    Will post for food BuckeyeRedleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Dublin, OH
    Posts
    5,360

    Re: Wickman To The Braves

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou
    What point? The one that makes him his new punching bag?

    When FCB trots out one positive thing about a Reds player please drop me a PM.

    I have to see that.
    Just the point that Majewski is not that good.

    I know, dead horse, but I agree with him.

    I'm not basing his argument on anything other than that.


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