What will have to take place for "the trade" to even out?

[M2]

To even out?

Let's see, the Reds quite possibly lost the division in 2006 thanks to the trade and their trade flexibility this offseason took a major blow. Essentially you've got to adjust for what Kearns and Lopez (two guys who currently play at an extremely attractive price) could have fetched otherwise.

So, to offset that I'd say Bray needs to become a quality closer for a few years and Majewski needs to be a quality middle man for a few years (80+ IP, sub-3.50 ERA). That still probably doesn't even it out, unless Bray takes a studly turn, but it at least drags the deal back to being a palatable net loss. Though Bray didn't flash closer potential last year and Majewski suffered an extremely predictable comeuppance. So the more likely target is probably getting some salvage out of the deal - Bray as a competent lefty set up man and Majewski as a league average innings eater.

[Redsland]

The trade also involved shedding us of Lopez & Kearns's rising salaries ( ~8,000,000 in 2007 ).

So now instead of paying Lopez and Kearns $8 million, we get to spend $400k each on Majewski and Bray, another $3.5 million to our new shortstop, another $1.5 million for Freel to patrol right field, and another $400k for Deno to back him up.

That's $6.2 million. So you're saying The Trade was a good thing because it saved $1.8 million? Heck, I could have saved us more than that by not signing Mike Stanton.

[M2]

Where was it written in stone that FeLo has to play SS? The Nats certainly didn't get that memo.

As for the salaries, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't root for budgets, I root for a baseball team. So when the Reds essentially give away two productive and affordable (especially in the current market) players, I'm not going to be overly enthusiastic about it. That goes double when the savings get passed along to the likes of Jeff Conine and Mike Stanton.

[pedro]

I'm not convinced Lopez will be a passable second baseman either. Anywhere else and he just doesn't hit enough.

[M2]

I'm not convinced Lopez will be a passable second baseman either. Anywhere else and he just doesn't hit enough.

My take is that if you can get on base 36% of the time with speed and some occasional pop (and Felipe will slug in the .400s most every year) then you hit plenty. We're essentially talking about a player who's going to OPS .775-.825 most seasons. SS, 2B, 3B, CF, LF, RF, even 1B (Felipe's got more stick than Scott Hatteberg and probably Sean Casey too). Where to play a capable bat is a nice problem to have.

[TRF]

And it isn't just speed. He's got pretty good instincts on the basepaths, and is being taught the art of the steal by a guy that had a great career SB% (Larkin)

So, being on base 36% of the time and tacking on 40 steals?

He never should have been traded, he should have switched positions.

[noskill27]

So now instead of paying Lopez and Kearns $8 million, we get to spend $400k each on Majewski and Bray, another $3.5 million to our new shortstop, another $1.5 million for Freel to patrol right field, and another $400k for Deno to back him up.

That's $6.2 million. So you're saying The Trade was a good thing because it saved $1.8 million? Heck, I could have saved us more than that by not signing Mike Stanton.

Regardless if they traded Kearns and Lopez or not, the Reds still would've had to pay Freel and Deno.

[Redsland]

Regardless if they traded Kearns and Lopez or not, the Reds still would've had to pay Freel and Deno.

Why? Is there some reason why neither could have been traded? Or both?

If our roster had Dunn and Griffey and Kearns and Freel and Denorfia on it, then I'd say we were pretty flush with outfielders. Why, a situation like that almost begs to be addressed. Like for example by trading away from an area of strength to shore up an area of need.

Not that the Reds have any of those. They were already addressed in The Trade, or so I'm told.

[Natty Redlocks]

So now instead of paying Lopez and Kearns $8 million, we get to spend $400k each on Majewski and Bray, another $3.5 million to our new shortstop, another $1.5 million for Freel to patrol right field, and another $400k for Deno to back him up.

That's $6.2 million. So you're saying The Trade was a good thing because it saved $1.8 million? Heck, I could have saved us more than that by not signing Mike Stanton.

Imagine how much they'd have spent on relievers if they didn't have Bray and Majewski.

[noskill27]

Why? Is there some reason why neither could have been traded? Or both?

If our roster had Dunn and Griffey and Kearns and Freel and Denorfia on it, then I'd say we were pretty flush with outfielders. Why, a situation like that almost begs to be addressed. Like for example by trading away from an area of strength to shore up an area of need.

Not that the Reds have any of those. They were already addressed in The Trade, or so I'm told.

The point is that we saved a lot more then $1.8 million. The $8 million for Kearns and Lopez was replaced by $800 K on Bray and Majewski. Freel and Denorfia were already here. We didn't used any of the money we saved on them. We did spen $3.5 million of the money we saved on Gonzalez, but that is offset somewhat by the fact we didn't have to go out and get any more $2 million relievers in free agency because we have the cheap Bray and Majewski.

[RedEye]

I disagree. The trade also involved shedding us of Lopez & Kearns's rising salaries ( ~8,000,000 in 2007 ). Some of that money went to sign Gonzo.

Gimme a break. IMO, if you are going to add in later financial moves, you might as well bring in every other deal the Reds made with 'some of' the money the supposedly saved (Cormier? Hatteberg's extension? Josh Hamilton?). With that logic, you could just pick and choose whatever later deal you wanted in order to rationalize what is, beyond a doubt, one of the worst moves made in MLB last season.

The only SS that should be factored into analysis of 'the trade' are Royce Clayton and Felipe Lopez. Gonzo wasn't even a glimmer in Wayne's eye when he overruled his experienced assistants and authorized trading two 26 year-olds for a bag of whatifs. He said so himself at the time: "I don't care about next year." Well, here we are almost to next year, and that lack of care is showing up all over the place.

I'm ready to move on from 'the trade'--yes I am... but I'll keep posting this opinion until other people stop returning to it and trying to save face for Krivsky. It is, quite simply, an indefensible move UNLESS Daryl Thompson becomes the next Francisco Liriano. Period.

[5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM]

Nothing has to have happened, it already has. We got rid of 2 slackers. One with a injury/weight problem that will never live up to his potential, and a shortstop that can't play the field. They both are now going to be overpaid and luckily it's not us writing the checks.

[AdamDunn]

Given, the current market for relief pitching, Majewski and Bray to be a solid middle relief for all their arbitration years. Lopez doesn't all of a sudden become a solid defensive shortstop and Kearns and Wagner don't become superstars. That's all. I also still like the trade.

[GOREDSGO32]

I don't see why people list the salary saved as a benefit. It would be a good trade if it was an untradable player with high salary, but these were not salary dump players, they could have been traded for more, especially in the offseason. It's like someone selling you a brand new Mercedes Benz for $5,000, and you are paying off the $5,000 and then go and trade it for a paid off Ford Focus or something. Hey you saved paying the rest of the $5,000, and don't have to pay the five grand for the Benz, but the opportunity cost you lost there is you could have found plenty of takers that would pay $5,000 for the Benz and would have given you a lot to take that on. Not to say Kearns and Lopez are the equivalent of a Benz, but the only point is, that salary wasn't an issue - they were low cost high return players compared to other guys in the market and the Reds could have definately got something for them better than that.

Bottom line: Kearns and Lopez could have drawn better players in the same position the Reds wanted. Reds could have got two solid, proven relievers in the place of an unproven rookie reliever and an average to below average reliever.

[5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM]

I don't see why people list the salary saved as a benefit. It would be a good trade if it was an untradable player with high salary, but these were not salary dump players, they could have been traded for more, especially in the offseason. It's like someone selling you a brand new Mercedes Benz for $5,000, and you are paying off the $5,000 and then go and trade it for a paid off Ford Focus or something. Hey you saved paying the rest of the $5,000, and don't have to pay the five grand for the Benz, but the opportunity cost you lost there is you could have found plenty of takers that would pay $5,000 for the Benz and would have given you a lot to take that on. Not to say Kearns and Lopez are the equivalent of a Benz, but the only point is, that salary wasn't an issue - they were low cost high return players compared to other guys in the market and the Reds could have definately got something for them better than that.

Bottom line: Kearns and Lopez could have drawn better players in the same position the Reds wanted. Reds could have got two solid, proven relievers in the place of an unproven rookie reliever and an average to below average reliever.

The only mistake Wayne made in this trade is the failure to get the proper medical info on Majic. If he had been healthy we wouldn't be talking about this still.