Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 170

Thread: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

  1. #1
    Telephone Sanitizer
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    158

    Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Here's a fantastic look at last year's big trade, just posted today. The author makes some very good points and comes to a conclusion that a lot of people may disagree with. I admit I was one of the many who thought the trade was a disaster.

    Here's a link directly to the blog: http://shysterball.blogspot.com/2007...rns-trade.html

    In Columbus, Ohio today it's sunny and 67 degrees. We get about six of these gorgeous days a year here in the Midwest, and when they occur I don't feel like litigating anything. Instead, I stare out my office window and contemplate the lie I'm going to tell my secretary to tell people who need me later in the day when I leave to sit on my patio and drink beer. As I was trying to decide between "sick kid" and "meeting" my friend and co-worker, Mark Noel, stepped into my office and we began to shoot the breeze about baseball.

    Mark's a big Cincy fan. Despite living in Ohio, I don't follow the Reds all that closely, so I decided to pick his brain a bit about how they're doing. He thinks they're about a .500 team this year, and I tend to agree with him. Eventually, however, the talk turned to the Reds' future, about which Mark is quite optimistic. He's particularly high on the Reds' pitching. "They locked up Harang and Arroyo through 2011, and Homer Bailey may be the best pitching prospect they've had in 25 years," he said gleefully. "Plus, they have that guy in A-Ball, Thompson, who we got in the Kearns trade last year, and he looks like a stud."

    Hmmm? I thought the Reds-Nats trade from last year was supposed to have been terrible for the Reds. Aaron Gleeman titled his column on the deal "Bowden 1, Krivsky 0," and called it "a disaster trade," that was "about as lopsided as it gets." MLB Trade Rumors called it "baffling" and said "this trade just looks bad" for the Reds. While I didn't think too much about the trade at the time, I distinctly recall my reaction being that the Nats probably fleeced the Reds.

    Mark, who while a fan of the Reds is the first to point out when they do something stupid, said I was full of it. The Reds easily won that trade, he said, even before you figured in the arms they got back from the Nats. I was skeptical, and decided to investigate this for myself.

    Guess what? Mark was right. The Reds won the trade hands down, both on the merits of the players exchanged, but more significantly, as a result of the roster flexibility and room for creativity the deal gave them. Don't believe me? Check it out:

    To the Nats:

    Remember that slightly crazy girl you hooked up with after the Sebadoh show back in '94? When you think of her now, you probably think of her as a hot little libertine minx who, if you only had the testicular fortitude to stick with her through all of the crazy, would be helping you organize that anti-globalization rally next month, assuming you two were able to take a break from all of that monkey sex you'd be having. But you didn't stick with her, and the fact that you didn't is the reason you're working in customer service today. *****.

    Step back from the ledge, friend. If you saw her today there's pretty even odds that she's just like you: a bit pudgy, a bit pasty, and working a job every bit as unfulfilling as yours. No one is as cool as we like to think we could be today but for a few bad decisions, and that goes for skinny girls with cool tats, tight abs, and Lisa Loeb glasses too.

    There are a handful of ballplayers who are like that crazy chick. Guys who we continue to think a bit too highly of without any real basis for doing so. Austin Kearns is one of those guys. After two thirds of a season in which he looked like Yastrzemski, everyone assumed that greatness was in the offing. After that he got hurt a lot and was jerked around by the Reds a bit, and many, myself included, thought he'd break out once he got healthy and stopped being jerked around. We forgot, however, that unless your name is Molitor, guys who get hurt a lot at a young age and end up getting jerked around typically don't blossom into superstars, no matter how much early promise they showed.

    At age 27, Kearns appears to have topped out as a good, but not spectacular corner outfielder. There are a lot of those guys out there. In order to hold onto him, the Reds would have had to pony up something like the $17.5M the Nats gave him in the off-season, and by doing so, probably wouldn't have had a place to put Josh Hamilton (they would have likely kept Freel as the fourth outfielder due to his defensive flexibility). The same Josh Hamilton who is currently knocking the cover off the ball, bringing Cincy all kinds of good press for the second chance they're giving him, and costing Mr. Krivsky the league minimum.

    No, the Reds didn't know that Hamilton was going to blow up like he has, but it was not unreasonable to expect that they could have come damn close to replacing Kearns' production for less than $17.5M over the next three years. Dealing Kearns allowed the Reds the flexibility to take a flyer on Hamilton, and roster flexibility is of paramount importance for a mid-market team like the Reds.

    While Felipe Lopez showed some pop in 2005 it now looks like that was a fluke, and everyone knows that my granny plays a better short. Getting rid of his pathetic glove was an imperative, and doing so likely made Arroyo, Harang, Lohse, a lot happier, which is a good thing if Cincy wants to keep them around. Besides, it wasn't as if the Reds were planning on keeping him beyond 2006 anyway, especially since he is now arbitration eligible. And by getting a rent-a-vet like Royce Clayton (see below) the Reds were able to sign Alex Gonzalez, whose glove is really making Arroyo, Harang, and Lohse happy, even if he doesn't hit a lick. Bonus: this season he's been hitting a lick: .333/.374/.560. Fluke? Absolutely, but it's some pretty sweet gravy for Cincy.

    To the Reds:

    Only by replacing someone like Lopez could someone like Royce Clayton be considered a defensive upgrade, but a defensive upgrade he was, committing half as many errors as Lopez post-trade. Clayton was truly pathetic at the plate once he came to Cincy (OPS+ of 54), but Lopez was only a tad less pathetic for the Nats after the trade (OPS+ of 61). Like I said above, however, he was a rental, the Reds planned for him to be a rental, and he is currently helping the Blue Jays battle for their customary spot in third place in the AL East.

    Brendan Harris: I'm not exactly sure why he was even in the deal, really, but he was. To goose Brandon Phillips? To take over short after they let Clayton go? Maybe. He's having a nice year for Tampa Bay so far, but he appears to be playing over his head. The Reds traded him for Aplayer Tobenamedlater (I think he's from Iceland based on the name) but word on the street is that he's moved around a lot and is damaged goods.

    What about the arms the Reds got in return?

    Gary Majewski: At the time he was thought of as the centerpiece of the trade for the Reds, who were in desperate need of bullpen help, and a mini-controversy developed over whether he was sent over by the Nats as damaged goods. Probably irrelevant at this point. Currently at Louisville. His stats thus far look awful (6.55 ERA in 11 games), but that's skewed by one horrific performance in which he gave up six runs. Hey, we all have a bad trip sometime, and if we give Majewski a mulligan on his, he's putting up a 1.86 ERA. Of course, if me auntie had a wang she'd be me uncle, so let's not go crazy praising the guy. At 27 he's old for AAA and isn't likely to contribute more to the Reds than mopup duty.

    Bill Bray: The only one to see significant time with the big club last year, Bray looks to be slightly above-average bullpen fodder (ERA+ of 113 last year) . He's currently on the Reds' DL due to a line drive to his pitching hand. He isn't likely to be the second coming of Pedro Borbon, but he's a lefty, and who the hell doesn't need a lefty every once in a while?

    Daryl Thompson: This guy looks interesting. Despite being injured for much of his rookie league season, he's currently overpowering the competition in low-A ball less than six months after his 21st birthday: 4 starts, 23 innings pitched, 19 strikeouts, 1 walk, an ERA of 0.39, and a 4-0 record. Small sample size? Sure, but his K/BB ratio was pretty sweet in limited play last year as well. I haven't seen him pitch, which is inexcusable given that his home park is only about an hour away from Chez Shyster, but he smells legit to me. He needs to be promoted, like yesterday, and assuming he continues to mow them down in Sarasota, he should end the season in AA. Depending on how he does there, he could potentially compete for a slot in the rotation as early as next year, though more likely in 2009. Unless it's all smoke and mirrors, he alone could tip the trade ridiculously in the Reds' favor.

    Can someone tell me what was Cincy supposed to have regretted about this trade? From the Reds' perspective, it was effectively a trade of Kearns and Lopez for Hamilton and Gonzales, a potential ace, one respectable bullpen arm, and some roster fodder. Did Krivsky plan it this way? No, he lucked into Hamilton and had no idea that he was going to get Gonzalez, but as Branch Rickey said, luck is the residue of design. Without Kearns and Lopez leaving, the Reds don't have the flexibility to get two players who have been helping them tread water so far this year and who are likely to be key players on what I feel will be truly contending Reds teams in the next 2-3 years (but that's another column). They also don't have Daryl Thompson.

    I should note that MLB Trade Rumors' criticism of the deal was specifically couched in terms of how it helped, or didn't help, the Reds "this year." So how did that work out?

    Reds record pre-trade: 45-44
    Reds record post-trade: 35-38
    Games behind for a playoff spot: 8

    Did the trade cost them some games? I actually doubt it. Clayton was a slight defensive upgrade over Lopez, and the extra at-bats for Freel over Kearns didn't result in as much of a falloff as many thought it would (Freel's OBP was actually higher than Kearns last year). Even if it did cost them a couple of games, it didn't cost them a playoff spot. That first-half record was supported by the Reds' now-typical fast, flukelike early start. Brother Pythagoras had them as a 76 win team, so if anything they played above their heads simply to be within 10 games of the wild card.

    So, care to reassess things Mr. Gleeman? MLB Trade Rumors? The rest of the people who piled on Krivsky last year? Personally I don't care because I'm not a Reds fan. I will forward all apologies to Mark, however, because this matters to him greatly.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    4,045

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Although I thought I was ridiculously tired of this trade being re-hashed, this is a great article.

  4. #3
    Kmac5 KoryMac5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Waterloo, NY
    Posts
    3,681

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Interesting look I always like when people take the other side on subjects that are extremely lopsided in these parts. I will say I have also been impressed with Thompson, pre-injury he was compared to D-train.

  5. #4
    Fielder's Indifference fisch11's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Warsaw, OH
    Posts
    2,334

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Thank you. Finally someone agrees that this team is better "after" the trade. Great article stressing that Hamilton and Gonzalez (even though unanticipated) can only be here because Kearns and Lopez are gone. Nuff said. Really great article considering its an unbiased source.
    "Are you trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?!"

  6. #5
    You know his story Redsland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    7,714

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    I should note that MLB Trade Rumors' criticism of the deal was specifically couched in terms of how it helped, or didn't help, the Reds "this year." So how did that work out?

    Reds record pre-trade: 45-44
    Reds record post-trade: 35-38

    Did the trade cost them some games? I actually doubt it.…Even if it did cost them a couple of games, it didn't cost them a playoff spot.
    Pre-trade: A winning ballclub. Post-trade: A losing ballclub.

    That makes a trade whose stated purpose was to push the team into the playoffs, a failure.

    Also, he allows that the trade may have cost them "a few games," but dismisses the idea that those games might have meant a playoff spot. How many games back were the Reds last year? Three and a half.
    Makes all the routine posts.

  7. #6
    Let's ride BRM's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Colorado's eastern plains
    Posts
    11,232

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Quote Originally Posted by fisch11 View Post
    Thank you. Finally someone agrees that this team is better "after" the trade. Great article stressing that Hamilton and Gonzalez (even though unanticipated) can only be here because Kearns and Lopez are gone. Nuff said. Really great article considering its an unbiased source.
    Well, Gonzo probably wouldn't have been here but I personally think Josh would be here either way. He wouldn't be getting the PT he is now but he would have been in Cincinnati. Besides, this "article" assumes if this particular trade wouldn't have been made that Kearns and Lopez would still be in Cincinnati today. They could have been traded in the offseason.

    Once again, it was never about who was traded. It was all about the return. Most on here had no problems at all with the idea of trading Kearns and Lopez.

  8. #7
    Kmac5 KoryMac5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Waterloo, NY
    Posts
    3,681

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Quote Originally Posted by Redsland View Post
    Pre-trade: A winning ballclub. Post-trade: A losing ballclub.

    That makes a trade whose stated purpose was to push the team into the playoffs, a failure.

    Also, he allows that the trade may have cost them "a few games," but dismisses the idea that those games might have meant a playoff spot. How many games back were the Reds last year? Three and a half.
    One game over .500 does not constitute a winning ball club. Also how many games did the likes of Hammond and White cost us. Everyone knows that the trade was bad for last year no need to rehash the point. I just like the authors points about the flexibilty it gave us this year and the fact that Thompson is still an unknown commodity.

  9. #8
    You know his story Redsland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    7,714

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Quote Originally Posted by fisch11 View Post
    Great article stressing that Hamilton and Gonzalez (even though unanticipated) can only be here because Kearns and Lopez are gone.
    That one of it's flaws, IMHO. The author is basically saying Lopez and Kearns could have been released by the team and that would have been a good move, since it would have opened space for Hamilton and Gonzalez.

    Trades are supposed to send talent out of your organization while bringing new talent into your organization. This one didn't, as the author himself admits:
    To the Reds:

    Only by replacing someone like Lopez could someone like Royce Clayton be considered a defensive upgrade, but a defensive upgrade he was, committing half as many errors as Lopez post-trade. Clayton was truly pathetic at the plate once he came to Cincy (OPS+ of 54), but Lopez was only a tad less pathetic for the Nats after the trade (OPS+ of 61).

    Brendan Harris: I'm not exactly sure why he was even in the deal, really, but he was. To goose Brandon Phillips? To take over short after they let Clayton go? Maybe. He's having a nice year for Tampa Bay so far, but he appears to be playing over his head.

    Gary Majewski: At 27 he's old for AAA and isn't likely to contribute more to the Reds than mopup duty.

    Bill Bray: The only one to see significant time with the big club last year, Bray looks to be slightly above-average bullpen fodder (ERA+ of 113 last year) . He's currently on the Reds' DL due to a line drive to his pitching hand. He isn't likely to be the second coming of Pedro Borbon, but he's a lefty, and who the hell doesn't need a lefty every once in a while?

    Daryl Thompson: This guy looks interesting…
    …He's also in High-A ball, and Reds fans should have no trouble remembering a long line of promising washouts who looked just fine up to that point. Thompson won't redeem that trade, and BJ Ryan doesn't make the Juan Guzman trade into a bad one.
    Last edited by Redsland; 05-02-2007 at 05:11 PM.
    Makes all the routine posts.

  10. #9
    You know his story Redsland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    7,714

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Quote Originally Posted by KoryMac5 View Post
    One game over .500 does not constitute a winning ball club.
    I'm looking at my dictionary right now, and it disagrees with you.
    Makes all the routine posts.

  11. #10
    Winning the Human Race TheBigLebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Titletown, FL
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    He makes some good points but, his conclusion is flawed on several levels.

    Firstly, I pointed out a couple of weeks ago that Hamilton was a great unintended benefit of The Trade and was widely lambasted by those who replied. I still don't think Hamilton is in the bigs if we still have Kearns although, I still think we would have gone after him.

    Secondly, I do agree that Reds' fans as a whole overvalued Kearns. There's a guy who can match or exceed Kearns' production in every outfield in the majors. He is all he is ever going to be - a decent defensive OF with a slightly better-than-average bat. Definitely not worth the money. I do take exception with his view of Lopez. The guy is a former all-star. He has a nice bat, can hit for power, and is a threat on the basepaths as well.

    My biggest grievance with the author's conclusion is that the Reds won The Trade simply because we may be a better overall baseball team now than we were pre-trade. Too many other variables to consider. Furthermore, we're 13-13 right now and, overall, we have a losing record post-The Trade.

    The guys we traded to Washington, regardless of the author's opinion of them, had MORE VALUE than the return they fetched. Look at the return. Majewski (garbage), Bray (TBD, by no means a solid bet to be anything more than an average MR), Brendan Harris (gone, had no true value), Royce Clayton (won't even go there) and Daryl Thompson. Thompson may end up being the centerpiece of the deal!

    Ultimately, my point is that Kearns and Lopez probably should have been dealt and likely would have been dealt. However, had we traded those guys for good value, we'd be a much better team than we are.
    Founder and Ruling Elite of the Derrick Robinson Fan Club. Limited amount of memberships available.

  12. #11
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,782

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Quote Originally Posted by fisch11 View Post
    Thank you. Finally someone agrees that this team is better "after" the trade. Great article stressing that Hamilton and Gonzalez (even though unanticipated) can only be here because Kearns and Lopez are gone. Nuff said. Really great article considering its an unbiased source.
    OK, let's do this again...

    Getting Hamilton was not dependent on getting rid of Kearns. Hamilton could have taken Denorfia's or Hopper's spot on the roster even if Kearns were still a Red. Krivsky would have signed Gonzalez as a free agent regardless of Lopez's status. And he still could have traded Kearns and Lopez at the deadline or in the offseason instead of when he was desperate.

    The article ignores the timing of the trade, which was a key component. Krivsky was willing to overpay to fill a gaping need during a potential playoff run. The trade failed miserably in that respect, which was it's main purpose.

    Whether or not the secondary effects of the trade are positive or not remains to be seen. Bray could get healthy and morph into a lights-out closer. Majweski could actually log some quality innings in a Reds uniform. That wouldn't change the fact that the trade failed in its primary purpose.
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  13. #12
    Raaaaaaaandy guttle11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,118

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Quote Originally Posted by Redsland View Post
    Pre-trade: A winning ballclub. Post-trade: A losing ballclub.

    That makes a trade whose stated purpose was to push the team into the playoffs, a failure.

    Also, he allows that the trade may have cost them "a few games," but dismisses the idea that those games might have meant a playoff spot. How many games back were the Reds last year? Three and a half.
    IIRC, the Reds went on a pretty good run right after the trade (went from, like, 2 games out to 3 games up in the WC), and were right in the thick of both races nearly into September. Then the whole team went in a slump and the fell out of contention.

    Would Kearns and Lopez have helped them maintain their pace and stay in the race the whole way? Maybe, but going by their record with them the first half of the year, I'd say no. Push.
    "I saw Wedding Crashers accidentally. I bought a ticket for Grizzly Man and went into the wrong theater. After an hour, I figured I was in the wrong theater, but I kept waiting. Thatís the thing about bear attacks. They come when you least expect it."-Dwight K. Schrute

  14. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    13,190

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Good article. As I said at the time, it seemed obvious that Krivsky just didn't want these two players on the Reds team.

    Right now, through free agency, the Reds have improved shortstop. They have filled the outfield void through Rule 5. We'll see what the pitchers acquired add over time.

    The big remaining void, however, is a righty bat. The Reds have not replaced Kearns' stick from the right side. It is something the Reds need to do.

  15. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    10,534

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Quote Originally Posted by BRM View Post
    Once again, it was never about who was traded. It was all about the return. Most on here had no problems at all with the idea of trading Kearns and Lopez.
    And mosy have stated the exact same thing when the trade was amde and today.

    You have to give Wayne credit for trading the right guys.

    You have top give Wayne big credit for replacing the 2 he traded with better guys.

    But the return. That remains the rub.

  16. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    13,190

    Re: Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    And mosy have stated the exact same thing when the trade was amde and today.

    You have to give Wayne credit for trading the right guys.

    You have top give Wayne big credit for replacing the 2 he traded with better guys.

    But the return. That remains the rub.
    As was also said at the time, who knows what Wayne was offered for these guys? And Majewski, Bray and Harris are still around and could still make substantial contributions.

    One thing about pitching: depth is key. Every guy doesn't pan out, but if you get a lot of good arms eventually you will have a good staff. Wayne added three in that trade. So far the reviews on them are decidedly mixed. Let's see how they pan out.


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