Freel traded for Ramon Hernandez

[SteelSD]

The resources to address them are not really diminished, given that Freel's contract has been subtracted. It remains a significant upgrade at a key position with no real loss to the talent base in the organization. How one quibbles......

Rick isn't saying that the Reds are somehow in a much worse position or that Hernandez was a bad acquisition. He's simply stating that the Reds produced what's likely a 20 Run Diff gain versus Bako in exchange for resources that can no longer be used to barter for the rest of the Run Diff help the club needs. That's not an indictment of the acquisition. It's a statement of fact.

I fail to see how "statistical analysis" of this deal amounts to anything more than the usual looking-down-the-nose at minor transactions -- such as when it is proclaimed that such-and-such a newly acquired role player will not deliver the division and that it would be far better for the team to have, oh, a much better player.

While better players are always the goal, I certainly didn't sense any kind of major undercurrent in this thread about how the Hernandez deal was a negative for the team. I don't like that the Reds had to include what I feel was one too many prospects to take on a player like Hernandez (below-average offensively for two years running, not a defensive whiz by any means), but I don't think there's any denying that Hernandez likely represents a significant Run value upgrade versus what the Reds ran out behind the plate last season.

[lollipopcurve]

While better players are always the goal, I certainly didn't sense any kind of major undercurrent in this thread about how the Hernandez deal was a negative for the team.

These negatives have been trotted out:

1. It kept the Reds from procuring a defense-first SS.
2. The resources used could have been used in other (presumably better?) deals.
3. The Reds overpaid in prospects.
4. It does not reveal a clear direction for the franchise.

Highly dubious claims, all, in my opinion. While the objections may not be "major," they've certainly been enough to keep those who've issued them from saying they approve of the deal.

[SteelSD]

These negatives have been trotted out:

1. It kept the Reds from procuring a defense-first SS.
2. The resources used could have been used in other (presumably better?) deals.
3. The Reds overpaid in prospects.
4. It does not reveal a clear direction for the franchise.

Highly dubious claims, all, in my opinion. While the objections may not be "major," they've certainly been enough to keep those who've issued them from saying they approve of the deal.

Why is stating "approval" important to you? I've seen some reservations about the acquisition, but nothing adding up to a base indictment of the trade. And why shouldn't there be some reservations given the type of player Hernandez represents?

[Ltlabner]

Rick isn't saying that the Reds are somehow in a much worse position or that Hernandez was a bad acquisition. He's simply stating that the Reds produced what's likely a 20 Run Diff gain versus Bako in exchange for resources that can no longer be used to barter for the rest of the Run Diff help the club needs. That's not an indictment of the acquisition. It's a statement of fact.

Very true.

It's also not where the story ends.

[nate]

Only if you consider adding payroll a bad thing no matter what.

Adding a small amount of payroll to take catching from abysmal to meh? Sign me up.

Yeah, it's a "meh" move, for sure. Any elation comes from knowing the great catching "deBako" is officially over.

[jojo]

These negatives have been trotted out:

1. It kept the Reds from procuring a defense-first SS.

I think a better characterization would be that this move doesn't mean the Red can now settle for simply defense at short (like an Everett or Izturius who are both defensive-minded, overall below average players, i.e. 1-1.5 win guys) given the ground they likely still need to make up.

[lollipopcurve]

Why is stating "approval" important to you? I've seen some reservations about the acquisition, but nothing adding up to a base indictment of the trade. And why shouldn't there be some reservations given the type of player Hernandez represents?

Because we're all one big happy family and we should agree on all things.

Seriously, you and others tend to feel you can render immediate judgments on trades (and draft choices) based on certain criteria you guys believe in. I've generally contested that, saying "let it play out." In this case, I think we've got a trade that on the surface looks like a surefire "win," as you would describe things. The Reds have upgraded their roster without losing anything they can't replace readily (unless Freel comes back strong and the Reds have weak utility players).

My suspicion is this -- you find it nearly impossible to say the Reds win a trade. Is that true? Because if it is, you betray yourself as biased in these matters. In discussions that seem based on objective terms, that's clearly a weakness.

Maybe there are instances of you allowing that the Reds have won a trade -- I don't know. But I've certainly read plenty of posts from you describing the importance of "winning" trades, so I find it unusual you would not be speaking in those terms in this case.

[lollipopcurve]

I think a better characterization would be that this move doesn't mean the Red can now settle for simply defense at short (like an Everett or Izturius who are both defensive-minded, overall below average players, i.e. 1-1.5 win guys) given the ground they likely still need to make up.

Not sure I understand this. Is this like saying it would have been better to get Joe Mauer to catch?

[WebScorpion]

If this happens I'll eat something that's been in extreme close proximity to my butt.

So what happened with this? ...are you taking gambling lessons from FCB?

[Chip R]

Well, the way I see this trade, is this:

At worst, we've cleaned up the "gift" left on the carpet by our pet and gotten rid of the bad smell.

At best, we've covered the stain with an area rug.

Still need new carpet but we can have friends over now.

Yeah, but that rug could really tie the room together.

[REDREAD]

That's not completely true. Granted he may not give bit players those deals, but his signings of Adam Kennedy and Mark Mulder as well as his extension of Chris Carpenter were pretty much huge wastes of money. I like Walt but just like every GM he's prone to make a mistake now and then. Hopefully he's more careful then Wayne was in a smaller market.

Good point. At least Mulder and Carpenter were stars though. I can swallow a big contract to a star blowing up more than I can a Stanton signing (which has little chance of working out).

Kennedy, I agree.

Your point is sound though. Every GM makes mistakes. It's a hard job.

[jojo]

Because we're all one big happy family and we should agree on all things.

Seriously, you and others tend to feel you can render immediate judgments on trades (and draft choices) based on certain criteria you guys believe in. I've generally contested that, saying "let it play out." In this case, I think we've got a trade that on the surface looks like a surefire "win," as you would describe things. The Reds have upgraded their roster without losing anything they can't replace readily (unless Freel comes back strong and the Reds have weak utility players).

My suspicion is this -- you find it nearly impossible to say the Reds win a trade. Is that true? Because if it is, you betray yourself as biased in these matters. In discussions that seem based on objective terms, that's clearly a weakness.

Maybe there are instances of you allowing that the Reds have won a trade -- I don't know. But I've certainly read plenty of posts from you describing the importance of "winning" trades, so I find it unusual you would not be speaking in those terms in this case.

I've always pegged Steel as a Cubs fan.

Seriously though, you really want to argue that not emphatically stating the Hernandez trade was a boon is evidence of a non-Reds bias?!?!?

[jojo]

Not sure I understand this. Is this like saying it would have been better to get Joe Mauer to catch?

No. It's like trying to place the Hernandez acquisition into a context in an effort to understand how much better the Reds might now be.

[REDREAD]

Walt gave a multi years deals to Adam Kennedy and Scott Spezio in 2006. He gave Ryan Franklin and Randy Flores 2 years in 2007. 2005 he gave Juan Encarnacion 3 years, Braden Looper 3, and Ricardo Rincon 2. David Eckstein got 3 years at the end of 2004. Ray King got 2 years.

Jocketty also once traded for Tony Womack. Everyone has skeletons in their closet.

Encarnacion wasn't too bad of a signing as a stop gap for the OF. He gave them about average offense (maybe slightly below), but as a stopgap, not bad. IIRC, it was a better move than resigning Reggie Sanders to the contract KC eventually gave him. Sometimes there are compromises to be made. For example, Rhodes fills a need. He'll plug that Loogy spot for us. Not the optimal solution, but ok.

King wasn't a horrible signing. They got one great year out of him. I think he got hurt his second year. But I don't completely remember. Likewise, I think Rincon got hurt too. Unless one of those guys were already hurt and Walt didn't do due dilligence, it's hard to fault him too much. It's hard to get decent LH relievers. High demand and low supply -- that's why Affedlt got the deal he did.

[lollipopcurve]

Seriously though, you really want to argue that not emphatically stating the Hernandez trade was a boon is evidence of a non-Reds bias?!?!?

He's an A's fan. You're a Mariners fan. Nothing wrong with that!

No, Steel's bias is not non-Reds. He's a great Reds fan. It's a non-Reds GM bias. No Reds GM can make a move of which he will approve.

All in good fun. Got to tweak you fellas every now and then.

No. It's like trying to place the Hernandez acquisition into a context in an effort to understand how much better the Reds might now be.

What context? I'd say it needs better definition. If the context is "can they make the playoffs?" it's impossible to answer that question without knowing full rosters. It's very early in the offseason, the way things are playing out.

Still confused, because much of the defense of your take seems to be on your having defined the individual contribution we can expect from Hernandez, not your having defined the context surrounding him or the team.