Alex Gonzalez to the Reds

[Cedric]

Getting back to Gonzo trade for a second with a simple thought.

The Krivsky era started with arguably the worst defense up the middle in baseball. Now 50% of that equation is now arguably the best in baseball.

Turning this organization around was always going to be an arduous task, but I think we got some legs.

[RFS62]

Originally Posted by Cedric

Getting back to Gonzo trade for a second with a simple thought.

The Krivsky era started with arguably the worst defense up the middle in baseball. Now 50% of that equation is now arguably the best in baseball.

Turning this organization around was always going to be an arduous task, but I think we got some legs.

I agree.

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by RFS62

I think a salary dump for next season was a major factor in Krivsky's trading Kearns and Lopez. He saw around 8 or 9 million coming on the books next season between them.

Also, I can't help but think he decided to move Kearns to get him away from Adam as well. All we have is hearsay, but I've always thought he had a sense of entitlement beyond what he's produced thus far. Lopez too has been the subject of many remarks of that nature. I know it's not anything we can verify unless you talk to front office or clubhouse people, but it's just an impression I have.

Once he decided to move them, then it's a matter of what does he get. And what he got, or settled for, as many critics of the trade would put it, was relative to where we were at the time of the deal..... contending for the division.

Keeping the promise Castellini made in his first press conference had to play into that trade in ways that just can't be measured, IMO.

How do you determine the value of staying in contention, even though we fell short? It's a much more complex equation than simple numbers can reflect.

But Dave, as we see so far this offseason, players like Kearns and Lopez have more value in the offseason then a month before the trade deadline.

Thats really what people like myself were objecting to - not that Kearns and Lopez were untouchable - rather that it was a bad time to move them and that they got less value than I/we felt they could have.

If Krivsky caried them into the offseason, put them on the market, let it be known that he was "testing the waters" but nothing more (wink, wink) he most likely could have gotten more for them. Again, like I stated at the time of the trade, it was the bundling plus the return that I hated. Trade Lopez for Bray and I'd have been fine with it. Then you'd have Kearns as a chip this offseason.

As for the stay in contention part, well I never felt the Reds had a shot. Yes, I was in the minority, and the way things fell I will concede I was wrong (but who could have predicted 80 wins would keep them in contention until the final week) but I thought the Reds could make other moves that would have keep them in "contention" while still keeping trading chips.

After all, you and I agree that this being Krivsky's first offseason, this is where he craps or gets off the pot. I'm sure we'd both like it if he had more ammo.

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by Cedric

Getting back to Gonzo trade for a second with a simple thought.

The Krivsky era started with arguably the worst defense up the middle in baseball. Now 50% of that equation is now arguably the best in baseball.

Turning this organization around was always going to be an arduous task, but I think we got some legs.

Look at the flip side, though.

Krivsky took over an offensive juggernaut and is working on turning them into a third-tier unit.

I agree that the defense and pitching needed to be improved. I just don't think it would have been that hard to do it without tearing down the offense.

[RFS62]

Originally Posted by Puffy

But Dave, as we see so far this offseason, players like Kearns and Lopez have more value in the offseason then a month before the trade deadline.

Thats really what people like myself were objecting to - not that Kearns and Lopez were untouchable - rather that it was a bad time to move them and that they got less value than I/we felt they could have.

If Krivsky caried them into the offseason, put them on the market, let it be known that he was "testing the waters" but nothing more (wink, wink) he most likely could have gotten more for them. Again, like I stated at the time of the trade, it was the bundling plus the return that I hated. Trade Lopez for Bray and I'd have been fine with it. Then you'd have Kearns as a chip this offseason.

As for the stay in contention part, well I never felt the Reds had a shot. Yes, I was in the minority, and the way things fell I will concede I was wrong (but who could have predicted 80 wins would keep them in contention until the final week) but I thought the Reds could make other moves that would have keep them in "contention" while still keeping trading chips.

After all, you and I agree that this being Krivsky's first offseason, this is where he craps or gets off the pot. I'm sure we'd both like it if he had more ammo.

Yeah, I know. I get it that most folks weren't objecting to getting rid of them, but rather the timing and the return.

I still don't begrudge him for the move. It took a lot of guts to pull the trigger, and the reward if it went the way he thought it would could have been considerable.

Remember, the offense went in the tank in the second half for more reasons than those two leaving.

I'm not trying to start another discussion over the trade. I respect the well thought out and well expressed opinions of both sides, oddly enough, yours included.

I think you have to try to discern the motivation and mindset behind the move from every possible angle to really rate it. Also, let's see how the players traded on both side perform this year too.

But I definitely see the point of anyone who thinks we got too little for Kearns and Lopez. To me, it's more than that, it's the potential opportunity that was slipping through our fingers when the deal went down. We were a sinking ship, and the bullpen was the main culprit, IMO.

[oneupper]

While I agree with many here that the Kearns/Lopez deal wasn't a good deal, doing it when Krivsky did...has given him more flexibility in the offseason.

True, they were chips...but at $4mm+ that Lopez is likely to get in arb or $3mm + Kearns will be getting..."how valuable are these chips?"

Maybe the "trade" wasn't LaRue for Gonzalez...

Maybe it was Lopez and Kearns for Gonzalez... and WK still has LaRue's cash to "continue shopping".

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by RFS62

I'm not trying to start another discussion over the trade. I respect the well thought out and well expressed opinions of both sides, oddly enough, yours included.

I think you have to try to discern the motivation and mindset behind the move from every possible angle to really rate it. Also, let's see how the players traded on both side perform this year too.

But I definitely see the point of anyone who thinks we got too little for Kearns and Lopez. To me, it's more than that, it's the potential opportunity that was slipping through our fingers when the deal went down. We were a sinking ship, and the bullpen was the main culprit, IMO.

That really hurt, didn't it

Yeah, I see your side too - and oddly, I agree with everything up to the execution. Again, if it was only one of the two we would probably be in complete agreement.

Thankfully, we are not in complete agreement!! Cause you suck and i don't like agreeing with you

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by oneupper

Maybe the "trade" wasn't LaRue for Gonzalez...

Maybe it was Lopez and Kearns for Gonzalez... and WK still has LaRue's cash to "continue shopping".

If that's the case, then the trade is even worse now than it was then.

$5 million plus two *above average everyday players* for a glove-only SS is ridiculous.

[M2]

Originally Posted by oneupper

While I agree with many here that the Kearns/Lopez deal wasn't a good deal, doing it when Krivsky did...has given him more flexibility in the offseason.

True, they were chips...but at $4mm+ that Lopez is likely to get in arb or $3mm + Kearns will be getting..."how valuable are these chips?"

In this market, where far lesser players will be making far more money? I'll pick exceedingly valuable. More valuable than ever before in fact.

And I couldn't disagree more about the offseason flexibility. The Reds aren't rebuilding this team through free agency. That's a dead end. They can get some filler there, but that's not where the Reds are going to make their most important moves.

The trade market is, was and will be the place where the Reds have to score. Kearns and Lopez in hand would give you tons more flexibilty there because you'd have something to trade instead of Bray and Majewski, neither of whom is going to have much of a market. I'm talking multiple orders of magnitude more flexiblity here. The cost of Lopez and Kearns in this market is neglible and the value of Bray and Majewski is minimal.

The worst part about it is that the trade's failure to improve the club and the bind created by having less talent available to move for this offseason was an easy read.

[Nugget]

I haven't scoured the whole thread but I think one point that is being missed about the acquisition is that in improving the defense it will help attract better pitchers. If you know that you are coming to a team with a top SS and 2B and a GM who is working on improving the defense it will be just as sweet as extra cash.

[vaticanplum]

My head is spinning; there are actually a lot of wonderful points in this thread.

Originally Posted by M2

While Arroyo did better than I thought he would, I did think 200+ IP with an ERA in the high 3.00s was in the offing for him. The dude can pitch.

This is a valid point that I think a lot of people overlook. This year, Arroyo performed above expectations, to be sure. But I think that the gap of HOW much better he performed than he was expected to is exaggerated among Reds fans. This is not to belittle Wayne's trade here. He made a good trade because he gave away something rather extraneous on the Reds and got something the team needed. And he also happened to get that player locked up for a few years at a very good price. That's the definition of a good trade. What he did NOT do is pull a diamond from the rough. Beyond the stats that were decent enough to show that Arroyo's relatively poor 2005 was probably an aberration, and his obvious health and focus as a pitcher, I do believe that popular opinion in the AL was far more favorable than what I saw on this board when he was traded. I say this mostly from my experience as a Yankees fan. I can tell you that every Yankee fan I know ALWAYS viewed him as a formidable pitcher, and that is, of course, against a pretty formidable lineup. Frankly I remember being quite surprised at the amount of people on this board who disliked this trade and only didn't say so in so many words because I was still new to the board and didn't want to seem stupid or ignorant. I assumed that any of that hate would have come from love of Pena, but most people seemed to think that Arroyo was a genuinely bad pitcher, which floored me.

I don't think that Wayne and spying scouting staff were able to fritter Arroyo away in the dead of night because Theo Epstein didn't see Arroyo's potential. I believe that the reason Theo gave him up was because a) he overestimated the capabilities and durability of his own pitching staff, and b) he needed another great hitter. In this sense it was a good trade, by the above definition, for the Red Sox too, though Theo's expectations didn't pan out the way he hoped.

Now, I'm becoming more impressed bit by tiny bit every day by Krivsky and I'm definitely erring on the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point. And don't get me wrong, if all of his trades were this cut-and-dry I'd be thrilled. But it was just that: a good trade, cut-and-dry. He did not defy the pitching gods by acquiring a mediocre pitcher who blossomed under his scouting and tutelage. He got a good pitcher who had a particularly good year when he was in a city that allowed him to shine.

re: the Kearns discussion; that trade is actually reason #412 why I believe that Krivsky is holding onto Dunn. If Krivsky was that willing to sacrifice a bit of offense for defense, I see no reason why would have given up Kearns, who has enough pop in his bat and is better than Dunn defensively plus cheaper, rather than pawning off Dunn for pitching.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by Puffy

Thats a bad analogy GAC.

Would you admit that baseball today is different today than 20 years ago? How bout 30 years ago? Are stadiums today different than 30 years ago?

Today's "retro" stadiums today are getting smaller again like the older ones. They are becoming more hitter parks, with some exceptions.

Sure. The BRM was built for artificial turf. They had power, but was more geared for speed and defense IMO.

So I guess with the GAB we need to gut our OF and get guys who are specialists at over the wall catches?

The simple fact is that in the 70's a team could win with black holes at certain positions because of the game. Today that might not be true. And, even if it were true, these Reds don't have Foster, Morgan, Bench, Perez, Griffey, Sr and Rose to offset a black hole or two.

I don't think it was a bad analogy and here's why Puffy. My point is that Davey Concepcion's contribution to the team was far more defensive than offensive. He was only one of 9 players on that field who filled a specific role. His contribution at defense, not his bat, was invaluable. It's what Davey was known for.

If you're going to always use offensive matrix's soley to gauge players today, then Concepcion would be considered a marginal player by alot of fans, and wouldn't fit into the '07 Reds lineup.

Gonzalez is here to fill that role as Davey did. No one denies that other players need to be added/brought in to also address the runs allowed and/or run production issue. But does the signing of Alex help this team address runs allowed to some extent?

The Gonzalez trade IMHO is not the "hallmark" of Krivsky's tenure so far, yet some seem to be treating it that way. It's simply addressing and filling one important need. It's not the "end of all", and I think Krivsky knows that also.

If not Gonzalez at SS, then who? I also like it because it keeps Philips at 2B, where I think he is better suited.

And look at the bright side... we'll probably see far less of Castro!

He (Krivsky) still has some issues, on both the offensive and defensive end that need to be addressed. It's just not going to be done in one off-season.

And getting back to the BRM.... it's a very good example of an organization bringing up players through the system (Rose, Perez, Bench, Concepcion, Griffey, Gullett), and also going out and acquiring other key components (Morgan, Foster, Billingham, Norman).

There's balance there.

That formula hasn't (or shouldn't) change.

But free agency makes it alot harder in today's game for sure. And a majority of organization's have to lean more heavily on drafting and player development.

This year's market, as far as the Reds filling needs in the areas of pitching, is one of the worst I've seen in quite awhile.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

The question is, what did Krivsky see in Arroyo that made him realize how well he would perform for the Reds? What did he know that Theo Epstein and most other people on the planet didn't know?

And why didn't that special wisdom help Krivsky recognize the difference between Arroyo and the likes of Mays, Majewski, et al?

I think he saw a guy who had no role in Boston and was very available. He picked him up because it was easy. The rest was good pitching by Arroyo and good fortune for WK. There was no special wisdom. He picked-up a very available arm for a team that needed one. Anyone could have made that deal. He traded the guy who was his starting LF at the time for a guy that was completly on the outs. In that context he should have gotten more. Boston was just happy to move his contract.

[Cedric]

Originally Posted by mth123

I think he saw a guy who had no role in Boston and was very available. He picked him up because it was easy. The rest was good pitching by Arroyo and good fortune for WK. There was no special wisdom. He picked-up a very available arm for a team that needed one. Anyone could have made that deal. He traded the guy who was his starting LF at the time for a guy that was completly on the outs. In that context he should have gotten more. Boston was just happy to move his contract.

Yep, it's that easy.

Give me a break.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by Ga_Red

sorry guys, I should have been clearer,
When I wrote *starter* I meant to be
making it clear I was refering to a starting
pitcher.

Anyway, I was thinking of Jason Jennings.

My bet is w/o giving up Dunn, Bailey, Cueto, Votto,
or Wood, WK gets JJ.

That would be fantastic. I think it can be done as well. How are you so sure of this?