Dunn traded to DBacks

[guttle11]

Originally Posted by flyer85

and if you want it to change all you have to do is put the talent out there that can win. When you have shown yourself to be incapable of fielding a winner apathy is the natural result. You want to get rid of the apathy, start to win. And winning is about talent.

Worrying about apathy it is putting the cart before the horse. The horse is talent. If you don't have the talent nothing else matters.

Very, very true. Talent wins. With or without Dunn, more talent has to be found.

If the package ends up being as good as the speculation, then the Reds made a deal they really needed to make. I like it better than two expensive draft picks. Let's face it, for better or worse, Dunn was never going to be on the team after this season.

[flyer85]

Dunn was not coming back, trading him is not the real issue. I assume Walt saw a chance to maximize his return in the short termvia trade) rather than the long term(via draft picks).

The issue is how do you address a serious dearth of talent in the short term(1-2 years) and for the long term. The Reds won't be winning in 2009 or 2010 unless Walt performs a miracle, and if he does it won't be money spent in the free agent that causes it to happen.

[HokieRed]

Not only would I take Hudson, Uggla, and Utley over Phillips, I'd also take Roberts, Pedroia, Kendrick, and Kinsler. That's 7 and it's just a start.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by deltachi8

yep...he wasn't pete rose, the ultimate downfall of any talented player to play in Cincinnati the past 25 years.

Bingo.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

If this was a step in the reforming of a roster which contains both more talent and a greater dedication to wining, then so be it. But in and of the Dunn trade itself, the Reds are a much worse team today than they were yesterday, even if we make the jump to assuming an improved attitude.

To paraphrase something I wrote way upthread, they might be worse today, but it probably doesn't make them worse for next year. Not unless you believe:

* He would have re-signed here
* But now he won't
* And it's not possible to spend the money he would have commanded any more efficiently

I have my doubts that he was going to sign here anyway and I really don't believe the third bullet point. The 2009 Reds have several major holes and not nearly enough money to buy their way into contention paying the free-agent-market going rate for each marginal win. I doubt seriously that you or I would look at all that needs to be done, the resources available to do them, and conclude that the highest priority should be to spend $15 million on a left fielder.

Doesn't mean I'm happy to see him gone. Amongst these last few crummy seasons, watching him come to the plate was one of the few things guaranteed to catch my eye in a household where Reds baseball has to compete with my family and my work for attention.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by HokieRed

Not only would I take Hudson, Uggla, and Utley over Phillips, I'd also take Roberts, Pedroia, Kendrick, and Kinsler. That's 7 and it's just a start.

I'd take Utley and that's about it, attitude issues aside.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

After much speculation it's looking like Micah Owings is a near lock as one of them. And the other is a crapshoot to figure at this point. But I would guess either Josh Whitesell 1B or Jailen Peguero RHSP.

Where are you getting "near lock" for Owings -- I haven't seen his name anywhere other than on here.

Though, I can't say I'd be anything other than thrilled to get a Green Wave alum on the Reds rotation.

[jesusfan]

hmmm... Whitesell was not in the line-up tonight for Tuscan and he is a regular starter... does that tell us something???

[MWM]

Originally Posted by HokieRed

Not only would I take Hudson, Uggla, and Utley over Phillips, I'd also take Roberts, Pedroia, Kendrick, and Kinsler. That's 7 and it's just a start.

Well, I don't about that. I'd take BP over Uggla, Roberts, Pedrioa, and Kendrick.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by deltachi8

yep...he wasn't pete rose, the ultimate downfall of any talented player to play in Cincinnati the past 25 years.

Barry Larkin didn't do a lot of head 1st sliding and such but he was equally admired for his play.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Where are you getting "near lock" for Owings -- I haven't seen his name anywhere other than on here.

Though, I can't say I'd be anything other than thrilled to get a Green Wave alum on the Reds rotation.

Just by deducement, still speculation but an educated guess.

[WVRedsFan]

Originally Posted by MWM

Well, I don't about that. I'd take BP over Uggla, Roberts, Pedrioa, and Kendrick.

So would I. I don't have a problem with Phillips. I just don't think he's leadership material. I look for the leadership to come from those we acquire this winter.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Where are you getting "near lock" for Owings -- I haven't seen his name anywhere other than on here.

Though, I can't say I'd be anything other than thrilled to get a Green Wave alum on the Reds rotation.

probably because supposedly the talk radio guy said there would be one name people recognize.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by MWM

Well, I don't about that. I'd take BP over Uggla, Roberts, Pedrioa, and Kendrick.

Hudson is now toast but I still wouldn't have taken his game over BP's and Kinsler is nearly as bad defensively as he is good offensively.

[MWM]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

Barry Larkin didn't do a lot of head 1st sliding and such but he was equally admired for his play.

Not really. He wasn't reviled, but he was never truly embraced, IMO, as one of the great shortstops in the history of the game. I'd definitely he wasn't "equally" admired. As a matter of fact, I bet if you did a poll of the average Cincinnati Reds fan who is old enough to at least remember Davey Concepcion , an overwhelming majority would say Davey was a better player than Barry. Heck, I bet if you put the poll up here at RedsZone, it would be 50-50.