Bill Bray and Wilson Valdez non-tendered

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

In terms of pure production, the Nats won easily.

But when you look at how much that production cost them, it's far from clear.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Good. Always hurt. Not reliable when he's not hurt (although he did piece together a good 2011 season).

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

So who won "the trade".

The can of worms is opened.

Definitely the Rangers. They got 5 really good years out of Hamilton, went to the WS twice.

Oh, you're talking about "the trade involving a bunch of scrubs." I gotcha.

[15fan]

Nevermind

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by 15fan

Nevermind

Bleach is better

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Bleach is better

So is In Utero.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

But when you look at how much that production cost them, it's far from clear.

It all depends on how you chose to look at it.
Extreme example.. the Reds trade for David Wright today for Logan O.
He wins the MVP in 2013.
Reds sign him longterm to a 10 year 300 million dollar contract.
He becomes ineffective the rest of his career.

Seems like a good trade, but the extension backfired.


The Reds gave Masset a two year contract last offseason for 5 or 6 million.. There's a good chance they will get zero production from that contract.. but that doesn't negate the fact that Jr for Masset was a pretty good trade.

Heck, the Reds paid a roughly 3 - 3.2 million to Bray his entire career, to get spotty production..

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

It all depends on how you chose to look at it.

Heck, the Reds paid a roughly 3 - 3.2 million to Bray his entire career, to get spotty production..

I guess it depends on your definition of "production". And then "bang for the buck". What Lopez and Kearns did in WASH was below average (not to mention Lopez' glove). However, in an earlier comment you claimed they were productive in WASH. Versus what? And do we even want to start a discussion on "bang for the buck" relative to AK and FL in WASH? No matter how it is twisted-and-turned (w/ your examples) it was a bad move for WASH. And I am very glad that AK and FL were not making that money for that (lack of) production for two supposed starters on our fav team.

Bray earned less in his entire time here than Lopez did in a single season there. That should just about end the argument. Of course we still have AK's $16+ million in WASH. Pretty obviou$ who got the wor$e of that deal. Production? Better find better production than "Nats starters" AK and FL. Unless they were paid the amount that Bill Bray received while wearing a C on his hat.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

IHowever, in an earlier comment you claimed they were productive in WASH. Versus what? .

Clayton and Maj were extreme negative production at the worst possible time.. when we were contending. (Bray was pretty bad too) The trade pretty much knocked us out of contention by weakening the offense and bringing back nothing in return.
For that reason alone, it was a bad trade.
Think if we could've traded for 1 or 2 competent relievers instead... Think if Wayne had a little bit of forsight to guess that Clayton, Freel, and Deno couldn't cover RF and SS.. I'll never forget his comment after the trade "I don't care who plays SS".. That pretty much says it all.

When "the trade" knocked us out of contention, supporters of the trade spun it to be part of some grand plan for the future.. well, we can close the books now.. We got 1.8 WAR out of Bray, over 6 years.. not a very good "build for the future trade". Just as a point of comparison, Arthur Rhodes gave us a 1.6 WAR in 2010 as an inexpensive FA. Not that WAR is perfect, but it's a nice quick comparison..

So the trade neither helped us contend immediately, nor did it help us build for the future. All it did was save us money.. That's like saying the John Allen giveaways of Sullivan, White, Williamson, etc in 2003 were good trades because they saved us money, when in reality they were just giving away talent.

[Roy Tucker]

That trade would make a good book. Only in baseball can a deal like that spin off so much discussion and dissention and stories.

I will say nobody predicted how it actually did turn out. Not with a bang but with an agate-type wimper.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

In terms of pure production, the Nats won easily.

I guess some people will claim the Reds won because they save money, but the Reds could've accomplished the same thing by nontendering Kearns and Lopez.
In the end, the Reds got 174 IP out of Bray.. about 80 IP of those (my estimate) were good. The remaining were mediocre or bad. Only accumulated 1.8 WAR over his 6 year stay here.

I remember when people were clinging to Daryl Thompson being the savior of the trade. I guess there will be a new rationalization now to justify the Reds winning this.

The biggest impact was that the 2007 team which was in pseudo-contention collapsed after the "Trade"
Clayton, Maj, and Bray (along with Freel and maybe Deno in the OF after the trade) contributed a lot to the collapse.

Seems like an obvious loss for the Reds to me.

Yes I agree. The Nats got the better players and the Reds collapsed after the deal.

The biggest reason the Reds lost on that trade is they could have gotten a better return than a sub-replacement level player in Royce Clayton and a couple injured middle relievers for those two productive starting players. The consensus around the league at the time was that the Reds rushed into the deal and ended up getting pennies on the dollar in terms of the trade value Kearns and Lopez had at the time. They basically gave away two valuable commodities for a motley collection of worthless players. To make it even worse, two of those players were injured at the time and the Reds didn't realize it because they were in such a rush and didn't do their homework first. It is really embarrassing when you get swindled by the likes of Jim Bowden.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Yes I agree. The Nats got the better players and the Reds collapsed after the deal.

The biggest reason the Reds lost on that trade is they could have gotten a better return than a sub-replacement level player in Royce Clayton and a couple injured middle relievers for those two productive starting players. The consensus around the league at the time was that the Reds rushed into the deal and ended up getting pennies on the dollar in terms of the trade value Kearns and Lopez had at the time. They basically gave away two valuable commodities for a motley collection of worthless players. To make it even worse, two of those players were injured at the time and the Reds didn't realize it because they were in such a rush and didn't do their homework first. It is really embarrassing when you get swindled by the likes of Jim Bowden.

The trade hurt the team in 2006 but helped the team for the future. Although I think you're right in that the team could've gotten a better return, it was still a positive trade for the Reds. It saved them several million dollars and allowed for them to upgrade a couple positions.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by UKFlounder

Or of this offseason so far (thought not meant as a complaint - just a statement that not much has happened for the Reds yet)

Well it has been all of a week since the offseason officially started. Lollygaggers

[Crumbley]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Put me in the "I don't care" since the deal is too far removed to have any current impact and everyone involved career's are either dead or on life support. Also, the folks making the deal no longer have any decision making capacity with the Reds. The amount of analysis performed on this trade just goes to show how slim the pickings were in "exciting" transactions of that time period.

Remember the John Vander Wal press conference? He went on to break his knee shoveling snow.

[Gallen5862]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Minor Moves: Bray, Valdez, Rondon, Hernandez
By Mark Polishuk [November 8 at 4:38pm CST]
Here are a few of the day's minor transactions...

Left-hander Bill Bray and infielder Wilson Valdez have elected to become free agents, according to MLB.com's transactions page. With Valdez entering his second year of arbitration-eligibility and Bray his third, both players were seen as non-tender candidates by MLBTR's Tim Dierkes following their disappointing seasons for the Reds. Valdez, 34, posted a .463 OPS in 208 plate appearances as a backup infielder. Bray was limited to just 14 games due to groin and back injuries, but he'll surely draw interest from teams looking for lefty relief help; Bray posted a 2.98 ERA and recorded 44 strikeouts over 48 1/3 innings for Cincinnati in 2011.