Bill Bray and Wilson Valdez non-tendered

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Well, I guess nothing on RedsZone is unanimous. But I'd say they had the right idea in obtaining a veteran utility player who can play shortstop, but he certainly wouldn't have been my target.

If nothing else, it was fun re-reading that thread. Boy, TRF really got worked up about that deal (sorry, about the allocation of resources). LOL.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Lopez was an All Star SS the year before. No way he was a salary dump.

He played a poor shortstop for a manager who valued good defense at the position. It certainly wasn't advertised as a salary dump, but Krivsky clearly didn't see him as the long term solution.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

He played a poor shortstop for a manager who valued good defense at the position. It certainly wasn't advertised as a salary dump, but Krivsky clearly didn't see him as the long term solution.

So move him to a different position. He already proved to be a very capable hitter, as far as we knew.

To suggest it was a salary dump is really grasping at straws.

[Tom Servo]

Krivsky didn't seem to like FeLo, and Narron REALLY seemed to not like him. I think they just undervalued his trade value by their own metrics.

[Ravenlord]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Krivsky didn't seem to like FeLo, and Narron REALLY seemed to not like him. I think they just undervalued his trade value by their own metrics.

i think in large part that was because Krivsky is a tools guy and an exceptional evaluator of said tools--and felt that Lopez lacked on fielding and throwing.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

So move him to a different position. He already proved to be a very capable hitter, as far as we knew.

To suggest it was a salary dump is really grasping at straws.

Move him to another position? As in to replace Brandon Phillips, Edwin Encarnacion, or Scott Hatteberg/Joey Votto? He didn't play good defense, he was becoming expensive/overpaid, and on top of that, he had character issues. He was an offense-first shortstop with decent-but-not-great numbers. He had a lot of promise but simply wasn't all that good. The Reds made the right move in cutting bait with him. Could they have gotten a better return? Probably. But it was an addition by subtraction. I'd say the same about Kearns. You can say it was a bad trade in terms of the return they got, but overall, it helped the team in the long run. It saved them over $18M within the first couple years of trading them, and they needed the money to extend Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo. It was supposed to help the Reds get to the playoffs--and admittedly, it hurt them in 2006--but it was also supposed to be a big-picture move for the future, and it worked out in that sense.