Something that gets overlooked with trades like this (I'm loving Krivsky BTW)

[Edskin]

Fans always analyze trades in very black and white terms. The look at the players involved, decide which players are better and that's that. Very rarely do people truly analyze how trade affects the overall SITUATION.

I LOVED this trade. I mean, LOVED it.

I don't love it because I think Majewski is superior baseball player to Kearns. Not in the least. But I love it because of what it shows me.

I am a firm believer that it is difficult to impossible to rebuild a losing team with the same players that have been losing for years. I don't want to delve too deeply into the "losing culture" theory, but I do think it has some merit. It's just hard for a new GM/owner to make the necessary changes to the franchise if the main characters remain the same.

Nothing envigorates a franchise more than young, energetic players. Yes, we lost Kearns, but basically, we gained Deno. He's always been there, but for the first time, he is an actual part of this team. I absolutely think you need to include his name EVERY time you talk about this trade.

The relievers we got aren't incredible, but they are both much better than what we've had and much YOUNGER than what we've had. Those should be two bullpen slots that we can rely on for the next few years.

There was always something about Felo I didn't like. I think it was what was between his ears. For a guy that was occasionally brilliant, he had some unreal mental lapses that shouldn't affect a player of his age.

Don't you see the parallel? Both Lopez and Kearns were once SUPERSTARS of the Reds future. Neither was bust by any means. But then again, neither se the world on fire. What you have in Kearns and Lopez are two player sthat have peaked. They can both certainly maintain their current level for many years, but neither is going to be a consistent all-start. All in all, you were looking at two average to above average major leaguers that will probably have one or two years of near all-star level play (Lopez may have already had his career year).

I'm not saying that Kearns and Lopez were "losers" or "cancers" or anything of the sort. But the bottom line is that when you have a puzzle that doesn't look right, you simply MUST try some new pieces.

People have this view of Kearns and Lopez as being these fantastic up and coming youngsters. That ship has sailed. They are what they are.

And what are the Reds now?

IMO, a better TEAM.

Good work Wayne.

[redsfanmia]

Excellent post and I agree 100%.

[redsrule2500]

I agree, but again, the value of Kearns was higher.

[IslandRed]

I'm still not sure I like the trade, but we all knew Krivsky needed to give the team an extreme makeover and everything has to be viewed in context. I don't know if it'll help any this year and I don't know how they're planning to spend the millions they won't have to give Kearns and Lopez in arbitration next winter, or where the plan goes from here. Based on Krivsky's track record so far, he's not done yet.

One thing for sure, it ain't boring around here these days.

[redsmetz]

Originally Posted by redsrule2500

I agree, but again, the value of Kearns was higher.

Was the value of Kearns higher if the market has in fact changed? I think that's what Krivsky is saying. Good relievers, once the scrap heap of pitching, have become a premium. For a team in the market for better relievers, the market went up.

[ochre]

Originally Posted by redsmetz

Was the value of Kearns higher if the market has in fact changed? I think that's what Krivsky is saying. Good relievers, once the scrap heap of pitching, have become a premium. For a team in the market for better relievers, the market went up.

good relievers, assuming that's what we got, are always way too expensive in season. That's no different from any year.

A bold move does not make it, by default, a good move.

Young, above average offensively (and defensively in Kearns case), position players ought to fetch starting pitching in the off-season. Burning that value up on mercurial relief pitching is bold. Only time will tell if it works out to be good.

[Crosley68]

Many of the things that have been floating around in my head today and yesterday was in that post, Ed.........Hear, Hear!!!

[Red in Chicago]

good post ed...this team was going nowhere with kearns and lopez, so why not try something different...shake things up a bit...

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by Edskin

Nothing envigorates a franchise more than young, energetic players. Yes, we lost Kearns, but basically, we gained Deno.

I agree that we were in a very good situation to trade Kearns. We had a viable replacement that should at least produce to Kearns' level. However, that doesn't mean you sell them short in a trade. We have a back-up plan to Kearns, but he still has good value. He is still an above average starting starter in RF. Same goes for Lopez.

The premise of the trade was good, and I agree with you there completely, but we simply should have been able to get more value for them. Lopez has some holes in his game, but his overall package makes him an above average starting SS.

This trade does not weaken us now, nor does it really weaken us in the future. It's that we could have gotten more. It's about what we didn't get rather than what we did get IMO.

[Cedric]

Originally Posted by Austin Kearns

I agree that we were in a very good situation to trade Kearns. We had a viable replacement that should at least produce to Kearns' level. However, that doesn't mean you sell them short in a trade. We have a back-up plan to Kearns, but he still has good value. He is still an above average starting starter in RF. Same goes for Lopez.

The premise of the trade was good, and I agree with you there completely, but we simply should have been able to get more value for them. Lopez has some holes in his game, but his overall package makes him an above average starting SS.

This trade does not weaken us now, nor does it really weaken us in the future. It's that we could have gotten more. It's about what we didn't get rather than what we did get IMO.

Lopez is an above average starting SS nowhere. If it wasn't for the old school way baseball is ran Felipe would never see the field as a SS. He's horrendous.

[Slider]

Great post Ed...WK is not sitting on his hands. We can always argue that talent for talent...someone won and someone lost...but we often take the entire trade out of context.

Krivsky is trying to identify which parts to build around and which to discard....which can be replaced within and which have to be replaced from the outside. I don't suspect that I will ever agree with all the trades any GM makes...but we probably need to look at the overall impact on the team. If the team plays better and wins more games...then it was a good move.

No GM is ever perfect in his trades. He will win some and lose some. If Krivsky wins most of the trades and the team consistantly gets better...then I'm in the boat...

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by Cedric

Lopez is an above average starting SS nowhere. If it wasn't for the old school way baseball is ran Felipe would never see the field as a SS. He's horrendous.

His hitting far outweighs his defensive deficiencies.

[CrackerJack]

Originally Posted by Austin Kearns

His hitting far outweighs his defensive deficiencies.

It should, unless your name's Castro or Clayton.

That sort of thing shouldn't be that hard to replace these days.

Finding competent ML caliber pitching of any kind is.

[WVRedsFan]

We traded for immediate help and dismissed potential...

Austin Kearns has been touted as the future. The local kid who could be the all everything outfielder. Instead we got a kid who just might have had an attitude problem (no evidence outside our former GM who was an idiot sending him down to lose weight) and lots of potential, but nothing concrete. He may turn in to a 30 HR, 100 RBI man someday, but no evidence is found that this is on the horizon. He was also often injured.

Felipe Lopez won the hearts of Reds fans with last year's performance which showed he had some pop, but he continued to field poorly and showed little improvement in that area. So many times I watched as he was slow to cover 2nd base on plays you learn in little league. He wasn't moving to become the next Barry Larkin is a safe statement. He has potential, but there was nothing concrete to say he was going to get there anytime soon.

Ryan Wagner was a college phenom. He won our hearts with a great rookie season with nasty stuff and lots of potential. He came back the last two seasons getting bombed and showing less compusure than any pitcher in recent memory. He has lots of potential and little concrete to show that he was getting to be the devastating setup man or closer we wanted. He may get there, but it appeared it wouldn't be anytime soon with an over 5 ERA in AAA.

Three players who had tremendous potential, but not moving toward toward realizing that potential. Their worth? Potential is valuable, but less than actual concrete proof that they will get there. The Reds needing relief pitching desparately, had to give up something to get something. Good relief pitching is at a premium. Just look at enough games and you will see this. Every club has this problem. Krivsky gambled that we could replace Kearns with Denorfia and not lose much (an assumption I do not agree with, but that's my problem) and that defense was more important than offensive statistics. And relief pitching. Without a really dpendable relief pitcher in the pen, the gamble had to be made. In return we get two good MLB arms and a journeyman SS. The bullpen is immediately better and short is a little less potent. Right field is somewhat less than a wash. How many games did the bullpen allow far more runs than the Reds scored? How many runs do we now need to win a game?

Offense has not been a problem, but defense and pitching has. Krivsky took two players with some value and turned it into better defense (overall--better or equal in the OF and equal at short) for maybe some players who could hold a lead. We gave up a potential 45 HR's and put a plan in place that would mean maybe we wouldn't need those dingers.

As I said the jury is out, but I like the thinking here. All that offense over the last couple of years netted us a losing record. Let's try something different and see what happens. You have to admit, like my Dad used to say, you can crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which one gets full the fastest.

By this time next year, we'll know the answer.

Good post, Ed.

[SunDeck]

Originally Posted by redsmetz

Was the value of Kearns higher if the market has in fact changed? I think that's what Krivsky is saying. Good relievers, once the scrap heap of pitching, have become a premium. For a team in the market for better relievers, the market went up.

Yep, and it just shows how important it is to create that stuff in your own farm system. If you want to go buy it, you are going to have to pay a premium. So, for a team that doesn't have any in the pipe, but which has a shot at the playoffs, there really isn't any other choice.