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

[traderumor]

Here's another angle on the trade. I recall much hand wringing over the fact that Reds' management was too PR driven, that it would not make unpopular moves for fear of fan revolt. I think Krivsky has shown that he will make what he considers to be the right move regardless of what the popular vote might render. Of course, he said as much in the presser, and wanted to know if a poll was out on the trade yet since Cincy is the capital of polls I like this guy.

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by Edskin

A few things:

1. I don't think the "we could have gotten more" argument holds water for two very clear reasons

A) The rest of MLB knows what many of us here have suspected for a long time-- Kearns and Lopez simply aren't that great. The luster is off BOTH of those guys-- neither is bad, both can be good, but no longer are we waiting for superstars to emerge-- ain't gonna happen. Look around MLB-- is it THAT hard to find an OF'er with similar numbers to Kearns?

Kearns and Lopez were in the top 10 in OPS at their respective positions at the time of the trade. Kearns was 28th among all MLB OF in OPS.

I know it's a fashionable to say they had "lost their luster" -- it helps people to rationalize the trade in their heads. But in reality, they would have represented upgrades to probably 20 of the 30 major league teams.

B) Bullpen help is not as plentiful as it once was. Both of the guys we got are good, young, and cheap. That's pretty important.

Lots of people describe them as "good, young, and cheap." They're definitely young and cheap. How good are they? Look at their numbers and suddenly they look like what they are -- mediocre, young, and cheap.

[Krusty]

Even though it might seem that the Nationals got the better end of the deal, one thing you have to remember that the money the Reds would have paid this offseason to Lopez and Kearns in arbitration, can be used to pursue free agents this offseason.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Even though it might seem that the Nationals got the better end of the deal, one thing you have to remember that the money the Reds would have paid this offseason to Lopez and Kearns in arbitration, can be used to pursue free agents this offseason.

Maybe, maybe not. This team does not have a strunning track record with identifying FA talent.

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by registerthis

Maybe, maybe not. This team does not have a strunning track record with identifying FA talent.

Nor did Minnesota when Krivsky was there.

"Payflex" is the opiate of the masses. It keeps the fans wishing and dreaming.

[Deepred05]

My only problem with the trade is Clayton. If the Reds moved Phillips to short, I could understand their thinking a whole lot better.

[GoReds]

Originally Posted by registerthis

Maybe, maybe not. This team does not have a strunning track record with identifying FA talent.

This FO doesn't have a track record in regards to free agents. Until they have a full offseason, we can't really judge either way.

Minnesota may not have had a great record while Krivsky was there, but then again, Krivsky wasn't the one calling the shots.

Keep in mind - having the money available doesn't always equate to big moves. Sometimes the best idea is to NOT spend the money.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by GoReds

This FO doesn't have a track record in regards to free agents. Until they have a full offseason, we can't really judge either way.

Until they prove to me otherwise, I'm assuming that "money saved" does not equal "talented free agent." This front office has to prove their worth, and at this point I have no great hope that the money supposedly saved by deals such as this will go towards anything meaningful. I hope I'm wrong, but history has not been kind.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by registerthis

Until they prove to me otherwise, I'm assuming that "money saved" does not equal "talented free agent." This front office has to prove their worth, and at this point I have no great hope that the money supposedly saved by deals such as this will go towards anything meaningful. I hope I'm wrong, but history has not been kind.

You mean money that went to, say, oh, a Dunn contract extension? Or the eating of a gaggle of bad contracts (albeit somewhat small ones)?

I have a number of concerns with this front office--willing to pony up for things isn't one of them.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

I have a number of concerns with this front office--willing to pony up for things isn't one of them.

That the money saved from kearns and Lopez might be used to eat Milton's contract does not exactly instill me with great confidence.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by registerthis

That the money saved from kearns and Lopez might be used to eat Milton's contract does not exactly instill me with great confidence.

What difference does it make, finally? As long as more payroll is available to pay good players instead of bad ones, who cares?

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by registerthis

Until they prove to me otherwise, I'm assuming that "money saved" does not equal "talented free agent." This front office has to prove their worth, and at this point I have no great hope that the money supposedly saved by deals such as this will go towards anything meaningful. I hope I'm wrong, but history has not been kind.

Front office proof thus far... Arroyo, Phillips and David Ross. So far, so good. Yan and Mays... attempts to find something in a dry-pitching world. Not good choices, but better than the do-nothing world of Lindner and O'Brien.

Lindner no longer owns this team... Bob C. does. DOB no longer calls the shots on personnel, Krivsky does. History really means nothing. I prefer to look at the history of this team starting at around March of this year. That is the fair way to judge those in charge today.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

Front office proof thus far... Arroyo, Phillips and David Ross. So far, so good.

None of those were big money contracts or FA acquisitions. Kudos to Kriv for picking them out...but I've also seen him pick Royce Clayton, Juan Castro, Esteban Yan and Cody Ross, and I just watched him trade our starting SS and RF for two average middle relievers.

Color me unconvinced.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

What difference does it make, finally? As long as more payroll is available to pay good players instead of bad ones, who cares?

I don't believe that "saving money on contracts" means as much now as it did during the Lindner era. I believe Castellini is the type of owner who will spend when necessary if it will improve the team. Thus, the argument that the Kearns-lopez deal was a good thing because it frees up potential salary money rings a bit hollow with me, because I think the Reds have moved beyond having to jettison productive players primarily for salary considerations.

[GoReds]

Originally Posted by registerthis

I don't believe that "saving money on contracts" means as much now as it did during the Lindner era. I believe Castellini is the type of owner who will spend when necessary if it will improve the team. Thus, the argument that the Kearns-lopez deal was a good thing because it frees up potential salary money rings a bit hollow with me, because I think the Reds have moved beyond having to jettison productive players primarily for salary considerations.

The Reds didn't suddenly become a large market team when Castellini bought the team - there are still and will always be budget concerns.

Come winter, if the "right" free agent is available, I expect the Reds may be in the mix. Not having Kearns and Lopez around makes that more of a possibility and less of a pipe dream. Either way, the Reds will rarely, if ever, be in the mix for the big name. The money is better spent on finding complimentary pieces to fill in the blanks. I have confidence in the current FO to do just that. Moreso now that they have the funds available.