Wickman To The Braves

[Unassisted]

I can understand people being mad at a trade that sends away their favorite Red.

I also think a lot of folks on both sides of the fence would have been steamed at the big paydays those guys would have gotten next spring in arbitration, after a season of and in Kearns' case, a career of underperformance.

I hate overpaying, too. But I can accept it more in the thick of a pennant chase than after a mediocre season.

Back to the topic. This is a nice deal for Atlanta. It will be fun to see whether Guardado or Wickman helps their new team more over the next 10 weeks.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by GAC

Wickman, with a 5 Mil/yr salary, would be a rent-a-player.

The younger arms we got are not.

Cleveland has been trying to unload him for some time.

Krivksy knew he was out there, and said pass. I don't blame him one bit either. It was not a cheap price.

Here's the thing I'm wondering about...

You've got cash resources and player resources. I've always been of the opinion that you utilize cash resources before player resources because player resources are more difficult to replace.

One of the many pro-trade arguments I've seen is that acquiring better middle relief could potentially lead to cash resource gains if those acquisitions could bolster the Reds to the point at which attendance gains were probable.

I'm not saying you've made that argument. However, if the action of acquiring Majewski would lead to attendance-driven revenue gain, wouldn't the acquisition of a similar pitcher (Wickman) do the same? And, if so, wouldn't the revenue gain for late this season and next season (should the Reds make the playoffs), potentially offset the rest of Wickman's contract for 2006 (<2.5M)?

Secondly, wouldn't the filling of holes this season with a short-term fix or two allow further evaluation time and development time for possible minor league options such as Brad Salmon, Phil Dumatrait, David Shafer, Calvin Medlock, Carlos Guevara. And yes, might not Homer Bailey possibly make the show in a Johathan Papelbon 2005 capacity in 2007 while working on his secondary pitches? Might not the use of the best of the non-Baily options this season provide as much as we might see from Bill Bray in 2006?

Lastly, do we believe that Kearns and Lopez couldn't possibly garner a Majewski/Bray return after July 2006? Is it entrirely likely that either or both players would suddenly become immovable objects considering that Washington just acquired them knowing what they'll likely cost going forward? Do we really think this was a "move it or lose it" scenario?

Seems to me that if the thrust is to produce a winning team and thereby increasing revenue, then acquiring equitable arms- regardless of age or how long they're signed- is a shrewd move consdersidering that value-equitable options to the Kearns/Lopez trade should still be around.

The last question is whether or not the Indians would have accepted anything in the Reds system versus Max Ramirez. Well, Max Ramirez projects projects decently. His IsoD has been climbing. He's a low-level guy at age 21 (he'll be 22 in November). He's smallish (5'11", 170 lbs). So he's got warts like most low-A guys. I can't see how there's not someone in the Reds' system who was value-equitable to Max Ramirez.

Low-level prospect(s) for Bob Wickman, the potential to acquire gap relievers on the cheap who could possibly garner draft picks if tendered, options in the minors, and a treadeable Kearns and Lopez still on board. Hmn.

[oregonred]

Cool another thread rehashing the big trade

The Guardado deal looks better than the Wickman deal just completed (assuming the Braves are taking on the 2M+ left). I think the Reds are paying about 800K for Everyday.

I doubt Wickman would wave his no-trade to be a setup man but you could have closer by committee I suppose. He's looking for some $$$ again next season as a closer. No one is going to turn down a deal to be a Braves pitcher.

AL pitchers are probably feeling like its AAA when they hit the Senior Circuit.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

And from what I've seen of Majewski, he's not exactly a stud that you build your pen around. He's adequate, but not spectacular. Certainly not worth Kearns.

Not worth an Olmedo.

[Johnny Footstool]

Wickman has been getting by with smoke and mirrors for a couple of years. I think Guardado's stuff is better, as illustrated by his good K/9 ratio, but I worry about that frayed labrum (or is it a rotator cuff?) that he's carrying around.

I do think the Reds gave up more for Guardado than the Braves did for Wickman, though.

[REDREAD]

Ironically, Wickman and Majewski have almost identical numbers. Forgive me for pimping my own thread:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48929

[GAC]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Here's the thing I'm wondering about...

You've got cash resources and player resources. I've always been of the opinion that you utilize cash resources before player resources because player resources are more difficult to replace.

One of the many pro-trade arguments I've seen is that acquiring better middle relief could potentially lead to cash resource gains if those acquisitions could bolster the Reds to the point at which attendance gains were probable.

I'm not saying you've made that argument. However, if the action of acquiring Majewski would lead to attendance-driven revenue gain, wouldn't the acquisition of a similar pitcher (Wickman) do the same? And, if so, wouldn't the revenue gain for late this season and next season (should the Reds make the playoffs), potentially offset the rest of Wickman's contract for 2006 (<2.5M)?

Didn't we already do that in the Everyday Eddie deal? Gave up a low-level prospect for a closer.

And it has already been mentioned - but I doubt Wickman would have came here for a set-up role.

[smith288]

I cant understand why so many are so quick to compare the Indians trade with the Reds trade with Wash instead of comparing it to the Reds trade with Seattle.

Its like they are purposely looking for a reason, any reason to go after Krivsky about the washington trade which was about this season and the future instead of just right now (Wickman trade)

[oneupper]

Originally Posted by GAC

Didn't we already do that in the Everyday Eddie deal? Gave up a low-level prospect for a closer.

And it has already been mentioned - but I doubt Wickman would have came here for a set-up role.

Do we know how much cash came back with Eddie?

In any case, I agree with GAC. The Wickman deal is comparable to the Guardado deal.

The Nats deal is a whole different animal.

[pedro]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Here's the thing I'm wondering about...

You've got cash resources and player resources. I've always been of the opinion that you utilize cash resources before player resources because player resources are more difficult to replace.

One of the many pro-trade arguments I've seen is that acquiring better middle relief could potentially lead to cash resource gains if those acquisitions could bolster the Reds to the point at which attendance gains were probable.

I'm not saying you've made that argument. However, if the action of acquiring Majewski would lead to attendance-driven revenue gain, wouldn't the acquisition of a similar pitcher (Wickman) do the same? And, if so, wouldn't the revenue gain for late this season and next season (should the Reds make the playoffs), potentially offset the rest of Wickman's contract for 2006 (<2.5M)?

Secondly, wouldn't the filling of holes this season with a short-term fix or two allow further evaluation time and development time for possible minor league options such as Brad Salmon, Phil Dumatrait, David Shafer, Calvin Medlock, Carlos Guevara. And yes, might not Homer Bailey possibly make the show in a Johathan Papelbon 2005 capacity in 2007 while working on his secondary pitches? Might not the use of the best of the non-Baily options this season provide as much as we might see from Bill Bray in 2006?

Lastly, do we believe that Kearns and Lopez couldn't possibly garner a Majewski/Bray return after July 2006? Is it entrirely likely that either or both players would suddenly become immovable objects considering that Washington just acquired them knowing what they'll likely cost going forward? Do we really think this was a "move it or lose it" scenario?

Seems to me that if the thrust is to produce a winning team and thereby increasing revenue, then acquiring equitable arms- regardless of age or how long they're signed- is a shrewd move consdersidering that value-equitable options to the Kearns/Lopez trade should still be around.

The last question is whether or not the Indians would have accepted anything in the Reds system versus Max Ramirez. Well, Max Ramirez projects projects decently. His IsoD has been climbing. He's a low-level guy at age 21 (he'll be 22 in November). He's smallish (5'11", 170 lbs). So he's got warts like most low-A guys. I can't see how there's not someone in the Reds' system who was value-equitable to Max Ramirez.

Low-level prospect(s) for Bob Wickman, the potential to acquire gap relievers on the cheap who could possibly garner draft picks if tendered, options in the minors, and a treadeable Kearns and Lopez still on board. Hmn.

I hear a lot of noise from you about how stupid the trade was and how valuable Lopez was.

How do you rectify the the fact that Lopez was incapable of playing his position defensively, may have already had his career year, and was about to get really expensive with your contention that he somehow had ton of trade value? Because frankly I don't see it.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Not worth an Olmedo.

What a load of crap, seriously a tweener judy middle infielder vs a diminished resource in a tight market.

What a load....

[pedro]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Not worth an Olmedo.

that's ridiculous.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Originally Posted by westofyou

What a load of crap, seriously a tweener judy middle infielder vs a diminished resource in a tight market.

What a load....

I think he was exaggerating a bit, but the point was made nevertheless.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRedleg

I think he was exaggerating a bit, but the point was made nevertheless.

What point? The one that makes him his new punching bag?

When FCB trots out one positive thing about a Reds player please drop me a PM.

I have to see that.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Originally Posted by westofyou

What point? The one that makes him his new punching bag?

When FCB trots out one positive thing about a Reds player please drop me a PM.

I have to see that.

Just the point that Majewski is not that good.

I know, dead horse, but I agree with him.

I'm not basing his argument on anything other than that.