some reflections on the trade

[ted abernathy]

I don't post much but am a regular reader of posts and enjoy getting my breaking reds news here. I was reflecting on the trade with Wash. in light of some of the other moves that teams have been making for pitching help and I'm thinkning that maybe Kriv. wasn't so dumb after all. It appears that most teams want prospects for their major league ready arms. Kriv got some arms and didn't give up ANY prospects. He gave some good talent but probably Bowden was the only GM who would have been willing to take on the potential salaries that AK & FL will command next year because he overvalues them based on his previous associations with them. I'm glad our GM didn't mortgage our future to shore up the bullpen for this year and probably several to come. What do you all think about this perspective?

[redsupport]

abernathy was tremendous

[Johnny Footstool]

I'd say Krivsky did mortgage the team's future by selling short on two valuable commodities.

[RedEye]

I'd say Krivsky did mortgage the team's future by selling short on two valuable commodities.

100% agreed. Why does everyone keep talking about 'prospects' when we had two even more valuable commodities (above-average ML regulars) that we cashed in for chump change?

[RedEye]

As the quality MR start getting traded over the next week, our dear little trade is going to continue looking worse and worse. So far, we've seen Wickman, Williamson, and MacDougal (okay, so this hasn't officially happened yet) all change teams for much less than Wayne paid.

[registerthis]

100% agreed. Why does everyone keep talking about 'prospects' when we had two even more valuable commodities (above-average ML regulars) that we cashed in for chump change?

Well, from what I've been able to gather based on other people's reaction to the deal: we needed to replace the headlights on the car, but the price of bread was too high, so we bought some mustard instead of meat, but forgot to invest in the tires...

Or something like that.

[RedEye]

Well, from what I've been able to gather based on other people's reaction to the deal: we needed to replace the headlights on the car, but the price of bread was too high, so we bought some mustard instead of meat, but forgot to invest in the tires...

Or something like that.

Yes, this trade does seem to inspire strange analogies and metaphors from posters (myself included). Perhaps our mere language is not equipped to deal with the trauma that was inflicted on July 13, and so we wax poetic.

:roll:

[boognish]

I am not a proponent of the trade, but one point I have not seen on here is the possibility that Krivsky made evals on Kearns and Lopez that most (even proponents of the trade) here do not agree with...namely that Kearns would never make it healthy through a whole season and that Lopez had a career year with the stick in a homer-happy home park at a young age but would require a position switch. I always thought he was bound for third, myself, and EE should turn out better with the stick and the glove at 3rd than Lopez would.

What he did took major cojones, and if rumors posted here are to be believed, he pursued Linebrink and Nathan...I personally think he felt the need to make a move to bolster a bullpen that was hemorraging runs. Maybe he has Bray rated higher than the majority of posters, and felt this was the best return that could be achieved.

[redsfanmia]

In the days since the trade the bullpen has been lights out so IMO mission accomplished. Kearns is what he is an overweight, out of shape prima donna who will never live up to his potential. Lopez is an above average stick and below average defender who was/is playing out of position. Krivsky did just fine in the return on this trade.

[RedEye]

In the days since the trade the bullpen has been lights out so IMO mission accomplished. Kearns is what he is an overweight, out of shape prima donna who will never live up to his potential. Lopez is an above average stick and below average defender who was/is playing out of position. Krivsky did just fine in the return on this trade.

Umm... didn't Kearns lose the weight this year? He looked good to me both in the field and at the plate. And he seemed to play hard enough (at least compared to some other players on the team). I agree that he needed to be moved, but only because we needed pitching--not because he sucked or had a horrible attitude (Team Clark's excellent report on "The Skinny" thread notwithstanding). Regardless of what personality he had (and we'll probably never really know that for sure) it seems like we should have gotten more for him if for no other reason than he was in the top four NL players at his position before the trade.

[redsfanmia]

Umm... didn't Kearns lose the weight this year? He looked good to me both in the field and at the plate. And he seemed to play hard enough (at least compared to some other players on the team). I agree that he needed to be moved, but only because we needed pitching--not because he sucked or had a horrible attitude (Team Clark's excellent report on "The Skinny" thread notwithstanding). Regardless of what personality he had (and we'll probably never really know that for sure) it seems like we should have gotten more for him if for no other reason than he was in the top four NL players at his position before the trade.
T.C. has connections with the organization so he should know what Kearns attitude/work ethic is and in the press conference Kearns looked huge IMO.