Of course, the Reds didn't make it, but saying Krivsky "should have known" is like saying that I "should have known" what stock prices will be.

George was, after all, once an owner.

Well, I did have a little one on one time with him at Redsfest.  Perhaps you saw the pictures...

http://www.redreporter.com/story/2006/12/3/11052/4176

Slyde?

Malarkey.  I was born in 1976.  I never saw the BRM play and I in no way hold on to them as the model the Reds should re-build.  I soured on the trade because it was a terrible deal for the Reds.  They were a worse team after the trade than before it.

Remember this: the Big Red Machine was BEFORE the days of free agency, so back then, it was possible for a small market team to build an awesome offense capable of rolling over any pitching staff in the world

Fiddle Faddle.  The Reds had one of the highest payrolls in the league with the BRM.  I remember a newspaper that my brother had kept from 1977 or 1978 that called the Reds the best team that money could buy.  They were one of the highest drawing teams back then.  They were not small market.

In case some of you aren't old enough to remember, even the Big Red Machine relied on great defense.

I thought we weren't trying to rebuild the BRM?

As for the offense, it will be fast and smart.  The kind of offense that makes pitchers nervous. So nervous that they make mistakes.

Baloney.  How is the offense any faster than it was before the trade or before Krivsky got here?  Pitchers get nervous when they start to put too many guys on base and then have to face a home run threat.  Krivsky has hurt the first part of that sentence and hasn't done anything to improve the second part.

You say that for a small-market team "it's all about pitching and defense."

Name one small market team who has ever traded a young, productive every day players still in arbitration virtually straight up for bullpen arms.

As for Krivsky, why trade Lopez and Kearns if he was trying to build a "fast and smart" offense?  Lopez was blazing on the basepaths, and Kearns was one of the better fielding RFs with a productive bat.  I had no problems trading offense for defense, but I did want equal value.  

At least he kept us competitive up to the last week of the season in '06.

Prosciutto!  Salame!  Krivsky did not keep the Reds competitive until the last week of the season.  It was more the rest of the league (and especially the NL Central) that kept the Reds competitive until the last week of the season.  The same 80-82 record in 2005 would not have even put them in sniffing distance of the playoffs...

Playoffs!!!?!!  You kidding me?  Playoffs!!?!!  I just hope we can win a game!!!!

Your solution might cover a lot of ground in the outfield, but they wouldn't be good enough to make up for the deficit at the plate.  It's a balancing act that you have to keep in mind.

As for Lopez's defense, I don't think there is a single person that would argue that he is even adequate at shortstop.

"He had to do something" is not justification for pulling the trigger on the worst deal made around the deadline.  Twelve (12) other bullpen arms changed hands at or near the deadline, and a total of One (1) major league position player ended up going the other way in those deals.  The Reds acquired Two (2) bullpen arms, and gave up Two(2) major league players; both young, productive and in arbitration.  Yeah, if he had done nothing, I'd be calling for his ass.  Doesn't excuse a terrible deal.

"What he did is trade for immediate needs, and he gave up very little in return. Didn't pan out, but it was a crap shoor. He didn't trade Homer."

Considering the fact that we had absolutely zero viable replacements for Kearns and Lopez, I don't know how you can characterize their losses as "giving up very little."  We got replacement level offensive production from SS and RF in the 2nd half, and went from 3rd to 15th in the NL in runs scored as a result.  I'd say that's pretty significant.

"I'll give him one. Kearns and Lopez were going to eat up salary and produce middlin' stats. Krivsky saw this and traded them - the Nats are going nowhere with them."

Kearns and Lopez were under team control at arbitration rates through 2008.  Both were well above average offensively, especially given their age and price.  I don't see how you can say that they were "going to eat up salary" or "produce middlin' stats."  If we're going to deal away productive players for 25 cents on the dollar while they're still in arbitration, better to just blow it all up and become the Marlins.

Bottom line, just because you might be criticized for doing nothing, you shouldn't necessarily go out and do something really stupid.

It's sort of like the saying, "It's better not to say anything and make people think you're stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

That's not true.  Both players are in their arbitration years, a process that by rule pays players below their typical free market value.  Kearns is one of the top 5 RF defensively and one of the top 15 RF offensively.  He's definitely worth the money he'll make.  And Lopez is one of the few decent offensive shorstops in the NL.  I don't think that $4 million is worth what you seem to think it's worth.

Lopez had only 2 homers after the all-star break, compared to 9 before. Kearns had only 8 homers after the all-star break, compared to 16 before. So you can see how much GABP inflated the value of those two players.

Actually, you are mistaken here.  GABP deflates the value of a home run and RFK inflates the value of a home run.  In theory, neither park should affect the value of a player.  

But let's not just look at home runs.  Lets look at OPS+, which gives us a more complete look at the offensive level of a player after adjusting for their home park.  Both Kearns and Lopez increased their value slightly after moving from GABP  to RFK (Kearns at GABP - 107, at RFK - 111; Lopez at GABP - 87, at RFK - 91).  So really, they played better in a tougher park, even if their raw numbers don't show it as clearly.

Reds have Gonzalez for $3.5 million
Nationals have Lopez for projected $4 million.
REDS ARE MUCH BETTER OFF

I don't know about much better off, but I will say that Gonzalez could be a slight upgrade over Lopez given the potential improvement on defense.  Make no mistake about it though, Gonzalez is a serious downgrade offensively compared to Lopez.  Lopez's on base percentage last year was 59 points higher than Gonzalez.  That's pretty significant, and it's a big reason why the Reds will struggle to score runs this year.

Reds have Bray, Majewski, Stanton and Weathers for $5 million.
Nations have Kearns for $4.5 million.
REDS ARE BETTER OFF.

This is playing with money, if you ask me.  That $5 million could just as easily come from the lack of Paul Wilson, Kent Mercker, Jason Larue, or anybody else that is no longer with the team.  

However, if you look at who the Reds replaced Kearns with in right field, it's a serious downgrade.  Reds rightfielders his just 4 home runs and drove in just 17 runs while putting up a .230/.318/.327 line after the trade last year (in a hitters park no less).  That's pathetic production from a corner outfield spot, especially compared to what Kearns did in a tougher park for hitters after the trade (8 HR, 36 RBI, .250/.381/.429).  And so far, the Reds haven't done anything to replace that production.

1. I don't think it's fair to say that 8 million dollars became Gonzalez, Stanton and Weathers when the total dollar value of their contracts is around 25 million.
2. Kearns and Lopez played way more consistently over the season than a lot of Reds fans seem to think.

In Cincinnati Lopez had an OPS+ of 87.
In Washington Lopez had an OPS+ of 91.

A quick glance at OBP and SLG and suggests they played a bit better in Washington. I'm not saying that's all we should consider. But looking at a stat that's very context derivative, like RBI, is much less informative.

When players move from one park extreme to another their value doesn't change much, all other things being equal. Because the run scoring environment changed their absolute production, which will change, is not more or less valuable.

The Rockies back in the "old" Coors Field had plenty of examples which fed this type of research. Say player X hit .275 25 80 in a pitcher's park, then got a huge contract with the Rockies. Then next year he puts up .300 30 100 in Coors. He's not necessarily any more valuable because he's doing that during 12-8 slugfests where runs aren't as important as they were during his old team's 4-3 games.

He's 3rd in HR (with a .249 avg, just below your .250 level)
He's 20th in RBI.
He's 21st in OBP.
He's 20th in SLG.
He's 18th in OPS.

All of that while having what was clearly a down year for him in 2006.  I'd say he's easily a top 50 player.  In fact, he looks more like a top 25 player to me.

'06 was, unquestionably, a subpar year for Dunn.  But:

RBI means little.  Dunn cannot put the guys ahead of him on base, or put them in scoring position.  Is it Dunn's fault that Jr, with his .316 OBP, hit infront of him?

Let's look at '05.  It still wasn't Dunn's best year, but it was what I'd term "typical" for him:

17th in MLB in OPS
8th in HR
23rd in RBI
16th in runs

Finally, your list is real cute.  No he didn't finish in the top 50 of any of those categories; he finished 51, 55, 56, and 52 respectively.  And he didn't make $10M last year, he made $7.5M, which would have put him (if I counted right) tied for the 59th highest salary for a position player.

So yea, given his salary and your criteria of "is he worth it?", I'd say that even in a down year he was worth his salary.

Slyde's looked at Dunn's splits before and it really does seem as if he alters his approach for situations. I won't get into it again here, but here's one fun nugget: Mr No Sac Fly's numbers with a man on third: .417/.588/.750

When you say you'd rather he have X HR and X AVG than Y and Y, I think you're just revealing a prejudice for a certain type of player.