That is the kind of reasoned writing mixed with optimism that I wish I had seen from JD.  

All of your points are valid and take in the multi-dimensions of this complex trade.  Keep up the good writing!

BShakey are you on active duty?

(1) I don't deny that relief help was needed, just that it wasn't worth the price that the Reds paid.  Krivsky said, "It speaks to how hard it is to get quality relief pitching in this market. You've got to give up good players."  However, I think the Wickman deal shows that there were cheaper options out there.  The Braves gave up a decent catching prospect, but he's only in single-A and probably has 3 years before he's playing in the Majors, if he even makes it.  Kearns and Lopez were already productive Major Leaguers, who may have had flaws, but they did a lot of positive too.  As you said, the question is whether the Reds were hurt by the loss of Lopez and Kearns.  This may be up for debate for a while, but I believe the Reds have lost more runs on offense than they've recovered in the bullpen.

(2) This is definitely one of the upsides of this deal.  But, I think the amount of work that Majewski has put in so far this year has to be a concern, just as it is with Coffey.  I hope that both of them (Maj and Coffey) don't suffer a burn out this season.

(3) This would have been the case with any reliever that was brought in.

(4) I think Denorfia has the chance to get on base a little more than Kearns too, but I wouldn't say that replacing Kearns on defense fixes any problems.  Kearns is a very good fielder and I think that at best that Denorfia replaces Kearns defense.  And he may add more steals than Kearns, but probably not more than Lopez.

(5) Yeah, Narron and Krivsky might believe it, but I just don't see it.  The numbers don't show Clayton to be measurably better than Lopez at shortstop.  However, I will give him points for formerly being a defensive wiz.  At the very least, he may be able to pass some knowledge along much the way Larkin did even after he had lost a step.

(6) I don't remember hearing about problems with team chemistry.  Do you have any quotes or other examples?

(7) Yeah they both would have gotten a pay raise, but I get worried if we justify trades because of future salary dumps.  That doesn't feel like a "win now" or "win in the near future" attitude to me.  It feels like all of the past justifications that the Lindner's boys used.

(8) I hope the best for Thompson, but he's essentially a throw-in player on the deal.  An injured, single-A pitcher has a huge hill to climb to get to the Majors.  Maybe he'll make it, but if he's a key to the trade then that makes this trade much riskier.

(9) I appreciate that Krivsky is making an effort, but a week after he made this deal, a reliever was traded for much less than the Reds gave up and he would have improved the Reds bullpen too.  In 2006, 80% of Wickman's outings were scoreless, 77% of Bray's were scoreless, and 68% of Majewski's were scoreless.  I think Wickman is still a quality option if the Reds want to win now.  And yes, I know that Wickman wouldn't be around after this season, but the Braves gave up a lot less than the Reds did.

(10) Just before the Reds had lost 8 of 9 to go into the All Star break, they had won 5 of 7 games.  This team has been very streaky all season, and I don't think we know whether or not the trade has changed that.

All that being said, I am happy that at least Krivsky is trying.  However, it's a fine line to walk between trying to win this year with a questionable team and hurting the future.  Krivsky has done a good job so far, so I'll accept that he could be right, but this trade was much riskier than any deal he has made so far.  So it's clearly going to be up for debate.

(2) Well, all I can say is that the Reds are trying to win this year and the Nats are trying to build.  It's easier to know that a player might burn out from over-use this season than to know whether a player has hit his developmental ceiling for the future.

(3) My point is that the Braves got quality and didn't give up nearly what the Reds did.  And yes, I'm only addressing this specific item right here.  And I don't think anybody is "unmercifully crucifying" Krivsky on this one.  Debating a move of a GM is one of the fun things about baseball.  Just because someone doesn't like a move the guy made doesn't mean that they want him drawn and quartered.

(4) I think this will be a wash as Denorfia will bring some things that Kearns didn't, but there are also things that Denorfia doesn't do that Kearns did (homers and a strong arm being two of them).  

(5) Eh, maybe they're right, but there is very little on Clayton's record that makes me think he has anything but intangible value for this team.  I'll admit that I probably undervalue "intangibles," but if that's all a player brings to the table then I feel like he's wasting a roster spot.  As for Clayton's veteran presence, didn't the Reds already have the veteran presence of Griffey, Aurilia, Hatteberg, Castro, Larue, Mercker, and Weathers?  How much veteran presence does one team need?

(6) I'm not a big fan of the term "chemistry," but rather than sidetracking the discussion I'll just leave this point alone.

(7) I never said it was the sole reason.  I'm just addressing your points in the format that you set up.  The only reason I'm concerned about the "freeing up money" aspect of this deal is that you are only freeing up money if the player is overpriced or superfluous.  I could see Lopez becoming overpriced based on his agent (Boras) and his 2005 success.  However, Kearns would have to make a pretty huge jump to become overpriced and I doubt that would happen next season at least.  And I think that, based on the fact that he's one of the top 5 offensive RF in the NL with a very good glove, he is not superfluous.  The Reds have to be willing to pay for production, that's all I'm saying.

(8) I didn't say Thompson was the key, just a key to the deal.  If you are trying to present him as one of the many aspects of this deal (all of which I assume are important), then I think it's fair to critique him as such.

As for Ross, most people critiqued the deal because it gave the Reds a third catcher, something people are still complaining about to this day (well, not so much now that Ross is injured).

(9) I never looked at this deal in a vacuum.  You laid out this format and I was just addressing each of your points.  And I disagree that the Wickman deal is better compared to Guardado deal.  I think all of the deals should be equally comparable when trying to determine the value of a relief pitcher.  Krivsky himself said, "It speaks to how hard it is to get quality relief pitching in this market."  He established that one of the primary tenets of this deal was to get relief pitching.  Sure there are other aspects to it, but if his main goal was to improve the bullpen, then I think it's fair to weight our judgment of the trade on that aspect a little more.  And based on what was traded to get Guardado and Wickman, I would say that Krivsky gave up too much to get what he got from the Nats.

(10) That may be the case, but I was only trying to point out that winning 5 out of 7 after the trade doesn't prove anything.  In fact, it's probably not relevant to this discussion since we are debating the reasons for the deal, which really shouldn't involve the results of games immediately following the deal.

I don't think I am debating the success or failure of the trade, rather whether or not Krivsky got proper value in the deal.  When I buy a car, I don't spend twice as much just because I really need a car, even if I also want the iPod and the free toaster they are giving away to go with it.  If I told you that I spent $35,000 on a Honda Civic, you'd probably call me crazy, even if I thought I made a good deal.  This Civic may end up lasting me 20 years and a million miles, but that's not a realistic expectation at the time of the purchase.  The thing is, we don't know how long that Civic might last, so we judge the deal (at the time of the deal) based on what the market holds for a Honda Civic and cars like it.  Nobody wants to make purchase at well over market value.  

Similarly, I think it's fair to judge the deal based on the conditions at the time of the deal.  And I'm not just talking about relief pitching, I'm talking about the total package that the Reds got and gave up.  Is there a chance that the players the Reds got will out-perform the players they gave up?  Sure, but I think the realistic expectation is not that that is the case.  So, maybe we just differ on what we think is the realistic expectation of the players involved.

1.  Sure, we need relief help.  But we drastically overpaid for it.  Look at David Riske - he's better than either of the guys we got, yet cost only a reliever (Javier Lopez) about equal to Yan (Lopez was just optioned to AAA).  And that trade happened June 16.
2.  Ryan Wagner is young, talented, and throws in the 90's, too.  You still need to miss bats.  Further, even if Kearns doesn't get any better, he's currently one of the 5 best RF offensively in the majors, and one of the 5 best defensively.  
3.  This is a non-issue.  Anyone they brought in would have allowed them to "purge the older back end of the staff".  And it was the acquisition of Guardado that properly set up the bullpen.
4.  Hey, I'm all for getting Denorfia in the line-up.  I think he'll be a good addition to the team.  But not at the expense of Kearns, who's much better as a hitter.  And speed doesn't matter squat on defense - see Sanders, Deion.  Although, did you know that in Kearns' rookie year, not a single fly ball fell in for a hit in his "zone"?  Not one.   And a good defender wouldn't have called off the 2B last night; he would have known he couldn't get it.
5.  "Professionalism" is another one of those words like "presence" that people throw out for guys who are crappy.  Clayton never could hit, and doesn't add anything on defense.  And Krivsky may believe that Clayton is better defensively; there are alot of people who still think Andruw Jones is the best CF in the game, too.  Doesn't make it true.
6.  Austin Kearns hurt the team's "chemistry"?  Show me proof.  The guy's been crapped on continually by the team for the past 2 1/2 seasons, and he's done nothing but play.  Oh, and he's the best friend of our best hitter - how does trading him improve the "chemistry" with Dunn?  "Enthusiasm" and "energy" aren't talent, either.
7.  Castellini has made clear he would pay money for a good team.  Further, the team has added at least one, if not 2, very expensive needs for next year, while addressing a cheap one.  Not sound money management.
8.  Thompson is 20, in A ball, and coming off of shoulder problems.  There have plenty of guys like him in the system the past 10 years.  Not one of them has panned out.
9.  No kidding.  I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't put my best foot forward, either.  That, in itself, doesn't make this a good move.  It just makes it a move.  The Reds also have no chance at the playoffs if they leave runners in scoring position every inning.  But now, games like last night's are more likely.
10.  In point 2, you don't want to judge the trade on the first few games (which is fair), but now you do (which is not).  And every team is streaky.

11)  If the Reds are really interested in getting to, and winning in, the postseason, they desparately need another starter.  And now we can't, because we've traded our best bargaining chip.  No roster move is made in a vacuum, and Krivsky has really backed this team into a corner.

Clearly worse offense (and now, at a time when 2 big pieces of the 1st half offense are struggling).  Despite what you say, every defensive metric shows Kearns to be very good and Clayton to no longer be even average, so no metter than the same defensively.  Better bullpen (hopefully, but not so far).  Still suspect starting pitching.  

This team is no closer to the playoffs than before the trade.