Brendan Harris Dealt To Tampa Bay
by JD Arney on Jan 2, 2007 5:59 PM EST
in News
Email
PrintI just don't understand:
The Reds today traded IF Brendan Harris to the Devil Rays in exchange for a PTBNL or cash.Harris was designated for assignment on December 21, when the Reds acquired Jeff Conine
So apart from Bill Bray and an overworked Gary Majewski the Reds received a few months of Royce Clayton, a PTBNL or cash from Tampa Bay, and a single A pitcher for two young, above average starting position players in Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez.
I kind of wish there was a journalist in Cincinnati with the guts to ask Wayne Krivsky what the hell he's doing.
167 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is not true.
The Reds also gave up (and gave up on) Ryan Wagner.
Not that it isn't bad enough already.
PTBNL
by WayneNarron on Jan 2, 2007 6:35 PM EST reply actions
Yes
That point does make sense
What Don't You Get?
Why do the hosts of this board act with indignation on every move the Reds make? While it may seem long and far between, but not all moves are idiotic.
by Sean JP on Jan 2, 2007 7:47 PM EST reply actions
Well
If you're ok with the Reds just tossing aside resources with no gain, then I don't really know what to say.
And utility infielders might not make $15m a year, but they're really not a dime a dozen. The Reds are a team that started Royce Clayton at the end of last season, and one of their utility infielders is named Juan Castro at the moment.
Surely you're not satisfied with that?
dumping Harris
What bothers me...
I guess I would have been able to feel better about the trade if I felt like everyone was acquired for a purpose at least. I knew Clayton was worthless from the start and now it looks like getting Harris was pointless.
It's Still Not That Complicated
And who would be better and cheaper that's available?
Harris is not a resource. He was roster space. If you think he was going to bring something more, look around. Teams had 10 days to grab him and the best that came up was PTBNL. At least there's talent in Tampa's system so maybe it's a low-level prospect with some potential.
Clayton did exactly what they intended him to do--occupy the spot for half the season, be a veteran presence over the erratic play of Lopez. They weren't going to re-sign Clayton no matter what he did in the last half of the season. He was a stop-gap and obviously they had their eyes on Gonzalez as a permanent solution.
by Sean JP on Jan 2, 2007 8:10 PM EST reply actions
Just Roster Space?
by Paul Householder on Jan 2, 2007 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
I'm sorry
- Good utility infielders are not "a dime a dozen". Rich Aurillia, at this point in his career, is a good utility infielder. The Giants are paying him $8M over the next 2 years.
- Juan Castro is not a good utility infielder. He catches everything that's hit to him, but that's it. He has not become a better hitter as he's aged; last year, his OPS+ was 61. He may be paid below the league average (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - no one makes below the minimum), but he'll make 3 times what Harris will next year. In no way is he worth it.
- "(W)ho would be better and cheaper that's available"? Brenden Harris, for one.
- If Harris is "not a resource" and only "roster space", why was he considered such a big part of The Trade at the time? As for what he brought, this is looking more and more like a trade for Hamilton (the Reds probably didn't entertain any offers for Harris), which I said elsewhere would be idiocy.
- Clayton was not brought in to "occupy the spot" or a "stop-gap". He was brought in to help the team make the playoffs, which a blind monkey could have told you was stupid.
P.S.
by Sean JP on Jan 2, 2007 8:13 PM EST reply actions
Yes Clayton did suck
I actually told a buddy of mine at the time that the trade was horrible, but it would have been less horrible if we didn't have to take Clayton in the deal. I would've told Bowden, "Naw, Jim...keep Clayton, we're good."
by cesarhernandez on Jan 2, 2007 8:22 PM EST up reply actions
I was going to ask
Don't get me wrong, I like the Gonzalez signing and I think Stanton will be fine, but these aren't really moves that are going to put Cincinnati back in the playoffs. We're setting ourselves up to be pretty average, which might amount to a fifth place finish.
However, Krivsky was able to greatly improve the team between the time he took over and the middle of April '06, so I'm hopeful he'll be able to make the necessary moves this year.
Remember the Frank Robinson trade?
I think the verdict is still out on "The Trade" that WayneK made. Mainly because, we made out so much better in the payroll analysis. Bray and Majewski aren't costing us a fraction of what Kearns and Lopez are costing the Nats.
If Kearns becomes an All-Star outfielder, and Bray and Majewski turn out to be average middle relievers the rest of their careers, then Wayne's goose will be cooked.
But Lopez has been replaced by Gonzales. And I think we're better off. And both are costing about the same.
So really the trade gets down to Kearns for Bray and Majewski, along with an additional $4 million to spend on other more established relievers.
We'll have all this coming year to quibble over how this pans out. I hope WayneK is vindicated, for the Reds' sake. I'd like to see Bray develop into a good closer.
The debate we'll continue to debate
Lopez was a middle infielder with a sign around his neck that read: Hit it here, win first base. Kearns will never develop into an All Star or even remotely close. IF the thinking was, we'll get immediate bullpen help to shore up our biggest weakness now (granted, that part didn't work out so well) with the added bonus of a young guy who has the potential to develop into a solid closer, then I still think the trade makes sense. But you are right... it is too early to make a final verdict.
Put it another way.... can anyone here really make a convincing argument that if the Reds hadn't made that trade, they would have made the playoffs last year? I can't. So... the bottom line is who would you rather have for the next few years, Kearns or Bray? I don't know the answer yet.
Interpretting
If you're going to trade your starting shortstop you probably have to get one in return, and undopubtedly (because it happened) the thought was stablizing the middle infield defense would save runs and help win some games. They didn't think a veteran like Clayton would make the bonehead mistakes Lopez did.
I hated the move--but I interpret the move. All along I thought Bucky-Fucking-Dent should have, I dunno, actually coached Lopez. Or they should have found Lopez another position. When they left him alone and let him play he did alright in 2005.
As for Blue's comments, the offseason ain't over yet but the fact they haven't made a big deal says no one is interested in what the Reds have to offer. This GM has proved he has no problem making deals. It always takes two (or three) to make a deal.
Think about it: Exactly what do the Reds have that anyone would want? Well, most of those parts (Harang, Arroyo, Bailey and Dunn and Phillips on a lesser level) are not expendable if you plan on finishing higher than fifth.
by Sean JP on Jan 2, 2007 8:36 PM EST reply actions
I disagree
Wha...?
And that would be the complete 360 of the Lopez swap. Unless you have a plan or someone in the waiting, you better get a shortstop in return when trading your starting shortstop.
Even more so, you trade either of your top two starters, you better get a pitcher in return--for now or the near future.
BTW: The hole ain't in center field, it's in right field (Griffey's not moving) they need a middle of the order hitter more than they need a pitcher.
Everyone needs pitching. No one everhas enough. Some worse than others. The Reds are not worse than most in that regard.
by Sean JP on Jan 2, 2007 9:57 PM EST reply actions
Can I ask a favor
Everyone needs pitching. No one everhas enough. Some worse than others. The Reds are not worse than most in that regard.
Yes, but why keep good pitchers just to win 75 games when you can trade them for multiple young talented players and win 90 games in two seasons? When you don't have many trading pieces, you have to look at everyone as tradeable for the right deal.
And no matter how cheap he is, if Arroyo isn't likely to stay past his contract then you have to at least look at what you can get for him on the trade market. Let's see, a reasonably young, cheap pitcher who just greatly over-performed anything he has done in the past. Yeah, I think I'd be shopping him around a bit just to see who salivates the most. I probably wouldn't trade him, but I wouldn't turn away from any conversations that's for sure.
No, It's Called . . .
But then I wouldn't squawk if they did trade Harang or Arroyo or both. Harang is gonna go free agent and sign with his hometown Padres when eligible and Arroyo is going back to Boston as soon as the shuttle leaves on final day of 2008.
I don't think the Reds have much chance to keep either. But in general premise, you don't trade quality startingpitchers if you plan to compete.
by Sean JP on Jan 2, 2007 11:34 PM EST reply actions
No.
by Paul Householder on Jan 3, 2007 12:47 AM EST reply actions
Hamilton PTBNL?
So how would that work out? If he doesn't make the 25 man roster out of Spring Training (or at any time in the year) he is 'sent' back to Tampa, and then returned to the Reds as the PTBNL?
by indy on Jan 3, 2007 9:11 AM EST reply actions
I think
by WayneNarron on Jan 3, 2007 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
That's what I thought....
by indy on Jan 3, 2007 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
Not so bad to me
I don't understand Moeller at catcher. Conine is a minor deal, may pay dividends. Other moves have been quite good. You have to remember that he is on a long term plan to build from within, and filling holes as they arise, and doing so within a constrained budget. I give him a B-. I'd give him an A without the trade, which may yet pan out.
by Billingsfan on Jan 3, 2007 1:51 PM EST reply actions
Hamilton Is Not the PTBNL
by Sean JP on Jan 3, 2007 2:42 PM EST reply actions
Hamilton is making the opening day roster
by ohiobobcat on Jan 3, 2007 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
Courtney who?
Harris for Hamilton
Hamilton isn't going anywhere (not back to Tampa), and if he's not ready for the bigs, I'm sure he'll come up with a thumb 'injury' that will force him to rehab for 20 games at Chatanooga at least once next season.
by indy on Jan 3, 2007 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
Harris for Hamilton
by HokieRed on Jan 4, 2007 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
Too Late to the Table
But the idea that the PTBNL for Harris will be Hamilton in case the Reds don't want to keep him on the 25-man roster has already been shot down on other boards, namely Marc Lancaster's, where he pointed out the devil rays want Hamilton back and . . . besides . . . that would essentially mean a former No. 1 overall pick (Hamilton) for a career jouryneyman like Harris.
And that's not happening.
by Sean JP on Jan 3, 2007 4:31 PM EST reply actions
How about using "Reply to This" once
Then why did Krivsky acquire Harris in the first place? That's what I don't get. If he has no value and no future in the organization, then he's worthless to the Reds, yet Krivsky asked for (or simply accepted) him as part of a deal. Can you explain why that makes sense? Because, you know, I'm an idiot.
Ooh, ooh...
Duh, Slyde, don't be such an idiot. Sheesh.
by Ash on Jan 3, 2007 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
I made the stupid comment.
Do you even know how the Rule 5 draft works? It's for guys who've been in your system for 6 years, but aren't on your 40 man roster. That's right - after 6 years, Toronto doesn't think enough of Hamilton to even think he's one of the 40 best players they own the right to.
Like I said, Harris is no Larkin, but he's had more success at higher levels; he hasn't played AA ball since '03, and A ball since '02. And that .807 OPS of Hamilton's? Harris' was better, at a younger age in A and AA.
If, like you said, this isn't part of a Hamilton move, it looks even dumber. Harris would be more valuable and cheaper to the Reds this year than Castro or Conine, and much more valuable (but the same price) than Hamilton.
Finally, you're damning him with being in 5 organizations, but (1) Toronto is only his 4th organization (Montreal and Washington are the same organization), and the first two of his three moves he was used to get Nomar Garciaparra, Matt Murton, Austin Kearns, and Filipe Lopez. It's not like he's just bouncing around, looking for work!
Has there been a reincarnation?
by pw on Jan 3, 2007 5:05 PM EST reply actions
Can't be...
Plus, SeanJP has not yet used any of the following words or phrases:
- Rob Deer
- Savvy
- Run out to his position
- Strikeouts
- Homeruns (as a single word, rather than "home runs")
by Paul Householder on Jan 3, 2007 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
i would like to dispel
Just because you give up a shortstop doesn't mean you have to get a shortstop in return. we had middle infielders (one of which was blocking edwin's starting spot at third) and we had replacement middle infielders (one of which, ryan freel, some idiot on this blog, boobs, thought would be a starting 2b/ss.) Having clayton on our roster made us much worse.
there is no additional value in a player who has "playoff experience."
Also, there is nothing in a baseball player's dna that makes him inherently a closer. closers are simply overvalued pitchers. even if the trade boiled to kearns for bray and majewski, which it doesn't, and bray turned out to be a semi-servicable closer in the next couple years, we will not come anywhere close to winning this trade hands down. That assertion is ludicrous. you get 60 innings (if you're very lucky) out of a relief pitcher. You get more like 600 at-bats and 1,500 innings of defense out of an every-day starter. there's a reason relief pitchers generally don't cost very much money.
please, please, please, if you want to talk about this comment, please please please click "reply to this" instead of just posting a fresh comment.
That's from my post... cool... wait a minute
If Bray becomes this team's closer for the next few years - and doesn't totally suck - you don't think this would have been a good trade in the long run? I know that's a big if.. but that's still what it comes down to. Kearns didn't help the Nationals much this year. Will he help them win ball games in the future more than Bray will help the Reds? I don't care about stats because they don't always translate to wins and losses.
Also, answer my question... do you think the Reds would have made the playoffs if they hadn't made the trade? That deals with the short term part of the equation.
And I was really tempted to not use "Reply to this" but rather create a brand new diary entirely titled "Rereading this thread will make my headache even worse."
sorry to rip...
That would have been sweet.
No, if bray is a decent closer this is still not a good trade in the long run.
when you think of who is the most badass closer youd want on your team, who do you think of? Mariano rivera? because he's 9th on the yankees in win shares. he's a badass closer who comes in in crucial (albeit not the most crucial, since managers havent figured out how to effectively used closers) situations, but he only pitches 75 innings a year. if you switch him out and replace him with a pretty good reliever who's not thought of as a closer, you don't lose that much.
that's what i mean when i say that closers are extremely overvalued. Of course, if you don't care about stats, or "information" as i like to call it, then that probably doesnt mean anything to you. But I purposely used the stat called "win shares" because, believe it or not, they translate to wins and losses.
And yes, i believe the reds would have made the playoffs had the trade not happened. just looking at win shares, after the trade lopez and kearns accumulated 15 (or 5 wins) and Majewski, bray and clayton combined for 2, or 2/3 of a win. we lost the central by 3.5 games. 4 and 1/3 > 3.5
Of course, thats not completely fair. When a player moves to another team his success doesnt necessarily translate to some other team he would be on. plus there are a lot of other factors to consider, such as the fact that felo and kearns' actual position replacements.... so it gets fuzzy, even if you try to construct a hypothetical situation. But to me, clayton being maddeningly overused by narron makes the trade even worse, and a lot of the relief help we got in the second half had nothing to do with the trade (guardado, schoenweis, weathers playing out of his ass.)
so i hope that doesnt seem too nasty, but no, i wholeheartedly don't think htat bray becoming a decent closer would make this trade good, or even a wash.
Not nasty at all...
Listen, there's not much in this life that we can't learn something about from The Simpsons, and from them I know that "Facts (or 'information' as you like to call it) are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." On this matter, I'm not much interested in facts, because they might prove me wrong. And if there's one thing I can't stand, its being wrong. Again.
Thanks for answering my question about the trade and the playoffs. That's an answer I'll have to think about. I'm afraid it just might depress me. I have tried to convince myself they wouldn't have made the playoffs anyway, so why get upset? And now you present an argument against that. So, you'll excuse me if I crawl back into my spider-hole of denial for a little longer.
How about we agree that the best thing going forward is to make some kind of artificially sweetened, lemon-like sports drink out of lemons and hope that Bray turns into a semi-decent pitcher. Or, we can hope that Kearns decides to quit baseball to take up ballet.
Hilarious
Thank you for this paragraph. It made my day.
re
i'm all for some low-sugar koolaid, as long as we know that it's not the real thing.
just to make totally clear, i dont think there is a person here who doesnt want bray to succeed, or even to become a lights-out, badass closer.
i think the reason there is so much backlash now against krivsky is that we felt pretty optimistic about him at hte beginning of the season when aroyo, phillips and ross were working out. then when the trade hit, there were a lot of blindly optimistic people (present company included), and as one person put it, "I'm sick of all this 'In Krivsky We Trust' shit." i think all of this is the natural swing of the pendulum. Or as sean might say, "The approbrium with which we malcontents and ne'er-do-wells are rhetoricking forth with hyperventalating unabatement is directly and noninversely proportional to the sustained buttressing of Krivsky's apostles bouying his flotilla of hope."
I'm not a lawyer, so i'd just say that the angle of our dangle is equal to the heat of our meat.
No One Can Help You . . .
But someone is right: Tampa is Harris's fourth team. I forgot the Nomar deal was a 4-teamer round-robin. Correction made.
But the difference is the same. The Nationals have zero talent in their system and have had holes in their infield due to injuries to Vidro, Guzman, Castilla and others, yet Harris couldn't make the team out of spring training, he couldn't beat out Jamey Carroll when called upon and did nothing in his September call-up times.
He . . . was . . . a . . . toss . . . in . . . on . . . the . . . Trade.
The Nationals had absolutely nothing to give in return. Harris was best of the lot. That doesn't say much for that system. Harris is not a prospect, and hasn't been for some time. Isn't it evident? Three prior organizations scouted him, played him in their systems and evaluated him.
Sometimes you just need bodies to fill triple-A roster space. That's all he is.
by Sean JP on Jan 3, 2007 6:24 PM EST reply actions
Reply to this...just sayin'
The Reds sent 2 starting position players and a Triple-A reliever.
This is what they got in return:
Bray - young, good potential, not a bad pitcher to acquire
Majewski - injured at the time of the trade, but still acquired to help get the team to the playoffs in 2006. Could be good in future, but not likely to be great.
Clayton - sucked his whole career, sucked in Cincinnati
Harris - a "toss in", Triple-A fodder
Thompson - a single-A pitcher coming off of surgery
I think I've been critical, but I also think that it's a fair assessment of the deal. If Harris is just a throw in, this deal goes from bad to incompetent because the Reds traded 2 starters who were above average hitters, with Kearns having a plus glove and Lopez terrible on defense, and all they got in return of value were two relievers, one of whom was injured at the time of the trade. How does this make sense?
I've had a ton of time to think about this now.
But I'm hoping that this one screwup is something we allow a new GM. Balance it with Arroyo/Phillips/Ross and I'm still glad we have the K.
by Billingsfan on Jan 4, 2007 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
You're Not Completely Wrong . . .
Kearns and Lopez were due for huge arbitration raises and combined would have cost $11 million to S15 million in 2007.
Again and again, this is not to justify the Trade, it's to partially explain it--objectively and practically.
The Nationals took on a lot of salary in Kearns and Lopez and what they primarily gave up were the premium of today's game--young pitching. Bray was the Nationals' best pitching prospect (and a very good one) and Majewski had been a very good, durable middle reliver who throws groundballs, which is what is needed in that lame-ass ballpark the Reds play in.
If you'll recall, the Reds' bullpen sucked donkey dongs at the time of the Trade and there was no way they were gonna stay in the race without substantial upgrading in the bullpen and defense at shortstop.
Clayton was only a half-season fill in. They didn't want to use Aurilia fulltime at SS because he was so valuable in his everyman role. Could they have gone with castro? Yep. But they believed Clayton would give them more offense. I have no idea why.
But in "theory," they needed Clayton as some insurance. He sucked. So what? He wasn't coming back if he'd batted .400. Harris was just padding.
That's how all this makes sense.
by Sean JP on Jan 3, 2007 7:09 PM EST reply actions
Seriously, [Reply to This] works
Kearns and Lopez were due for huge arbitration raises and combined would have cost $11 million to S15 million in 2007.
I don't know where you are getting those numbers for salary, but I would be surprised if Lopez and Kearns combined for more than $10 million next year. Last year they made a combined $4.5 million, that would be quite a hefty raise to get through arbitration for them to make a combined $11+ million.
Majewski had been a very good, durable middle reliver who throws groundballs
I think you downplay the fact that Majewski was injured too much. The guy got a cortisone shot before coming to the Reds, and whether the Reds knew about it or not, they should have at least given the guy a physical (something they admitted to not doing). Yes, Bowden is a tool for not disclosing it, but Krivsky got taken by the tool.
But in "theory," they needed Clayton as some insurance. He sucked. So what?
So what? So they took on a player that hurt the team when they were oh so close to going to the playoffs. I'm not going to blame Clayton on missing the playoffs, but how long did he get to start before the Reds finally wised up and put both Aurilia and Encarnacion in there?
If Harris was padding, that means he was non-essential to the trade. That means that you can take him out and the trade is still balanced the same, right? And as boobs said above, I think you could take Clayton out of the deal and the Reds would look better. So that means the deal comes down to Kearns, Lopez, and Wagner for Bray, an injured Majewski, and Thompson. Even if the Reds are saving money, they used that money on Cormier, Gonzalez, and Stanton. Do you think this team is better than the team assembled last year?
Dude It Can't Be Explained Any Clearer
My points are the rationale when you look at the way the Reds were thinking when they made the deal.
I'm way beyond arguing about the good, bad and ugly of the Trade. It's done. It's not going to be reversed. The neverending pining about it is just mind-boggling. I certainly don't recall this much harping when Alex Trevino, Greg Harris and Jim Kern turned out to be unfathomable busts after the George Foster deal.
And all of this thread over Brendan f-ing Harris. These guys come and go all the time since they only have triple-A talent.
I stand corrected on the salaries of Lopez and Kearns. I looked at the wrong Lopez on the list. Still, they are escalating dramatically. And Gonzalez's defense is beyond approach. That's a terrific signing.
by Sean JP on Jan 3, 2007 8:32 PM EST up reply actions
Yay!
Hey, I want to get it. I really do, but it's just not there.
And ultimately we're not talking about The Trade. We're talking about Wayne Krivsky. The reason we are focused on the trade right now is because one of the players involved in the deal, has just been dealt for next to nothing. This gives us more perspective on the meaning and result of the trade. If your point is that Harris had no purpose for the Reds except to fill a minor league spot, then his value is diminished from what we as fans initially thought. That's significant, if you ask me, because that means that Krivsky knew he was getting less than we were led to believe. For those of us that hated the deal from day one, it makes it sting that much more.
Agreed. Totally.
When the trade went down, proponents feverishly attempted to position both Clayton and Harris as value-added pieces.
Yet, as proponents turn apologist, both Clayton and Harris are now regarded as being absolutely valueless.
And you're right- we're talking about Wayne Krivsky. But I'm not sure Krivsky knew he was getting less than we were led to believe. I think Krivsky honestly believed the Reds were getting something that would push the team forward in that deal. Of course, that deal is also the preeminent example of how hard a time Krivsky has in projecting performance.
Keeping Quinton McCracken over Cody Ross. Getting fooled by small sample size performances from Brandon Phillips and David Ross that allowed him to think the Reds had enough offense to trade two of only 42 NL 90+ Runs Created players. Actually using Joe Mays. Trading for Juan Castro. Allowing Dewayne Wise to step into the batter's box. Ryan Franklin. Allowing Jason Larue to rot on the bench and then thinking he needed to waste cash and a roster spot on a replacement-level third catcher this offseason. The complete mishandling of Chris Denorfia. The list goes on and on.
In the big picture, is dumping Brendan Harris a vital loss? No. But it's certainly another symptom of Krivsky's disease. Absolutely. Not that Harris is all that and a bag of chips, but dumping Harris while at the same time protecting the likes of Chad Moeller, Josh Hamilton, Jared Burton, Bobby Livingston, Brian Shackelford, and Bubba Crosby? That's just foolish. Bubba Crosby???
It appears that Jerry Gil is still on the 40-man roster as well. He is, allegedly, a good defensive player. According to Krivsky; who really hasn't done anything to endear me to how he evaluates defense (he's missed completely many times over). When acquired, Krivsky's main comment was that he struck out a little too much. Nary a word about the fact that Gil wouldn't take a Walk if it could prevent global thermonuclear war. 74 minor league BB in 2393 AB. For those keeping track, that's one Walk every 32.34 AB. Peak minor league OBP of .302 (the only time above a .300 OBP). IsoD of .026. Actually traded a player for him. Pitiful would be too weak a word. But that's what the Reds are protecting nowdays.
Heck, I'm of the same opinion as many that a Brendan Harris might just be able to replicate the performance of a 41-year-old Jeff Conine for a couple million less. That is, of course, more of a commentary on the projected value of Jeff Conine than it is Brendan Harris because Conine doesn't actually represent a very high bar. But Harris is unproven and Conine is a vet.
So it goes with someone who's playing checkers while other GM's play chess. The decision to employ him was an absolute mistake.
by Reds123 on Jan 4, 2007 12:09 AM EST up reply actions
Say Wha?
As for your ongoing asinine assertations about Harris, you show how little you know when you say a guy who can barely play second and third can replace Conine, who is a first baseman and a pretty good outfielder and a guy who can bat in slots 3-6.
More and more, you just don't know anything. Not a thing. Just a bunch of mindless rambling. You probably think the Reds should have gotten Carl Crawford in return for Harris.
Good god.
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 12:48 AM EST up reply actions
Rhetoric personified
And yet, plenty (actually more than plenty) of Krivsky apologists (of your ilk) proposed that the deal was for more than just Majewski and Bray. Yet, now we've found that the deal was exactly what we thought it was- two higher-value principals for two lesser-value principals. Twist as you may, but the very idea the Krivsky made a de-facto Kearns+Lopez swap for Majewski+Bray is nothing but a complete indictment of Krivsky's ability to properly evaluate value.
As for your ongoing asinine assertations about Harris, you show how little you know when you say a guy who can barely play second and third can replace Conine, who is a first baseman and a pretty good outfielder and a guy who can bat in slots 3-6.
That's nothing but an ad hominem attack. No substance whatsoever. The very idea that you consider a light-hitting poor-defensive OF like Conine to be a player who can fit in the middle of an order tells me all I need to know.
More and more, you just don't know anything. Not a thing. Just a bunch of mindless rambling. You probably think the Reds should have gotten Carl Crawford in return for Harris.
As I very clearly previously noted, the value of Harris wasn't the point. What was the point is that the Reds have continually carried worse and far more expensive players than Harris on the roster. Heck, Krivsky's regime brings them in at will. The very idea that Harris would be considered expendable with the 40-man roster as-is is completely laughable.
But hey, continue to insult and continue to post insubtantial rants . I'm sure that'll ingratiate you to the current membership and site owner.
If you disagree, don't post anything of substance. Just swear a lot and call folks names. Not sure how that works wherever you're from, but I've got a pretty good idea that it doesn't work here.
I'll be waiting for you to declare "victory" despite the fact that you haven't yet produced a valid point based on fact.
by Reds123 on Jan 4, 2007 2:48 AM EST up reply actions
Hey, we'll all still Reds Fans
Krivsky is shifting the team from an offensive threat with poor pitching and poor defense to a team that has better pitching and better defense. The offense has suffered, no doubt about it. The numbers show that, after Kearns and Lopez left.
There are rumors the Reds are negotiating with Chris Reitsma, yet another reliever. If he comes on board, the Reds will have an even deeper supply of pitching between Cincy and Louisville.
A great bullpen and strong defense up the middle are essential ingredients for a winning team. The Big Red Machine had those ingredients. But they also had a kick-ass offense.
Obviously, the Reds need to improve their offense. How can we do that?
1)Right field. Top on the list would be someone to compensate for Kearn's bat in the lineup. Right now, we will have Freel, Denorfia, Conine, Hamilton and Hopper competing for playing time in RF (or center, if Griffey moves over). As you know, Narron likes to work the situational odds, so my guess is, there will be alot of shared time in RF until one of the younger players emerges as an above-average offensive threat. Hamilton has the potential for being a great power hitter, but can he put it all-together for us in short order? The other possibilities are a free agent signing or a trade. If BobC is willing to push the payroll to $75 mil, bringing in an upgrade to right field would be the ticket. (That may not happen until July, when the fire sales begin.)
2)First base. Joey Votto is going to be an offensive upgrade when he arrives, provided he stay on track. I hope he arrives sometime this year. I can't see bringing in anyone else to stand in his way.
3)Left Field. Adam Dunn needs to turn his game around. If he can maintain his walks and home runs, increase his BA, RBIs and decrease his K's, this will be a huge improvement to our offense. Help is on the way in Brook Jacoby, the new hitting coach, who worked with Dunn in Dayton years ago.
4)Third base. We should expect better production from EdE this year, barring the sophomore jinx.
5)Center Field. What can we expect from Griffey? Is he willing to move out of the #3 spot in the lineup? Not likely. He's older and more banged up. It's hard for me to get too optimistic about Griffey, other than to say there are two years left on his contract. Nevertheless, he's a future hall-of-famer.
6)Second Base. Phillips came out of the gate strong last year. He's a former second-round pick, with great natural ability. He should get better. With his speed, it would be great to see him develop into a lead-off hitter, if he can improve his OBP.
7)Shortstop. Gonzales actually had a better Slugging Percentage than Lopez last year. At GABP, he might surprise everyone.
8)Catcher. He's no Johnny Bench, but Ross put up good numbers for a catcher and did well defensively. If he can maintain his numbers, then catching is not our main worry.
Ugh.
Where does this come from? Hamilton has a career SLG of .469 - in a little over 1100 PA in the low minors (his one foray into AA, he slugged a massive .236). There's no doubt, he once showed alot of potential - but that was 6 years ago!
If (Dunn) can maintain his walks and home runs, increase his BA, RBIs and decrease his K's, this will be a huge improvement to our offense.
If he can increase his BA while keeping the walks and HRs, he's Barry Bonds. No crap he'd improve the offense.
Gonzales actually had a better Slugging Percentage than Lopez last year. At GABP, he might surprise everyone.
Of course, his OBP was 60 points lower, so maybe he won't surprise anyone; for his career, his adjusted SLG is slightly lower and his OBP is about 40 points lower. Oh, and he plays a full year about 1/2 of the time.
(Ross is) no Johnny Bench, but Ross put up good numbers for a catcher and did well defensively.
Uh, no. David Ross is considered one of the worst, if not the worst, defensive starting catchers in the game.
If (Ross) can maintain his numbers, then catching is not our main worry.
If he maintains his numbers, I'll eat my hat.
Do Yo Watch Games...
Conine has consistently batted in the middle of the order (3-6) at all his stops, including last year with the Orioles and Phillies, because he makes contact, he goes deep into pitch counts, takes a walk and serves a good offset to the overswinging big-power guys. He played 140-some games last year.
BTW: Who told you Conine was a poor defensive player? I'm willing to guess you haven't seen him play. He's no Willie Wilson but whether he's been in the AL or NL teams have not hesitated to put him on the field defensively.
At this point (since no deal for an everyday right fielder has been made yet), your suggestion for a right-handed hitter in the middle of the lineup to break up lefties Hatteberg, Griffey and Dunn would be . . . ?
There's no helping you on the Harris issue. You somehow have a career minor-league utility player with no speed, no position, no defensive skills, no power and basically little worth other than triple-A roster space as something he's truthfully not, or ever will be.
You surmise the Reds have carried worse players. Sure. But those players had positions or roles or bench value. Wise may not hit but he could run and play all three outfield positions, for example. Castro can play 2b, SS and 3b with aplomb and who's a better defensive utility infielder? These people are extremely valuable.
But Harris? Clank. He can't do anything but pinch-hit or DH.
You keep harping on the Trade. Look, it's over. It's not being reversed. Why keep sticking yourself in the ass over it? Did the Trade suck? Sure, but it's only baseball and every team will make bad deals from time to time, so you move on.
Baseball is many things--but most of all it's about the potential of the present and the anticipation of the near future. Neverending debate about a deal that properly needs more time to flush itself out is just torture--self-inflicted, and infuriating for the rest of us who somehow can't ignore the binalty of your obsession.
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
Good Point
re:
I don't know where youre getting your information, but everything i've heard has suggested that gonzalez's defense has been decling the past 3 years. and his offense is worse than clayton. thats not a terrific signing. when the trade happened, i was one of the schmucks who optimistically (blindly) defended it, saying in part that lopez was overrated. but id much rather have felipe back rather than agon. looking at their win shares from last season, agon had 9, although he only played 111 games. FeLo had 9 in his 85 games with the reds and 16 overall. agon's win share percent, a rate stat that tells you how well a player gathered win shares given his playing time, was .381. FeLo's was .450 with the reds and .410 with the nats... so about .430 i guess. Plus FeLo is 3 years younger. and he makes $3 million less. So yeah, not a good tradeoff whatsoever.
Where Do YOU Get Your Info?
But hey, if a group of malcontents get into a blog and start posting hyperventilating BS and they haven't see the guy play, that's credible?
Sure.
Why don't you watch the guy play first before yapping about something you don't know. Let you rown eyes do the talking.
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 12:43 AM EST up reply actions
a couple things
and if you gather your information by just listening to what newspaper writers say, and watching a guy once in a while to 'let your own eyes do the talking,' then i'm honestly not that interested in what you have to say.
You May Right
Whaddya know, my year has been made only four days deep.
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
You do not talk to me like that
You know -
Is there discontent here? Yeah, of course. We're tired of losing. If you enjoy the losing, why not be a Cubs fan? They are proud of their bumbling ways.
Look out...
May be time to llet the llamas out of the hollding pen soon.
by Paul Householder on Jan 4, 2007 11:10 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry . . .
Next: "Sociology of American Sports" by Eitzen and Sage. You will discover in this dry, monotonous tome that in sports sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and at the end of the days and the seasons it's really not all that important. It's entertainment, not life.
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
As if on cue...
by Paul Householder on Jan 4, 2007 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
Fuck you, jackass
Oh, and everyone hates lawyers.
Come on . . .
I think Krivsky would be more likeable if he embraced an unfrozen caveman GM personna. He could sell the Chad Moeller signing by saying something like "Your stats and spreadsheets frighten and confuse me! My primitive mind can't grasp concepts like EqA or WARP. But there is one thing I do know - you absolutely must have three catchers on your roster. Thank you."
by ken on Jan 4, 2007 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
Enough is enough
Your passion is appreciated but I hope you don't practice law in the same overbearing manner you write. Let me guess, civil law?
Not What I Said At All...
How you and anyone else might surmise otherwise is your own issue of interpretation because not once did I imply or utter that because of my education or work everyone "should all abandon our opinions and bow down to yours because you are an attorney."
But I do like the fungus reference . . .
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
you did imply
I Object Emphatically!
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
Hate to say this...
Will you take vocabulary correction from a former player, such as myself?
by Paul Householder on Jan 4, 2007 11:16 AM EST up reply actions
Sure, I'll take a Correction . . .
If you are indeed the "real" Paul Householder, can you please tell us why in the name of God-given skills you inflicted a dreadful case of Clint Hurdle Disease (the weights, not the sex) upon yourself and bulked up so much that your gorgeous swing was reduced from A to Z to armpit to armpit?
You shoulda been a star!
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah
It's like Derek Zoolander grabbed himself a keyboard, set up an account at RedsReporter, and started typing.
I'm waiting for him to tell us all what an excellent "baseballogizer" he is.
by Reds123 on Jan 4, 2007 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
Way to assertate your opinions
by Brendanukkah on Jan 4, 2007 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
UR Right!
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
Or added letters
Can we tie this back to baseball? Let's try.
Going full-steam ahead and dropping letters because you are focused on some dimly-reasoned "big picture" is somewhat akin to concluding those letters are not meaningful. Not in the big picture anyway. Say that a GM of your favorite baseball team acted in this way. He might want to write a word like "Trade." So he goes ahead and writes it, but decides that ultimately he doesn't need the vowels. They are unimportant in the long run. So he drops them, or sends them to Tampa Bay, or puts them on the DL with a tired shoulder, or whatever. He doesn't care; he's still focusing on the big picture. Therefore he doesn't notice that "Trade" has become "Trd."
So what I'm saying is that getting rid of/dropping Brendan Harris makes the Trade more of a pronounced turd.
ByThis Logic . . .
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
message for JD
I'm assuming that next time JD logs in, this Sean headcase is gonna get banned. I'm hoping that doesn't happen. Not because I don't think he's an idiot, and more importantly a complete asshole, but because we have several more days before spring training, and this site has gotten a lot more interesting in the last couple days. Let's keep the guy around.
What???
$15 Million bucks? Lopez made $2.7 M in 2006 and Kearns was paid $1.85 M.
When Alfonso Soriano was awarded a then-record (still might be) $10 M salary by an arbitrator in February, 2006, his raise was $2.5 million dollars. Yet, you're now suggesting that players whose combined salary totalled less than $5 M bucks in 2006 will now combine for raises equalling up to ten million dollars??
No. Just no. And the moment Krivsky spent the more reasonable arbitration raises for Kearns and Lopez on exceptionally questionable talent, the "money saved" explanation/justification for that awful trade becomes entirely moot. There was no money saved by the Reds. It's already been wasted.
If you'll recall, the Reds' bullpen sucked donkey dongs at the time of the Trade and there was no way they were gonna stay in the race without substantial upgrading in the bullpen and defense at shortstop.
Actually, the trade basically sealed the Reds fate the moment it was made. Even if Bray and Majewski had performed much better than they did (and I'm talking ERA numbers in the 3.00 range), the Reds would still have demonstratively lost the Run value battle. Can't do that and expect to get better.
See, what Krivsky did was make a thoroughly short-sighted two-dimensional move by trading more value for less. If a baseball team were a car, Wayne Krivsky fixed his flat tire by selling his alternator. In the end, the tire works. Problem is that the car still won't go.
Clayton was only a half-season fill in. They didn't want to use Aurilia fulltime at SS because he was so valuable in his everyman role. Could they have gone with castro? Yep. But they believed Clayton would give them more offense. I have no idea why.
That's not at all what happened. The Reds pimped Clayton as a positive veteran defensive presence when they acquired him. Whoopsie. As with Castro, Krivsky dramatically overestimated Clayton's remaining skill set. Clayton's putrid performance- both offensively and defensively- eventually forced the Reds to use Rich Aurilia there. After all, better to have someone with some offense and no range waive at passing baseballs rather than the alternatives- which included no offense/no range players waiving at passing baseballs.
by Reds123 on Jan 3, 2007 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
What if the Reds had received
"Very long arms, legs. Live arm with plus fastball potential. Overhand-3/4 delivery. Fastball bores, up and down to right-handers. Curve potential ML average with quick, tight, downer rotation, works corner away. Effective change. Three ML potential pitches."
They did -- Daryl Thompson. I know, he's been hurt, he's in Low-A ball an he's 21, so who knows. I think the kid has potential, though, and could spin this deal into something much more palatable.
by Thundering Turtle on Jan 3, 2007 8:31 PM EST reply actions
LOUD NOISES!
(that's all I can muster after reading this thread)
by ohiobobcat on Jan 4, 2007 11:27 AM EST reply actions
UC law
To a relative newbie looking to "get it"
I'll answer this one for JD
I know for a fact that banning someone is something that JD puts a lot of thought into before doing it. He's very concerned about feeling like he is censoring or stifling conversation, but on the other hand he doesn't want the site to turn into a giant shouting match. It's a tough balancing act, but I think JD does a good job of being fair and giving people a chance to show they are not really a trouble maker.
For the most part the site polices itself. JD rarely has to intervene in conversations because everybody usually remains respectful, but occasionally he'll pop in and tell us to keep down because he's trying to watch his soaps.
I can only think of a two cases where frequent posters were banned and they were fairly extreme cases, and both people had been banned from multiple other Reds sites for flaming and trolling. I'm sure the "banned one" is a reference to one of these two guys, but I'm not sure which one. I'm not going to mention their handles because those keys on my keyboard are broken.
And if you want to get up to speed on some of the jokes we toss around here, a good place to look is on the Red Reporter Wiki. Several members have put some time into putting some of the stories together so that newbies like yourself can get up to speed faster and not feel left out.
banned one (s)
Dude, Who's Bragging...?
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
A Stupid Affliction . . .
by Sean JP on Jan 4, 2007 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
I think this thread proves one thing
Well I do remember
by cesarhernandez on Jan 4, 2007 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
I think all this thread proves...
Either that or Cincinnati is populated by a strange species of baseball fan that sees great value in Brendan Harris. Unless you're his wife or kid and you hate the heat, there's absolutely no reason to give a crap that he got traded to Tampa Bay.
by JimEdmonds on Jan 4, 2007 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
Harris
PTBNL
Ole Rosco Hardknuckles was acquired as the player to be named later in a trade of Jim "Scumbucket" Skoozie from the Orioles to the Boston Beaneaters. Now, everyone remembers Scumbucket Skoozie, but what a lot of people forget is that Rosco went on to become Baltimore's best pitcher in 1905. Of course, Baltimore was a minor league team at the time, but still, don't say a PTBNL never amounted to anything.
DICKIE NOLES
That settles it!
You all will come around. PTBNL is a stud.
And...
by Paul Householder on Jan 4, 2007 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_to_be_named_later
by JimEdmonds on Jan 4, 2007 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Respectfully asking
No way dude...
Does that mean I can't hang around here anymore? Now that the mob has chewed up and spit out Sean JP for stating the obvious, am I next?
by JimEdmonds on Jan 4, 2007 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
nope
Jim Edmonds?
ah...
Actually
"YOU'RE MY BOY, BLUE!"
I think this thread can crack 200 posts, if we really step it up.
by ohiobobcat on Jan 4, 2007 2:41 PM EST reply actions
No clue
by fletch @ Red Reporter on Jan 4, 2007 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
Of course
We need a game thread!
I think there should be a permanent thread entitled "Firing Squad". All newbies must post in it and publicly profess that they are not a witch, and how they feel about The Trade. Whether they gloat about their supposed level of education or not is up to them. But we should be able to discern who truly is a new poster with something to add, be it a dissenting opinion, or a bloated retread who lost too many arguments, started posting under a new id and is simply fishing for new arguments/attention, etc....
|Reply to This]Rawks!
This thread
by indy on Jan 4, 2007 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
This is the situation
Who was Harris?
Happy New Year
Re: the money saved from Kearns/Lopez, I think if Krivsky had stood at the podium last July and said this move will save us millions over the next few years he would have been tarred and feathered on fountain square. The trade was very clearly positioned as a way to improve the Reds for a '06 playoff run. As such it failed, and it's not too early to state that.
Somewhere someone asked if anyone could claim the trade cost the Reds the playoffs. Hypotheticals are tough, but this thread takes a crack at it: http://www.redreporter.com/story/2006/10/13/141722/68
You could also make a case based on aggregate win shares, RAAA and RSAA run through pythagorus or other such witchcraft. Personally I'll say that I watch the games and I saw it. As a complete appeal to authority here's Joe Sheehan saying it too: http://www.redreporter.com/story/2006/10/3/15131/3565
I didn't think much of Harris when the Reds acquired him (and there were many here who claimed he would make the trade--go search for the old threads from July. Actually don't bother), but I think he's not getting a fair shake from some here. We all know the vast majority of players peak at age 27-28. For stars who crack the majors at 22 those are their MVP years. However there are many, many players who are only good enough to play in the majors for a year or two. And those years are usually, you guessed it, their age 27-28 seasons.
Harris will be 26 and from the looks of things, he's finally ready to play above replacement level. There's value in that. Like has been mentioned we chose to acquire him, he put up a .900 AAA OPS, and then we dump him. Is it wrong to get a little frustrated about this?
I understand defending Krivsky but it really surprises me to see Reds fans still defend the trade. Really. I just don't know what to say. Also it's annoying that I constantly hear two refrains: it's too early to judge the trade and the trade is in the past, we must leave those ghosts buried. Didn't Cassandra get a chance to say I told you so as Troy burned? Probably not, so no help there...
No one has guessed Harris' jersey yet?
by fletch @ Red Reporter on Jan 4, 2007 5:21 PM EST reply actions
25?
by Paul Householder on Jan 4, 2007 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
i think maybe it was 30
I think it was Wise or Hopper
yeah maybe it was hopper
The reason I think it was 25
by Paul Householder on Jan 4, 2007 6:11 PM EST up reply actions
i got tired of not looking it up
sorry if i ruined our game.
it's possible
But
oh
Ross was 26? Javy 17? LaWhiff was 9. Milton?? Lohse?? Coffey?? Numbers - they get all jumbled in my head. I blame the invention of programmable phones.
Franklin was BS. Can't forget that one. Stupid October-costing Franklin.
ive never been able
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Reds
the reds wikipedia page, and at the bottom it has everyone's number, including guys in the farm system. some of the lesser-known ones might be off, because it is after all wikipedia, but the great thing about it is you can fix it!
the guys on the farm
bailey should get a single digit number when he's finally added to the 40 man. what do we have open - 2, 7, 8? 7 is a good number, but he seems more like an 8. (based on nothing whatsoever)
Read the Book I Bought You...
by Sean JP on Jan 5, 2007 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
whoopdee do
Ha! Get em' D!!
Because . . .
by Sean JP on Jan 5, 2007 6:30 PM EST up reply actions
Y'know
by Brendanukkah on Jan 6, 2007 12:24 AM EST up reply actions
Actually it was Wise
An analogy.
I don't think any of the people having a negative view of the trade of Brendan Harris to Tampa Bay for a PTBNL are saying that he was a really good player.
As Slyde said before, Harris was included in The Trade, and you can only evaluate a person in management by his or her actions. Most on this site would say that Krivsky's actions up to The Trade were very good and helped the team a lot. Nevertheless, The Trade was a big negative (admittedly, it even sucked, according to SeanJP).
Here is what Krivsky thought of Harris at the time of The Trade:
"Harris, 25, will report to Class AAA Louisville. He appeared in 17 games for the Nationals this season, hitting .283 with five home runs and 32 runs batted in. Krivsky compared him to Reds utility man Ryan Freel. 'He doesn't have Freel's speed, but he plays with his intensity,' Krivsky said. 'He plays the game hard and he's got some sock in his bat.'"
Apparently, Krivsky also thought Harris was a "great baseball guy", which apparently counts for a lot these days in terms of Reds roster decisions.
Krivsky's statements indicate that he did not think Harris was worth just a PTBNL at the time of The Trade. When he made this statement, either he was (a) a liar or (b) wrong or a lunatic. Option (c) in the classic C.S. Lewis trichotomy (being God) is not borne out by the evidence here.
Saying that additional facts about The Trade and its results (such as the now-established fact that Brendan Harris is, and was, really worth pocket lint, notwithstanding Krivsky's statements to the contrary at the time of The Trade) should not affect one's view of Krivsky is like saying that additional facts about the invasion of Iraq should not affect one's view of President Bush. Clearly, those facts influenced the voters in November 2006, and well they should have.
Therefore, I agree with Slyde and Reds123 that this is not just about Brendan Harris or The Trade. It is about Krivsky and his competence in the same way that the November 2006 election was about Bush and his competence.
by Paul Householder on Jan 4, 2007 5:54 PM EST reply actions
I would only add
That is my frustration with this.
why are you frustrated?
Wow...
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
