Deck Chairs

3. I think the Reds needed to address a deficiency with their bullpen last year. Krivsky made a move to acquire what were, at the time, two good young live arms. I'm sure he envisioned they could anchor the bullpen for the next few years. He traded a poor defensive shortstop. I'm sure you all would agree that shortstop is a defensive position first. Whomever mans that position needs to be a strong defensve player. Lopez has never and may never fit that bill, so his offensive gains are negligible. It's Kearns that hurts, since he had flashed great potential. It is Kearns, not Bray and Majewski, who I think will determine the overall balance of the trade, even if our guys end up doing well. Still, I think Bray and Majewski, at that time, were considered good young arms with ML success, so he may have considered these guys superior to the Oliver Perezes and Bob Wickmans out there, but for a higher price, but for potentially more hard-throwing years. Remember, the Reds bullpen was also bad last year, and though I wasn't reading here last year, I imagine you all wanted action just as you do now. So, Krivsky pays a steep (but, in terms of wins and losses, negilible) price for two guys who he thought could help now and into the future.

I think it was a risjy move and the success of that move really cannot be entirely determined now. But, I think it was based in choosing the best (and youngst) arms availbel. He wasn;t afraid to trade a poor defebsive shortstop and a player who may or may not be an all-star evnentually. Krivksy not being "high" o him was meant in terms of his playing potential, not as a personality assessment. Poor diction on my part.

I can see the logic behind htis trade. I'm forced to search for it, since, in my mind, Krivsky has considerable credibility due to his years in Minnesota. He knows what he is doing, as far as evaluating players. He has a history of it. I can understand where he was coming from. I think, if this is Krivsky's worst move to date, it is based still in a logic I can understand. It is not an illogical move. It is, to date, an unsuccessful move. I can tell the difference since I teach logical fallacies.  :)

He does deserve some credit to go along with the criticism he's received, some of which is valid. Perhaps you can tell me what reliever was available that he could have acquired other than the ones he has. Who was available? Who could the Reds have afforded? I hear a lot of criticism of his moves, but I have never actually heard anybody posit alternative major league players he could have acquired.

I'm sorry, but I've seen this red herring swimming around too much. It doesn't matter who was or wasn't available at the time of the trade because no one was forcing Krivsky to make a "now or never" decision on dealing Kearns and Lopez. Neither had to be dealt at that time. Neither were Free Agents-to-be. Both would have been under the Reds control for multiple seasons. Both could have been dealt at any point in time during the Reds control seasons. Secondly, you're assuming that the only "available" players were those who changed teams. Lastly, none of us has access to a complete list of who was actually available.

Hamilton was considered a risk when they got him in December, as I recall, what with his drug past. And Phillips with his poor attitude. They didn't give up much except for a spot on the 40-man roster, which I'm guessing is a lot.

The totality of "risk" associated with Hamilton and Phillips was 50K and Jeff Stevens future production versus Brandon Phillips future production. That's nothing resembling "risky".

I think there was no way of knowing ahead of time that Majewski had a bum shoulder and that Bray would break his finger, so we couldn't have known ahead of time that the trade would be such a spectacular failure to this point. So, I think you can argue about that trade on some valid points, but not from the angle of a certainty.

Actually, it was a stone cold lock that the Reds would go over-under on Run value for 2006 the moment they made that deal. I ran the numbers. Trading for marginal bullpen improvements at the cost of dozens of offensive Runs is never smart and always hurts.

And anyway, Kearns and Lopez aren't really difference-makers at the moment.

Yet, the debate has never been about Kearns' and Lopez' 2007 value to the Reds. The debate has always been about one simple thing- the return for Kearns and Lopez.

5. I think they have had to re-apprortion their spending.

Saving money by dumping two productive offensive players and then spending that money on mediocrity like Cormier, Stanton, Conine, et al, is actually diminishing returns rather then productive reapportionment of resources. He's actually doing poorly that which you feel he's doing well.

This trend will continue. When Milton is gone, and then Grifey a year or two later, this will allow them to sign other players and give raises to their keepers (Phillips, Hamilton).

Apples to oranges verus the Kearns/Lopez deal. Milton has been a sunk cost the entire time. It's likely that Griffey will be in the red (no pun intended) as to his performance versus his contract value by the time his Reds tenure ends.

I think Krivsky frankly was not high enough on Kearns to pay him $6 million a season. He was not fond of Lopez. Together they are making $10 million this season.

I really don't care who Krivsky was "high" on ("what", however does concern me) when he made that deal. Whether or not Krivsky personally likes a player has nothing to do with how valuable that player's performance is or how valuable he may be in a fluxuating trade market throughout a calendar year. If you're saying that Krivsky undervalued Kearns and Lopez, then I'd agree. But that's not a positive attribute of Wayne Krivsky.

Put that on the Reds' payroll right now. Who gets cut, if you want to keep the payroll where it's at?

That's another red herring. There's no scenario in which Austin Kearns or Felipe Lopez have to be on the 2007 Reds. If the Reds were concerned about moving their contracts, they had nearly half a season and all offseason to do it. Secondly, you have no information guaranteeing that, if Kearns and Lopez stayed, payroll couldn't have been increased.

On the whole, he's been much more intelligent in securing long-term contracts to the right players. Hard to argue with Freel, Arroyo, Harang. All in their primes.

You're going to find it difficult to get folks to give Krivsky credit for what basically amount to no-brain contract extensions to players already under the Reds control.

Again: criticism? Yes. Sure. I agree with that. But I think we have to remember everything that's happened under his tenure if we are interested in a fair evaluation.

Oh, I do remember everything that's happened during Krivsky's tenure. Quite clearly. And my analysis of that history includes no strawmen and zero red herring attempts to defend what he's done wrong.

I'll give Krivsky props for what he's done well (scout no-risk prospects, cleaned up his own messes to an extent) and I'll note what he's done poorly (lost significant value in the Kearns/Lopez swap, failed to identify solid bullpen arms). And at no point in identifying his pros and cons do I have to make up stuff to make him any better or worse than he's actually been. He's been real active, but so is a hampster running his wheel. But effort is no substitute for progress.

The other guys were acquired in the offseason, a bit different...although, many bullpen guys acquired by the Reds over the past year did have good numbers when they were acquired, including our whipping boy Mike Stanton. Good season last year. Cormier? Laughable now, but his ERA was good when they got him. And he was sought after. We'll see how he does in Atlanta.