Lonnie Wheeler says, "Take this, Big Trade Haters!"
by sledridge on May 5, 2007 6:45 AM EDT
62 comments
Wow, Lonnie Wheeler really took a swing at the fans in the Cincy Post. While I feel like he makes a strong case in the way he has laid his case out, I feel like it is too this-then-that. I agree any moves you make effect the current organizational outlook, and could dramatically effect the future, but, I think that he takes it too far. Everything he says is true. But, unless a move is made as an obvious set up for another one, you have to look at the move on its own. So, Lonnie, for what the trade was, it was still a bad one.
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AE/20070504/SPT05/705040342/
JD -
Oh wow, this is just hilarious timing:
In turn, the rookie contributions of Mr. Hamilton have come at a substantial savings when compared to the $17.5 million that Mr. Kearns will be paid over the next three years. Those savings have become available to the franchise for the purchase of such players as Mr. Jeff Conine and Mr. Mike Stanton
Bwhahahahahahahaha, thank goodness Wayne Krivsky had the foresight to essentially cut Austin Kearns so that we could afford Mike Stanton. Are there sportswriters so willing to choke down failure in every city, or is this just a Cincinnati phenomenon?
0 recs |
62 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Pssst!
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named "Bubba"?
by BubbaFan on May 5, 2007 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess
It is quite evident that Mr. Wheeler is not Marty so he has to say nice things so he can continue to get his daily tug of the udder from the Reds brass. It was, and always will be, a bad trade. And I don't see how you can say if we had Kearns we wouldn't have Hamilton or if we had Felipe we wouldn't have gone after Alex. And he ignores the fact of how pitiful the bullpen is this year.
We were a team that struggled on offense and with pitching and defense (doesn't leave much does it?) and we chose to give away offense for less than mediocre pitching. Maybe after next year we can look back and say it was the right thing to do but even then that might be to soon.
Bad trade. They happen. Man up and admit it. They'll still throw you a bone to print once in a while.
by Caleb on May 5, 2007 8:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wayne said
But given that none of the players received in the trade are currently on the MLB roster, it's not even looking that good as help for this year.
2007 Reds Threat Level is Blue
by Slyde on May 5, 2007 9:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is great:
It absolutely must produce immediate results, when that was the intention of the GM in the first place. Krivsky said that this would be the final piece that we'd need to contend all season, that this was a move for 2006. It turns out that the only reason we were in it until the last week of the season was because the Cardinals kept finding a need to lose eight games in a row and not clinch until a few days before season's end. It wasn't Majewski or, ugh, McClayton that kept us close.
That trade really isn't doing much for us in 2007, either. I think that we could have Kearns or Lopez, and if ownership was smart, they still would have ponied up for extentions for Harang and Arroyo.
Mike Stanton. Yay. Wahoo. More veteran presence. And didn't we sign him for this year and next? Sounds vaguely familiar - Cormier.
Bottom line, when Krivsky said that this was a trade for 2006, I expected it to be a trade for 2006. That's my issue. If it has something of a positive outcome down the road, great, but until then, I'm looking at a team whose bullpen is the worst in the league. That's not good enough for me.
by Ash on May 5, 2007 9:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Preach it, Lonnie
If Frank Robinson hadn't been traded, they wouldn't have moved Pete Rose to the outfield.
If Pete hadn't been moved to the outfield, they wouldn't have moved Tony Perez to 3B.
If Perez hadn't been moved to 3B, they wouldn't have played Lee May at 1B.
If Lee May never played 1B, the Astros never would have been interested in him.
If the Astros weren't interested in May, they never would have traded Joe Morgan for him.
If the Astros never traded Joe Morgan to us, we would not have won multiple championships.
Therefore, by the transitive property, trading Frank Robinson led to multiple championships. I don't think anyone can argue the fact that the Frank Robinson trade built the foundation for the Big Red Machine, and was clearly and unequivocally good for the organization. The stat heads living in their mom's basement might create some crazy number with a foregin sounding acronym to tell you I'm wrong, but I go by what I see.
</sarcasm>
by BLee2525 on May 5, 2007 10:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Similarly
At the hospital, I met a cute female doctor who felt sorry for me and agreed to go out on a date. We fell in love, got married and had 12 kids, three of whom went on to be President of the United States, causing the longest peaceful period in American history.
Obviously I was planning on changing the world when I stapled my scrotum. I am a brilliant man.
(NOTE: none of this really happened, but it's fun to play with cause and effect, isn't it?)
2007 Reds Threat Level is Blue
by Slyde on May 5, 2007 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of it?
by sidnancy on May 7, 2007 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, but I didn't cry
2007 Reds Threat Level is Blue
by Slyde on May 7, 2007 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Any Mets' Fans?
If Kazmir was pitching for the Mets, they would have started the season with Kazmir, Glavine, Hernandez, Perez and Pelfrey in the rotation.
With that starting 5, John Maine would be pitching in the bullpen.
With John Maine pitching in the bullpen, the Mets would not be leading the majors in ERA.
Therefore, the Kazmir trade has led directly to the Mets having the best pitching staff in baseaball. Clearly, the Kazmir for Zambrano trade was good for the Mets' organization. Again, I'm sure the nerds with their calculators will tell you I'm wrong, but the proof is in the pudding.
by BLee2525 on May 5, 2007 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in agreement
http://baseballhappenings.com/2007/05/05/krivsky-says-id-rather-have-josh-hamilton/
by David Bloom on May 6, 2007 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He calls out Austin Kearns for being injury prone
by MM60 on May 5, 2007 10:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Lonnie
However, on this subject, he's pretty off-base.
by bobestes on May 5, 2007 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not mad that he traded Kearns and Lopez....
He traded a milk cow for some magic beans but the beans were not magic.
Wheeler is just saying look how much money were saving on hay. That does't remove him from blame for getting nothing for the cow.
by nlt-andrew68 on May 5, 2007 1:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The trade is over...It happened...
by chandrathan on May 5, 2007 1:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I will move on
by BLee2525 on May 5, 2007 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes they need to move on too...
by chandrathan on May 5, 2007 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
but this year krivsky has made some silly moves. acquiring hamilton, burton, saarloos, etc... what's with all these young guys? they could take years before they develop into solid veterans. htat's something the organization doesnt have time for. at least he got mike stanton and jeff conine, who are probably the two best and most important players on the team. Still don't know why a guy like chad moeller was cut... you see how well that turned out.
(wow, it's easier than i thought to make non-supported claims.)
by boobs on May 5, 2007 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The best part....
by BLee2525 on May 5, 2007 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why I no longer watch the Reds every night
I've followed the Reds very closely since 1985. Three years ago I moved to Kansas and bought the MLB.com package to watch my beloved Reds while I was in exile. I probably watched 80 to 100 games last year. The Royals are the local team, and they are harmless, so I grew to follow them as well. At this time last year I would have never chosen to watch a Royals game when a Reds game was on as well. Then the trade hit.
No joke, it knocked me into a funk for a week. I was so optimistic about the year, and so hopeful, and as soon as I read about the trade I knew that stupid jackass Krivsky had stolen a gift season away from me and all Reds fans.
I would have gotten over the trade, found my way back to fully supporting the team, if only Krivsky had acknowledged that he was in fact, a stupid asshole and, maybe, filed that grievance against Bowden. Instead Krivsky has never owned up to his error, he has not adjusted his behavior, he has continued to make the same stupid ass mistakes, and somehow, the biggest shock to me, he has found a group of vocal apologist to back him up.
The changing rational for why the trade was made. The suddenly discovered unfixable flaws in Kearns, Lopez and Wagner. The excuses of bad luck or dishonesty. Months of this horseshit just ate away at me. When April arrived this year I found myself choosing to watch Royals games rather than Reds games. Today, I still consider myself a Reds fan, but I've moved on. The Royals are a horrible team, but they are taking rational steps to get better. No one, no one, defends clear mistakes made by management here in KC. Reality trumps backroom loyalty. There is something pretty weird going on in the Reds organization, like a bunch of failed politicos circling their wagons to deny accountability. Competence is not rewarded in the Reds organization now, "right way" play as defined by a suit who never played the game and ass kissing rule the organization lately.
I know it seems silly, but hand to the heart, I am so mad at Krivsky and his jackass entourage of tool writers and spin doctor supporters that I just can't enjoy following the Reds as much any more. Every time he releases a quote I immediately start to deconstruct it to sort out the bullshit from the real information. I can't stand Narron and his fossilized brain. I think the organization treats players and fans poorly. My heart is still with the franchise, but I just can't invest myself in the organization at this time.
Like I wrote earlier, I know this all seems silly and melodramatic, but it is an honest account of how one Reds fan moved on. Maybe all this is a bit over the top, but I wanted to get this off my chest.
by James Quinn on May 6, 2007 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if Krivsky gets us to the playoffs........
Until then Krivsky is to blame for the Bullpen woes. This trade was made to improve the bullpen.
It did not. So as long as the bullpen sucks I will continue to rightly criticize Krivsky for his ineptitude. The trade being primary evidence.
By the way, anyone else notice Brendan Harris is still tearing it up over at Tampa Bay ??
What did we get for him ? oh thats right..NOTHING
by nlt-andrew68 on May 5, 2007 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Krivsky = Dunn
Brandon Phillips, David Ross, Bronson Arroyo, Josh Hamilton, Scott Hatteberg, Alex Gonzalez, and (to some extent) Jeff Conine are his homeruns.
by chandrathan on May 5, 2007 2:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ooh, ooh
I know what you mean though, but I see it this way. The frustration level with this team has been pretty high over the last 6 years. I see the occasional trade rant or dunn battle as people just letting out a little steam to keep from boiling over with hate. We all want the same thing, and it gives me solace to know that 2008 is the year we will get it. I have had a vision. It will come true.
2007 Reds Threat Level is Blue
by Slyde on May 5, 2007 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even Krivsky
The words from Krivsky's own mouth said it was for 2006 and that he overpaid. Don't preach to bloggers about how "wrong" we are.
We've even discussed this very recently...that not trading Kearns and Lopez does not mean that the Reds could not have acquired Hamilton (is that enough negatives in one sentence?) Here's another one...if Krivsky traded Arroyo for Scott Proctor, then promoted Homer Bailey to take Arroyo's rotation slot, would that make the trade OK because the move allowed Bailey to get to the big leagues? No, of course not. Trades and transactions have to be examined on their individual merits.
The other reason we keep bringing it up is because there have been several moves made in addition to this one and the bullpen still stinks and several of us are concerned whether this will be a consistent pattern (of poor bullpen analysis) throughout Krivsky's tenure or whether he's had a string of bad luck. However, even without looking at deals that other clubs made, Krivsky has shown that it costs less than Kearns and Lopez to acquire relief help (for example, minor leaguers Chick, Germano, and Shafer for Guardado, Cormier in a good year, and Saarloos.)
by rojosoto on May 5, 2007 2:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
From now on...
Krivsky did a great job in fleecing the Red Sox. He got Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo Pena.
by chandrathan on May 5, 2007 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
O'Brien should get some credit
by HokieRed on May 7, 2007 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also of note
I think we all agree the Reds got the better of that deal, but if the deal had been Dunn for Arroyo, I am not at all sure I would have called it a Reds win.
The Reds came out on top as much through Boston's poor decision making as through Krivsky's dealing.
by James Quinn on May 7, 2007 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this true?
Who broached the trade or what was offered isn't important to me. The result was Arroyo for Pena, and that can be judged on its own merits.
by ken on May 7, 2007 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what was offered is important
by rojosoto on May 7, 2007 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
by Paul Householder on May 7, 2007 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we don't know what was offered
by ken on May 7, 2007 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
offers
If Krivsky does disclose information about a particular offer that was not accepted, then that is important information about his player valuation.
by rojosoto on May 7, 2007 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hal McCoy of the DDN broke this news
"Wayne came to me in the spring and said he could get (pitcher) Bronson Arroyo for an outfielder -- Wily Mo Pena, Adam Dunn or Austin Kearns," said Barton. "Turns out Boston wanted Wily Mo, and that was fine because we had an extra outfielder."
But when Krivsky said he was trading another outfielder, Kearns, and a 25-year-old All-Star shortstop (Lopez) for an old shortstop (Clayton) and a couple of pitchers, "I told him I didn't like the deal and asked who was going to play shortstop next year, and he told me, 'I'm not worried about next year.' ""
Here is the full link:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/reds/2006/12/04/ddn120506reds.html
by James Quinn on May 7, 2007 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure it means exactly what you think
2007 Reds Threat Level is Blue
by Slyde on May 8, 2007 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh
Or maybe Lonnie is trying to take over as White House press secretary if Tony Snow has to leave again for health reasons.
by sweaver on May 5, 2007 3:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Newbie here
Anyway, what prompted me to write this is that I too wrote Lonnie Wheeler and got a nice reply back. I beleiev his main point is that Krivsky has improved the roster dramatically when taken as an entire body of work. And from a broader perspective or context, even the trade wasn't the unmitigated disaster that many say it was.
You can argue this point all you want, but for my money I would rather have AGonz and Hamilton than Lopez and Dunn. And the other moves have been very good at improving the roster. Some have not, but taken as a whole, the team is better.
I can't disagree with much of that.
by PeteRose00 on May 5, 2007 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
welcome
by boobs on May 5, 2007 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
I was posting over at Redszone regarding dealing Dunn -- so I guess I had dealing Dunn on the brain.
by PeteRose00 on May 5, 2007 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome.....I think
by BLee2525 on May 5, 2007 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks.....I think
by PeteRose00 on May 5, 2007 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's your screen name
by Paul Householder on May 5, 2007 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Starts with an 'N' and ends with a 'G'
2007 Reds Threat Level is Blue
by Slyde on May 5, 2007 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure it doesn't start with a D and end with a B?
by rojosoto on May 5, 2007 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
by Paul Householder on May 7, 2007 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome
Unfortunately, Wheeler has attempted to spin some sort of conditional dependency angle that Gonzalez and Hamilton are results of the Kearns/Lopez deal rather than to acknowledge that the Gonzalez/Hamilton signings are, in fact, completely independent of a trade from last July. In fact, there was no way Krivsky could have known that either Gonzalez or Hamilton would be available at the time of that trade.
Take a look at it in a different context- Say I go to work on Monday and make a bad decision that costs my company $5,000. Regardless of whether or not I can eventually replace that money, I still made a bad decision. And the Kearns/Lopez trade wasn't some good decision gone wrong. It was a bad decision gone worse. No business- but particularly small-market franchises- can be that wasteful in the hope they'll eventually make up for it. At best, that ends up as wheel-spinning and- at worst- it ends in a diminishing returns scenario.
In short, Wheeler is excusing an awful deal because Krivsky has been able to find what Wheeler considers to be suitible replacements for Kearns and Lopez positional and/or salary slots. But that's no justification for a bad return on the initial deal because the bad return didn't have to happen in the first place.
Wheeler arrives at his conclusion because of his reliance on the concept that it didn't matter what the return was for Kearns and Lopez. The huge gap in his logic is that had Kearns and Lopez gone for an equitable return, the Reds would be just that much better off. That's the difference between the team actually being a contender versus them just talking about being a contender.
by Reds123 on May 5, 2007 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wheeler
Maybe Lonnie will start posting here. I sent him the link so he could read the feedback to his column.
I believe that Wheeler is commenting on Krivsky's broader ability to rebuild what he inherited (basically from Bowden and to a lesser degree from O'Brien). So he's making a statement about the composition of this roster; seeing this trade from a much broader perspective.
Of course he didn't know that AGonz or Hamilton would be available when he traded Kearns and Lopez. But he believed in himself and his ability to build this club in the image he wants. The trade of Lopez and kearns did allow him to begin to work on that.
Said another way, Krivsky and Wheeler (and me) are all saying this trade should not be seen in a vacuum, but in a much broader context. When he acquired Phillips, Hamilton, Ross and Lohse they seemed insignificant deals but Wayne had a plan and was pursuing it.
He also had very little roster flexibility and that cannot be overlooked. If (at the time) you have Dunn set in left, Junior in center, Hatteberg, Aurilia, Encarnacion and Ross all essentially locks to play, then someone has to go. That leaves your options limited, if your goal is to improve the bullpen and the defense.
It can be argued that it didn't work as well as it could, but I believe that even when that occurs, Krivsky has a good track record already of fixing things when he made a mistake. The ultimate judge are the results on the field and I thnk we have to give this a bit more time before we can assess that.
It can also be argued that Krivsky could've gotten more than he did for these two players. I hear that often, but I never ever hear who would have been better alternatives who later moved from one club to another. I also sincerely believe that we (as Reds fans) have a higher opinion of our players than might be reality around the rest of the baseball universe.
For my money (and it isn't my money), I like this club better with AGonz and Hamilton than Lopez and Kearns. I like it better offensively, defensively and economically. And Krivsky deserves the credit (and the blame) for the composition of the roster.
by PeteRose00 on May 5, 2007 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry
I'm sorry, but Lonnie Wheeler is not putting seeing the trade in a "broader perspective". He's spin-doctoring. He's trying to get people to believe that unrelated acquisitions are somehow tied to something because it's the only thing he can do to defend a trade doomed to fail from its conception.
It can be argued that it didn't work as well as it could, but I believe that even when that occurs, Krivsky has a good track record already of fixing things when he made a mistake.
I'd rather see a GM who doesn't make debilitating mistakes to begin with rather than one who's lauded for fixing what he's responsible for breaking. I'm probably not alone in that preference.
It can also be argued that Krivsky could've gotten more than he did for these two players. I hear that often, but I never ever hear who would have been better alternatives who later moved from one club to another.
Well, that's a red herring. First, you're assuming that only players who eventually switched teams could possibly have been acquired. But we already know that plenty of players who become available are never moved. Secondly, even a sole example of an equitable or better player (see: McDougal, Mike) acquired for far less than a Kearns or Lopez pretty much renders the "Nothing better was available for the asking price." argument moot.
I also sincerely believe that we (as Reds fans) have a higher opinion of our players than might be reality around the rest of the baseball universe.
In 2006, only 42 National League players produced 90 or more Runs Created. Kearns and Lopez were two of them. If anything at all was overrated in that trade it was the actual Run value of Bray and Majewski versus viable alternatives. The trade was designed to hurt the Reds' Run Differential even if both pitchers had been completely healthy in both the short and long term. Whether or not Krivsky could recoup the Run Diff value loss eventually is immaterial as that cannot be part and parcel of a deal made when the options cited (Gonzalez, Hamilton) weren't available for their respective eventual costs.
For my money (and it isn't my money), I like this club better with AGonz and Hamilton than Lopez and Kearns.
And I'd like it better with Gonzalez, Hamilton, and a much better return than the Reds received for Kearns and Lopez. The part following the bolded "and" is what makes the trade a dismal failure.
I like it better offensively, defensively and economically.
Yeah, except the Reds are worse offensively, only marginally better defensively, are no better economically, and their bullpen still stinks.
He (Wheeler) isn't alone in his assessment Over at Redszone...
I've read that thread. The most astute posters on that site are united in their take on the trade. There's no sudden groundswell of support for the trade other than your usual group of apologists who tend to think that a hampster running his wheel is actually getting somewhere.
by Reds123 on May 5, 2007 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His main point
by rojosoto on May 5, 2007 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone else see on Lance's Blog...
If that had happened, I think Krivsky would have been killed.
by chandrathan on May 5, 2007 4:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Bailey for Cordero, straight up?
by Ash on May 5, 2007 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Inapt Syllogism
by sweaver on May 5, 2007 5:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Trades are not made in a vacuum
See the bigger picture, guys, that's all Lonnie Wheeler is asking you to do. He isn't alone in his assessment Over at Redszone, where I post far more frequently, there was this link to an article very similar to the one Wheeler wrote:
by PeteRose00 on May 5, 2007 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As big as my picture goes
You can't lump the Hamilton move (which I thought was inspired) in as part of The Trade because there is absolutely no way that Krivsky knew that Hamilton would be left off Tampa's 40-man roster. No way.
I agree that, in aggregate, Krivsky has done more good that bad. But, as I posted below with the Frank Robinson analogy, you can't simply look at point A, look at point B, and conclude that every move in between was a good one. You can take 3 steps forward, 1 step back and you're ahead of where you started. Doesn't mean the step back helped you get there. If you get a decent return for Kearns and Lopez (I'm not asking for a steal, just a decent return), this organization is in A LOT better shape. As currently constituted, this team has holes. The Trade created more holes, and didn't fill a one.
by BLee2525 on May 5, 2007 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By Wheeler's logic...
by Paul Householder on May 5, 2007 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except the bullpen
by rojosoto on May 5, 2007 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you know?
He's batting .266-0-3 this season....with a .328 obp and .323 slugging
He has 2 hr's in 398 ab's since joining the Nationals
by chandrathan on May 6, 2007 11:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What's your point?
He was worth dumping with Kearns for a A-ball pitcher with an injury history and maybe some bullpen help sometime in the next 3 months?
by rojosoto on May 6, 2007 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope...
by chandrathan on May 6, 2007 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
2007 Reds Threat Level is Blue
by Slyde on May 6, 2007 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did Lance have a point?
by rojosoto on May 6, 2007 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
