Red Reporter: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jeff Sullivan's MLB Trade Deadline Primer

Thoughts on the Felipe / Austin trade

So I held off on weighing in on this one, because I wanted to think about it. I think I rush into judgement way too often when it comes to trades, so I figured giving myself a day would be a good idea.

Especially since this one hurt quite a bit. I've always been a big Austin Kearns fan. When the team sent him down last year I was pissed, and I still think it was idiotic. He was the only outfielder we had who could play defense solidly, and he was a solid hitter. I'm going to miss him.

And I'm also going to miss Felipe. I had this stupid hope that Felipe would be the shortstop for the next fifteen years, because that's the way things are supposed to be for the Reds. We're not meant to have rejects like Royce Clayton manning the position that Dave Concepcion and Barry Larkin played. Wayne Krivsky has put an end to the era of great Cincinnati Reds shortstops, and he's done so as emphatically as possible. I have a sickening feeling that shortstop is about to become a revolving door. There certainly isn't anyone in the system, and the team seems weirdly opposed to putting Phillips there.

So I've thought about it, and I can honestly say that this is the worst trade the Reds have made in my lifetime.

Now, you might think I'm being a bit over the top, but seriously, what else comes close? Paul O'Neill for Roberto Kelly? Kelly was a pretty fine player when he came over, and he had a couple of decent seasons for the Reds, so yeah, I think this is it.

Here's the thing. Reds fans have certain blind spots. Everyone says that a team's fans overvalue it's players, and I agree to an extent, but I also think a team's fans undervalue what the team has in abundance, and overvalue what it lacks. We all are massively overvaluing relief pitching.

Relief pitching shouldn't cost what the Reds gave up today. Wayne Krivsky even agrees, he said as much in his press conference. Relief pitching is the cheapest asset in the game, and WayneK just gave up a massive amount to get some.

He just made the biggest mistake a GM can make. He saw a need, and decided that he was going to fill it, come hell or high water. It's kind of thinking that led to most of what Dan O'Brien did wrong.

We're going to feel sick in two weeks when we see middle relievers getting traded for far less than an Austin Kearns or a Felipe Lopez.

And let's make this clear, I'm not against dealing these two players. I loved watching them play, but I've always known they were two of our bigger chips. I'm against dealing them for a couple of middle relievers and Royce Clayton.

Royce Clayton people. Jesus.

With all that being said, this deal might make the Reds contenders for the rest of the year, but the cost was ridiculously high, too high. It's looking like the Reds are going to become the Minnesota Twins of the National League, all pitching and defense, and it makes me sick. I have little faith in Wayne Krivsky after Joe Mays and now this.

I'm sorry, but he only gets a free pass for Arroyo, Phillips, and Ross for so long. Those were all great moves, but he pretty much wiped them out yesterday.

0 recs  |  Comment 132 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I'm going to respectfully disagree
"Here's the thing. Reds fans have certain blind spots. Everyone says that a team's fans overvalue it's players, and I agree to an extent, but I also think a team's fans undervalue what the team has in abundance, and overvalue what it lacks. We all are massively overvaluing relief pitching."

How are we massively overvaluing relief pitching? This teams bullpen has probably cost out somewhere around 10 games, and it was only getting worse. In the beginning of the year Coffey and Weathers were getting people out, in the middle Coffey and Hammond where doing a decent job, but for about the lst month there was not 1 pitcher who you could count on to get people out. It was amazingly bad.

Kearns was a power hitting outfielder who Ks alot. We have 2 of those. Deno and Freel will bring a contact/speed game which is something we need. He is a player who in his 5 years has never played over 112 games, and at this point in his career has been a bust.

I loved (in a normal way) Felipe. He and Edwin were/are my favorite players. However he is the worst defense SS in baseball and has a pedestrian OPS. Before last year he had never hit over .260, and he is going back down to career norms this year.

We are one of the best offensive teams in baseball and one of the worst bullpen/defensive teams in baseball. Wayne traded a strength for a need. To get good pitching (especially relief) you are going to have to give up better hitters. Pitchers have so much more value then pitchers do.

Look at the guys we acquired. Bray is a 23 year old rookie who was pitching damn well for the Natties. This kid could be a staple in our bullpen. Majewski is a guy with a rubber arm he has a solid ERA this year, and a good one for his career. He also is 26 years old. Combine the both and if you can get just 6 innings out of your starters (we have been getting more from Arroyo and Harang) and you have a lead, you have a very good chance at winning.

Just look at tonight. Up 9-3 going to the 9th,and Eddy has to come in to get a save. That should never happen. We did our best job after having a 9-0 lead in Atlanta trying to blow that. Go back to Detroit where Weathers blew the save, and Pujols walk off in May. You can raddle of a countless amount of games that the bullpen has blown.

You are focusing way to much on Royce Clayton in this deal. Royce was probably the least important player on this deal. Listen there was no way we were going to contend with Lopez/EE/Dunn playing on the left side. With Clayton/Castro you can hide some of Edwin's growing pains on the defensive side of the ball (i think he will develop into a good defensive player) with good defensive SS. It almost came down to having to deal Lopez or Edwin. Edwin is already a better hitter then Felipe, and is going to develop into a better fielder. Wayne made the right move on who he traded.

And that doesn't even mention Thompson and Harris who are 2 of their better prospects.

We probably gave up more "talent", but who knows if AK and FeLo will ever live up to it. We filled 2 glaring needs, and I honestly think we a better team then we were 24 hours ago.

Impossible Is Nothing

by The Lizard on Jul 14, 2006 3:08 AM EDT reply actions  

the guys we traded
I think Kearns is at his ceiling right now, and its a pretty good one, and Lopez is just a little worse now than he will be for the rest of his career.

And I'll disagree with you about Clayton.  He doesn't really improve the defense much, if at all.

by Blue on Jul 14, 2006 3:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Playing 8 in the field is an improvement
... over Lopez at short.  Clayton is definitely a defensive upgrade.

(OK.. so I resorted to excessive hyperbole)

by TheC on Jul 14, 2006 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well
Writing that many words and not mentioning Thompson shows either you didnt take time to look at the trade or you don't know that he a legit pitching prospect.  He alone doubles the number of Reds starting pitching prospects.

As I wrote elsewhere:

Thompson is the whole point to this trade.  He immediately doubles the number of Reds starting pitching prospects.  He turned 20 in November
and is one of the Reds hardest throwers right now.  Best pitch is a Fastball: 91-94 with good Changeup.  Also has a 12 to 5 curve. Developing other pitches.

Still filling out and growing physically.  Baseball America has Thompson as the 9th best prospect overall in the Nats system.

Bill Bray is ranked by B.A. as the orgs 7th best overall prospect.  He was in line to become the set up man for Cordero and scouts compare him
to David Riske. Nothing in his past says he wont be an elite reliever.

Kearns was my favorite Red but, hes not all that rare of a talent. Lopez is nice but only if he hits for a bunch of power.  He's not going
to be the kind of SS that carries a team and he doesn't hit well enough to play anywhere else.  He is a negative 11 on defense and has been in
the negative his whole career.  If he would've shown a slight increase in his power numbers or even kept his SLG up in the 470 range this
season I would say your argument would have merit.

If the two relievers the Reds got continue to pitch they way they have for a couple of years the Reds come out ahead on this deal.

But I think the problem with this trade for most people and especially Reds fans, is the "Pokey" factor.  Everybody knew who Pokey Reese was because his name was Pokey and people on TV and ESPN types love names like Pokey.  Because of the Pokey factor he was way overvalued while Mike Cameron was way undervalued. Jim Bowden liked Pokey's name better.  Jim Bowden loves names.  Recognizable names.  He always has and always will. You can see him coming a mile away.  Prop up an over the hill former star and Bowden will kill himself to get to him.  He has done it time after time.  Sometimes he came out alright but never in the long run. I think sometimes he does what he does because he has a lot invested in former stars baseball cards and he wants to try to revive their career so he can sell his cards.  He's Cashman Lite.

Kearns and Lopez are not in this former stars categorey but they are two of the most well known Reds on a team short with well knowns and
they are both Bowden's players.

Before I'll believe Jim Bowden got one over on the Reds, I'll stick with the guy who was there when the Twins traded AJ Piesenski?  for Joe Nathan, Boof Bonser, and another unknown pitching prospect :Francisco Loriano

This outcry is even more rediculous than the Aaron Boone boo hoos

by topsixrows on Jul 14, 2006 6:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Ignorant fanboyism
There is some hilarious stuff in that comment.

"Kearns isn't that rare a talent."

Well let's compare him to the guys you got in return.  You said that  Thompson is the key to the deal.  You say he's the ninth best prospect in the Nationals system like that's a compliment.  That probably makes him the 500th best prospect in baseball.  I would say that that is the definition of not that rare of talent.

Or lets compare Kearns to the other guys.  First he's your best player which makes him pretty rare on your own team.  Second, there are only three rightfielders better than him in the NL and that's counting Berkman in the outfield (add Abreu and Drew).  Now how many middle relievers do you think are better than Majewski and Bray.  I tell you that list is a hell of a lot longer than three.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

Very Well Said...
I could not agree more... let me give a list of Reds outfielders the Reds have traded in the 2000's and have still maintained the "One of the best outfields in baseball" label.

Michael Tucker
Alex Ochoa
Dante Bichette
Jeffrey Hammonds (November of 1999)
Juan Encarnacion
Jose Guillen
Wily Mo Pena
Mike Cameron

We'll survive without Kearns, just as we have before.  Denorfia will proove his worth, not to mention we've spent our last two #1 overall draft picks on outfielders.

As for Lopez, the errors are one thing... but the number of balls he couldn't even get a glove on was absurb.  I liked FeLo, but he was a liability at a very key defensive spot.  Phillips will be the long term answer at short

by indy on Jul 14, 2006 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Thompson is a C+ prospect
He's a live arm.  He's TRAVIS CHICK, which is who we just traded for Guardado.  He's not "the key to this trade."  If he was, Krivsky's dumber than I thought (trading Kearns and Lopez to get a low-A pitcher).

by cggarb on Jul 14, 2006 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree
I'm really going to miss Kearns alot more than Lopez but I think this trade is good for the Reds.  Pitching and defense will win games and both problems were addressed in this deal.  Lets give these guys a chance before this trade is condemned.
O & A PARTY ROCK!!!

by Fadetoblack2880 on Jul 14, 2006 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Lopez
Do you think other GMs placed any kind of value on him?  Maybe in the offseason, but I can't see him having much value at this point.  And unless he put up numbers like he did last year, he doesn't belong in the Dave Concepcion/Barry Larkin conversation.

Also, I'm not getting worked up over this.  It would be silly for me to act like Krivsky could have gotten more, but elected not to.

Yes, Royce Clayton sucks.  Hopefully, as with Womack, we won't have to put up with him for very long.

I don't buy the line about Krivsky turning us into the Twins.  He signed Dunn to a 2 year deal with an option for a 3rd that only the Reds can pick up.

And can we stop calling these guys middle relievers?  Majewski can pitch the 8th inning, and Bray might be our closer in a couple years.  Our bullpen should be a strength now.  We control these guys for a long time.  You won't see guys like this traded for less than what we gave up.

by Blue on Jul 14, 2006 3:20 AM EDT reply actions  

Twins?
what is wrong with being the Twins.  3 straigt Division titles.  Recent world series appearances. All without wasting a bunch of money and with a horrible ballpark.

 They out drew the Yankees attendance for most of the 1990's.  The twins  also have an enviable minors organization.

by topsixrows on Jul 14, 2006 6:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

davey/barry/felipe
I have not looked up the numbers and done the comparison but I bet Felipe has better numbers after two full seasons. And I think his defense wouldn't be that far off either. The only question I had with Lopez was whether or not he was willing to put in the effort to keep improving each and every year like Davey and Barry did.

I agree with JD in that the Reds gave up way too much for middle relief. As painful as it is to say I think Washington got the better of the deal. And , in my mind, Clayton is no better than the third option (at best)to play shortstop for the Reds. Give me Phillips, Castro, Aurilia (not necessarily in that order) on an everyday basis any day.

Last night I said my first reaction was I didn't like it. After sleeping on it I still don't like it.

"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Jul 14, 2006 6:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Amen to JD
People are acting like adding these two guys is going to fix our bullpen. It's not. First of all, neither Majewski nor Bray is anywhere near an elite reliever, which is what the Reds really need. They need a stud to put in a tight situation. I don't even see how this improves the teams chances at making the playoffs for this season. Lopez to Clayton loses a win over the rest of the year. Kearns to Denorfia will probably do the same. You can't honestly expect a rookie and a guy with average stuff and poor control to come in and add 6 or 7 wins on the players we had before, since that's what it'll take to make the playoffs.

On another note, I'm tired of people giving Krivsky a free pass on every bad move he makes. Arroyo has worked for half a season thus far, but I will be absolutely shocked if he puts up numbers even close to what he did in the first half for the rest of the year. Ross has been riding a 100-AB hot streak, and while I don't think he'll be a bad player, I do think he'll be a .250 hitter. Phillips is the move I like the most and the one I think will pay off both now and in the long run. Meanwhile, he's had some definite screw-ups. Mays, McCracken, and, above all, this one. This is a move that could very, very easily go down as worse than Zambrano for Kazmir, worse than Slocumb for Varitek and Lowe, worse than Pierzynski for Nathan, Liriano, and Bonser. I'd expect Bray and Majewski for just Kearns if we wanted an even trade. You think the Cubs wouldn't give up some nice players for Kearns? I bet they could do better than Bray and Majewski. How about the good 'ole Twins? I bet they'd give Juan Rincon and more for Lopez. This was an impatient, impulsive, and just straight bad trade, and Krivsky's gonna have to do a lot of work before I regard him as any better than O'Brien and Bowden.

by Geki on Jul 14, 2006 4:08 AM EDT reply actions  

April Fools Come July?
When I first saw mention of this trade on Baseballdigestdaily, I thought it was a joke. Like The David Wright for  BJ Upton one a few years ago. How can you trade a young player like Lopez unless there is a stud replacement on the way.  Similarly, giving up Kearns who is one of the better young up and coming players... This trade makes no sense. Clayton has no value. This trade will be a black eye for a while unless Kearns and Lopez begin to suck which is not likely.

by David Bloom on Jul 14, 2006 6:46 AM EDT reply actions  

Lopez
he has sucked already this year.  If he goes back to hitting like he did last year, yes, this will be a terrible trade.

by Blue on Jul 14, 2006 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Give it a chance!!!!!
  For over two months, all I've read on the blogs is how bad the Reds relief corps is.  Weathers needs to go!  Standridge Sucks! Mercker is horrible!  Yan Yawns!!!   We've all been bitching about Krivsky needs to do something!!!
   All Right!! He Did It!!  The man is not stupid.  He's been working on something for weeks to strengthen the bull pen.  He probably felt this was the best deal he could get!!  
   Let's see what happens!!!   We'll have plenty of time to flame Krivsky if it doesn't work out!!
"Och Lad, makes me wanna hae a wee dram to ease me pain".

by Scotsman on Jul 14, 2006 8:09 AM EDT reply actions  

Trade
I'm with you JD.  This trade Blows, with a capital B.  What a joke.

Kearns is still young and he was finally coming into his own.  Felipe Lopez is a potential stud at first base.

I said this over at my blog, but if Jim Bowden would have made deals like this for us, he'd still have a job.

Blade
http://www.redscuttingedge.com

by Blade on Jul 14, 2006 9:06 AM EDT reply actions  

Money & The Future
Krivsky said this trade was not about the future, but I believe it was.  Lopez and Kearns are going to command a bunch of money in arbitration.  They are both putting up numbers to support big dollars.  I do not think Kearns or Lopez fit in with Narron's personality or style.  I think Narron and Krivsky want to build a team comprised of "their" players.  This move will free up a great deal of future dollars.  The Reds are never going to spend like the Yankees, Sox (either one), or even the Cards.  We got some good arms and a cheap, fundamentally sound SS.  Don't forget Brendan Harris.  Scout must feel he can play 2B in the majors.  Maybe BP moves to SS next year and Harris ends up at 2B.  Give this trade some time to evolve.  I'm sure people hated it when we traded Reds HOF inductee Lee May in '72 and that worked out well.

by neckbeard on Jul 14, 2006 9:20 AM EDT reply actions  

redundant
Ill give it some time, but AK and FeLo have been in MLB for 3-4 yrs each and they're only 25 and 26 yrs old.  Both can, and will, develop further.  

I don't remember getting a huge bounty when the Reds unloaded Sullivan and Williamson a couple years back.  A 25 year old all-star SS on pace for 45 steals or a 26 year old corner OF with 30/100, quasi Gold Glove potential?  

I expected way more for these two chips.  I wonder what the Yanks would have offered, if only they had more organizational prospects, for Felo and AK.

Royce is inconsequential, as is Harris.  This is AK/FeLo for Bray/Majewski/Thomspon.

I'll be watching Thompson closely.  I sure hope he develops into more than Scott Scudder/Jay Tibbs.  He needs to be Brett Tomko/Bill Gullickson/True Creature-ish to break even, IMO.

by ohiobobcat on Jul 14, 2006 9:29 AM EDT reply actions  

Kearns
Maybe he's on pace.... but I'll believe Kearns has 30/100 potential the first time he actually has a 30/100 year.  Everyone's been saying that for years now.  We'll see....

by mattg on Jul 14, 2006 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Doggie trade, Marty on WLW this morning
First of all JD, love this website.  Thanks so much for giving us Reds fans a place to talk and keep up on things.  I appreciate your efforts.  
Showing my age a little bit, but I got up this morning thinking about 1977 when we moved Doggie and McEnaney for Woody Fryman and Dale Murray.  I was only ten at the time but I was heart broken.  'Course that was all about getting Driessen a place to play along with Dick Wagner's incompetence.  

I don't think Reds fans are as attached to Felipe and Austin as they were to Doggie.  I also know these relievers are much younger and more talented than Fryman and Murray.  I remember seeing Fryman on the mound thinking he was a grandpa and wondering why in the world didn't we want Tony around.  Still boggles my mind to this day....
Although they sounded like great team mates and good guys, I don't believe Austin and Felipe have that same stature as Reds players.  

In my heart I believe in Krivsky's plan.  It might be difficult at times and lord knows us Reds fans have been through some difficult times and are ready for a quick fix/turnaround, but again, "whats wrong with the Twins approach"?  The Bowden "name guy" style didn't work and Obrien was in over his head.  Did Krivsky take a risk?  You bet.  But we do have some other outfielders, and if we're all being honest, Felipe was never really a true all-star....and no where near in the class with Barry and Davey.

Just heard Marty talking to Jim Scott.  Said he liked the trade and that he never saw Felipe as a "winning" shortstop.  I talked last night to my high school buddy Kevin Goldstein from Baseball Prospectus.  He was just blasting the trade, along with veteran writers he was getting emails from.  The basis of their negativity was trading two everyday players for guys pitching 2-4 days a week.  'Course, Kevin has always been about #'s, even in middle school tracking Carew when he was with the Angels.  And I reminded him that Lopez cannot consistently pick up the ball and that Austin, until this year, hasn't been able to stay healthy.  Not a good sign for a couple of 26 year old ballplayers. Then again, maybe now is the time for Austin to get on a healthy roll.  If so, good for him.  

I like what topsixrows had to say.  Bowden was always into the name guys and Austin and Felipe are definitely recognizeable players and they did have substance.  However, we needed arms.  Heck, maybe with a little positive energy from us fans, these guys along with Coffey and everday Eddie can make up a new form of the Nasty Boys?  Wouldn't that be something..to get to the 7th and know we got it in the bag.  How comforting is that?

by Davey for Hall of Fame on Jul 14, 2006 9:50 AM EDT reply actions  

Good points
This is clearly a terrible trade in Fantasy Baseball.  But real baseball is about more than numbers.  I think Lopez was a liability and I was hoping they would trade him.  I just figured no one else would ever want him.  A shortstop that doesn't play very good defense is a huge liability unless he consistently hits .300+ with 25-30 home runs.  That ain't Lopez.

Kearns is tougher to swallow, but again, this was the risk.  Will Kearns take his game to the next level or is he as good as it gets now?  That one we'll wait and see....

I like the trade today.

by TheC on Jul 14, 2006 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Buy stock in crow
It's going to be needed in large quantities in a few weeks...
This is my corn. You people are guests in my corn.

by Daedalus on Jul 14, 2006 10:07 AM EDT reply actions  

I would gladly...
Eat a heaping helping if it meant the team were better in a long-term sense from this.

Right now, I guess I can't see it.

Don't mind me...just pitching to contact, that's all...

by Paul Householder on Jul 14, 2006 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

Silver lining
I hate this trade...

Unless one of the prospects the Reds got back turns out to be a solid #2 or #3 starter or Kearns injures himself again, this trade blows chunks.

I do like the attitude, however.

You can summarize the trade as follows: "Management overpaid for marginal players so as to be able to win now."

I don't like the first part of that (overpaying for marginal players), but I do like the second part of the statement (win now), simply because it includes the word "win."  Win, as opposed to "rebuild" or "retool" or "restructure" (or any other words you are more used to hearing from management of a company that is about to go bankrupt, rather than a sports team).  I am tired of rebuilding, retooling and restructuring.

You get the feeling that while it's painful to see guys like Kearns and Lopez go, Krivsky and Castellini will go out and fill the holes in free agency or trades if need be, because they actually want to "win."  Not every move is going to pan out.  This one probably is going to be one the Reds regret for a long time.  Nevertheless, these guys clearly want to win, which is a lot more than I can say for management since 1999 or even prior to that, going back to 1995-1996.

Don't mind me...just pitching to contact, that's all...

by Paul Householder on Jul 14, 2006 10:10 AM EDT reply actions  

how about pay too much in order to make your
. . . team worse today, tomorrow and for the foreseable future.

Before this trade this team had a chance.  They were solidly average and with a few good moves and a little luck they had a chance to compete this year and the next couple of years.  

That chance is now gone.  The only way this works out is if Bray turns into a lights out closer who can then be traded for someone good to play in the outfield becaus you just traded your best player.  If that happens you'll be right back where you start except you will have wasted two years getting there.  

Now the Reds do play in the same division as the Cubs and the Pirates so they may be able to avoid last place but they have no chance to make the playoffs for the next five years now.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

Over reaction
This trade makes a team that could not win games worse?

I missed the part where Kearns and Lopez were scoring 5-7 runs a game and/or pitching the eighth and ninth.

This is a team that was headed for five to ten below .500 at the all star break with Lopez and Kearns. We shall see how things turn out.

by Brynhoe on Jul 14, 2006 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

Trade
I hated this trade when I first heard of it; the more I think about it, I still can't find a reason to like it.

Positives:  Bullpen help this year.

Negatives:  Losing Kearns's bat (neither Denorfia nor Freel can hit like him); Lopez's bat; Kearns's defense (Freel runs around alot, but doesn't catch much, and his arm can't compare); both are only 26; relief pitchers are notoriously inconsistant year to year, while position players are relatively easy to project.

Neutral:  SS defense every game Clayton plays (you guys really don't realize how bad he is).

Unknowns:  There is no such thing as a pitching prospect - see Wagner, Ryan; Gruler, Chris; or Howington, Ty.

People throw out "yea, but we got that stud prospect Harris"....who is 3 months younger than Lopez.  "Yea, but we'll get to see how good Denorfia is"....who's 6 weeks younger than Kearns.  In other words, we replaced 2 good ML talents with 2 guys who (a) aren't as good, and (b) are not younger, so they'll never be as good at any point in the future.  "Kearns is going to get expensive"...and he makes exactly $500,000 more than Freel, who's just as far along on the arbitration/free agent clock.

The worst one, though, is "The market is tight for middle relievers; we had to pay alot".  The market is tight for crude oil right now, too.  That doesn't mean you should pay $200/barrel for it.  There's a reason middle releivers are either young guys or old guys, and are never paid much - they either are trying to prove they're better than everyone thinks (Todd Coffey), or they're hanging on to collect a check (Chris Hammond).

People point to the May/Morgan trade, but the Reds left the nucleus of Bench/Rose/Conception.   In fact, they made the trade to add to the core that (a) had been to the World Series just 14 months before, and (b) would become a powerhouse, finishing 1st or 2nd in the division for the next 8 years, appearing in 3 WS and winning 2.  Ask yourself this:  When, ever, has a .500 team turned into a WS contender by adding 2 middle relievers?  When, ever, has a .500 team become a WS contender by trading away 2 important position players and not replaced them in the trade?  This trade only makes sense if it turns the Reds into a WS contender this year, especially since Krivsky said it was about "now", not "the future".

You can't compare it to the Arroyo trade - starting pitching is always expensive, and the only way that trade made at least some sense in that the Reds plainly had too many outfielders (both Pena and Kearns were regressing because they weren't playing regularly), and a 200 inning starter (which every good team has) is much more valuable than even a 100 inning releiver (which is almost unheard of).

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2006 10:18 AM EDT reply actions  

Very well said
I agree with everything.  

What's crazy is that every indication is that other teams wanted Kearns and were willing to offer more for him but the GM only wanted cheap relievers who were already in the major leagues.  By artificially shrinking his pool of buyers he severely limited what he could get in return.  I read that five teams have already called the Nationals about Kearns.  

In the offseason the Indians were willing to deal Westbrook for Kearns straight up.  I'm not sure I'd do that deal but that's about a million times better deal than the one they did.

So not only is it a bad trade but it was a bad trade that was actively sought out by the general manager.  He wasn't forced into this by the market but he created his own market of crap to choose from.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

The only way it works (for me)
Denorfia is ready to replace Kearns NOW with same production, decent fielding.

If he can show up and play well, I think this thing can work. And that would be fantastic! I mean, to make a trade that EVERYONE pans and have it work out.

The good teams are not afraid to lose players, because they've got guys in their system that can replace them. If Denorfia is that guy, then Krivsky looks pretty smart.

by bobestes on Jul 14, 2006 10:19 AM EDT reply actions  

Maybe?
Denorfia is a stopgap for Jay Bruce?

by bobestes on Jul 14, 2006 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

Denorfia is not as good as Kearns
and it's not really very close.  You can hope that he plays just as well but that's just wishful thinking.  They are almost the same age and there has never been a time, not a single one, in which Denorfia was the better player.  

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

Absolutely true
A lot of apologists are calling Kearns a bust, "average," or even "mediocre."  They're saying that Denorfia will step right in and put up the same numbers.  No.  Even if Denorfia does as well as he can, he won't approach Kearns' power.

Here's the thing everybody's missing about Kearns and Lopez:  Position players who are in the major leagues at age 21 almost always go on to have long, successful careers.  Especially guys taken in the top 10 of the draft.  You can say they haven't reached "their potential," but the fact is, they're much, much, much, much more likely to have a long, fruitful career than a guy like Denorfia, who's just breaking in at 25 (or Harris).  

An optimistic prediction for Denorfia is esentially  the performance level that some people found disappointing in Kearns.  And there's NO way that Denorfia ever puts up the numbers that Kearns did his rookie year, or that he's on pace for this year.

by cggarb on Jul 14, 2006 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

Aren't the Reds near the top in HRs?
Aren't they one of the leading HR hitting teams in the majors this year and also were last year?  Does that win baseball games?

Who cares if Denorfia doesn't have Kearns' power.  Do we need to hit that many home runs?  What if he brings a little more speed in the outfield and on the bases?  What if he brings a bit more plate discipline?  On a team that already has a bunch of sluggers, maybe a player like Denorfia complements better.  That is a formula for winning more baseball games... not hitting more home runs than everybody else.

by TheC on Jul 14, 2006 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Runs win games.
"That is a formula for winning more baseball games... not hitting more home runs than everybody else."

Please explain this magic formula.  Seriously, all that matters is scoring runs.  Yes, you can do it a lot of different ways.  But Home Runs are quite clearly the easiest way of doing it.  You need three singles to score 1 run.  Or 1 HR.  Simple, no?  

Yes, there is room for other types of players, but you have to have a LOT of walks, singles, and steals to make up for every HR lost.

by cggarb on Jul 14, 2006 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't know the magic formula
I just know that the team with the most home runs is not always (usually?) the team that wins the most.  How many HRs are we giving up between now and the end of the year?  Let's say 10-15, which is probably kind because that would mean Kearns hits 20 more and the new guy only hits 5.  I think shaving 15 HRs off our already high total at the end of the year won't be that costly in terms of wins and losses.  Just a guess.

by TheC on Jul 14, 2006 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

If?
Then why not trade Denorfia instead of the guy you know is good?

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2006 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

Rebuild
The Reds must plan on rebuilding.  Who is the SS of the future now?  Phillips?  OK, then who's the 2B?  Freel?  We're being told he's going to platoon in RF; further, look how he hit from April 1 - May 15, if you want to see what he's like playing every day.  Oh, and he's 30 years old, so he isn't going to get better, or work into playing every day.

And the rotation is still based on 2 guys who are, let's be honest, league-average; an Eric Milton who looks more like last year's version every start (current ERA:  5.19); and Homer Baily continuing to develop.

Look at the Tigers:  When Dombrowski showed up, he instituted a plan:  Build the farm system, especially with starting pitching; sign stars to fill the seats until then; let the plan work.  While their payroll isn't in Yankee/White Sox range, and never will, they've built a pretty great team, and as Pudge, Magglio, and Rogers age, they have the parts to plug in.

The Reds are never going to have a Cards/Mets/PHillies payroll; they should do the same.  But what have they done?  Just the oppposite; they panicked.  They traded away the draws at the gate; they added nothing to build around.  They mortgaged a present that doesn't exist for a future that is now further away.

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2006 10:29 AM EDT reply actions  

Give it time
I looked at losses since the beginning of June.  We are 16-20 since then.  7 of these 20 losses are directly related to the bullpen sucking:  6/12 vs. Mil, 6/17 vs. CWS, 6/27 vs. KC, 7/2 vs. Cle, 7/3 vs. Mil, 7/5 vs. Mil, and 7/6 vs. Atl.  Now, let's say we have a good bullpen that can hold 80% of the time, that gives us 5 or 6 of those losses back and we're either 21-15 or 22-14 since the beginning of June.  Not to mention 3 of those losses are against Milwaukee who is breathing down our necks.  If these new bullpen guys can help us do that, I think we're in good shape.  Obviously, that's a big "if", but I'm going to stay positive until proven otherwise.  

I think we'll be laughing when Kearns sits out next year with an ingrown toenail and when Lopez stays a .225 hitter for the rest of his career.

by baumer on Jul 14, 2006 10:32 AM EDT reply actions  

Sure, I'll play...
But on 6/17, Kearns and Lopez combined drove in 5 of the 6 runs; on 6/27 they went 3/9; on 7/3 Kearns hit an HR and drove in 2, so now you're down to 4 out of 20 losses you can blame on the bullpen.  Plus, how many of those 16 wins would have gone the other way if not for Kearns/Lopez?

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2006 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

Where's your assumptions?
I was assuming 80% on the bullpen guys holding if they were here.  You're assuming that without Kearns/Lopez, we play w/ 7 guys (or at least a guy that can't ever get a hit).

My point was isolating the bullpen as a problem.  I wasn't considering run production a problem because it isn't with or without Kearns/Lopez.

Don't make me go through all the losses not blamed on the bullpen and say "If Kearns or Lopez got a hit here/there..."

by baumer on Jul 14, 2006 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Weak
You can only blame the bullpen entirely for those loses if your expectation is that a bullpen will never allow any runs.  

For example the first game you mentioned was a 6-5 loss to the Brewers.  In that game the bullpen pitched four innings and allowed two runs.  Which was a better performance than starting pitcher Aaron Harang who gave up four runs in five innings.  

The next game is an 8-6 loss to the White Sox.  The bullpen did blow this game giving up four runs in five innings.  However what you didn't mention were the five runs driven in by Kearns and Lopez that game.  Without those runs the bullpen doesn't even get a chance to blwo the lead.

Moreover you're not counting all the games that were won by having Kearns and Lopez' bat in the lineup.  You can't just take back the losses you wouldn't have had with a better bullpen you have to give back the wins contributed by Kearns and Lopez.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

So I guess the bullpen isn't a problem, hilarious

Read my post.  I was assuming the bullpen was good and could hold 80% of the time.

Everyone in the world knows that the Reds bullpen was terrible, it was so obvious.  It's all anyone talked about.  We are not going to have problems scoring runs without Kearns and Lopez.  We might have problems making terrible throws from SS.  And we actually might still have bullpen problems.  I'm just saying that "if" these bullpen guys show up, I think the team is better.  We have to wait and see.

by baumer on Jul 14, 2006 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

They didn't sign Goose Gossage
They acquired two journeymen, with a combined season ERA of 3.65.  That's less than a 2 runs per 9 IP difference from your worst relievers.  

by cggarb on Jul 14, 2006 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

Journeymen!!??
Give me a break! They're young guys who've only played for the Nationals so far.

by pw on Jul 14, 2006 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

You will score fewer runs
How is scoring fewer runs not going to be a problem?

There are two propositions on the table.

  1. The new lineup will score fewer runs.
  2. The new pitching and defense will allow fewer runs.
The key to evaluating this in the short term is whether the second will offset the first.  It's possible but unlikely.  Why?  Because the first proposition is a certainty while the second one is not.  On offense it is almost impossible for the guys coming in to match the production of the guys going out.  It is possible, however, for the new pitchers to suck just as much.

The best case scenario for this trade is to break even in runs.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

O'Brien
O'Brien was in over his head?  Bailey, Bruce, Ward, Wood, LeCure, Fisher, Syzmanski, Avery, Stevens (traded for Phillips), Chick (traded for Guardado), Germano, Ramirez, Hancock (compare his numbers to Majewski's).  That's a lot of value to add to the club in two years.  Also look at the amount of change brought in the ballclub because players either were allowed to finish their careers or immensely overvalued non-tradables were released or moved.  Gone:  Larkin, Graves, Jiminez, Casey, not to mention Miley and Gullett.  This is not to be critical of any of those people, just to say that change was needed and O'Brien brought it.  As far as I can see, he made only one bad move, overpaying for Milton, and I'd say he made that mistake because of unrealistic pressures to win now.

by HokieRed on Jul 14, 2006 10:35 AM EDT reply actions  

The grass is always greener.
Dan O'Brien wasn't that bad after all.
Jim Bowden should have been this great before.
Wagner is coming back in a big way.
Denorfia is way worse than Kearns.
The bullpen could have been fixed by cheaper spare parts.

I've noticed these comments over the last 24 hours and they are all as questionable as this trade.

by Brynhoe on Jul 14, 2006 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

my take
Like JD, I wanted to wait to weigh in. I was hoping I was missing something.

My initial reaction was, "That's it???"

After thinking about it, I still feel that way. If this somehow gets the Reds a World Series, then and only then do I like the deal. Honestly, the playoffs aren't even good enough for me.

What would Kearns and Lopez go for on the free agent market right now? Well, if Furcal got 13 million, Lopez would get at least half of that. And Kearns would get at least that much.

What would Bray and Majewski go for? Well, not more than Eyre and Howry, the guys the Cubs gave 3 million per year to.

Salary on the market equals value. The Reds grossly overpaid.

Could Krivsky not have called every GM and said Kearns and Lopez are going to be traded, and not gotten more than this? Off the top of my head, I'd think the Cubs would have given up a couple good relievers (Williamson, Eyre?) and a Rich Hill type for what the Reds gave up.

Fantasy leagues mirror the real thing in some ways, and I always hate the logic of those who say to me, "Well, you have two good 1b, so trade me one for a crappy SS, because that's what you need." If you have depth, fine, trade it. Sure, the Reds can fill the holes with Denorfia and Freel, etc. But get FAIR VALUE.

This is abominable.

by greg456 on Jul 14, 2006 10:40 AM EDT reply actions  

another point
This is more on the optimistic side...

I know this deal was not made to save money, but it will. Hopefully the millions saved from Kearns' and Lopez's arbitration cases next year will go to good use.

by greg456 on Jul 14, 2006 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

I disagree
Clearly this is for the here and now.  Krivsky, like all Reds fans, was sick of losing leads past the 7th-8th innings...and chose to do something about it.  

I do question who the SS of the future will be.  But you know what, this management team cares and they will put together a team capable of winning, whether its by trade or free agency.  How refreshing is it to have an owner who is willing and a GM who knows what it takes to have a winner on the field.  

The toughest part of this trade is Kearns.  However if it means Freel can get on the field a little more, great.  

As for the Tigers comparison, we do still have Griffey, Dunn, Arroyo, Milton.  Thats a lot of money right there to help draw the fans.  Their hitting continued to be a strength and the pen was a big weakness.  They had to do something to give us a chance THIS YEAR in a weak national league.  

by Davey for Hall of Fame on Jul 14, 2006 10:43 AM EDT reply actions  

Milton?
is a draw???  I just figured it up - he needs to throw 141 consecutive scoreless innings to lower his ERA as a Red to 4.00, which (as Kenny Maine would say) is a record or something; if he pitches through next year (assume 300 IP, which is generous) with a ERA of 4.32 (his best year in his career), that'll give him a Reds ERA of 5.16.

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2006 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

I know
some of us(I'm pretty sure I was one of them) mentioned this as early as last week.  Felo wasn't going to bring much back in a trade.  I even made mention of other possible shortstops on the trade market before Lopez such as Izturis, Lugo, and even maybe O Cabrera. Besides that what teams need shortstops? Somebody name more than 3 teams that don't have better shortstop options than Felo. Simply put when you look at it FeLo just wasn't valuable: he wasn't going to bring back anything. Last year was the abberattion FeLo won't ever put up numbers like that again.  I hope Castro starts because it actually will be better defense.

I'll ignore Wagner becuase I think the organization gave up on him.

I think its tough giving up Kearns. While an everday player may have more "value" than a set-up man, relievers are hard to come by this year. Thus more scarce jacking up their value. Look how much $$ Farnsworth got to be a set-up man.  That and Kearns is replaceable. Denfornia will be a fine replacement until Bruce is ready for his projected position RF.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 10:45 AM EDT reply actions  

see my post above
The fact that a guy is replaceable does not excuse trading him for below value.

If I have Delgado and Teixeira at 1b and Castro at SS, I don't trade Tex to you for Eckstein just because I have a glut of 1b. (Sketchy analogy, but applicable.)

I hate that kind of thinking.

by greg456 on Jul 14, 2006 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

Tex and Delgado
are not replaceable players though. Kearns is by a variety of means. He's not as good as you people keep saying he is.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

If I have both...
Then each is replaceable by the other. It's a fantasy baseball analogy.

by greg456 on Jul 14, 2006 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

Right but
their are plenty of OFs just like Kearns around. He's not that valueable. Their aren't many hitters of Tex and Delgado's caliber around.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

and its called supply and demand
OFer's like Kearns are plentiful right now while decent Relief pitchers aren't. Do you all realize that as many as 20 teams are still in at least the wild card race.  Their won't be many teams dealing any decent arms in the near future.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

disagree
There will be arms dealt in the next two weeks that will make the Reds look incredibly stupid.

Good grief, they got Guardado for a mega-fraction of what they paid for Bray and Majewski. Sure, these guys are younger, but I'm only looking for a one-year rental. The Reds could sign younger relievers in the offseason for much cheaper than what they paid in Kearns and Lopez.

by greg456 on Jul 14, 2006 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

They can't sign cheap young arms anymore
The price has been raised: Farnsworh and others.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Kearns is not replaceable
It is preposterous to suggest that Kearns is replaceable.  There are three or four guys in each league better than him at his position.

Meanwhile there are probably fifty or sixty relievers just like Majewski and Bray.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

No its not.
Out of 22 qualified RFs Kearns is 12th in OPS this year. Screams AVERAGE to me.
OPS

You all overrate Kearns.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

Out of 62 qualified OFs
He is 28th in OPS. Still screaming average. That and he's having his career first half and he's still only average.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

You're discounting defense
And since Kearns is one of the best defensive right fielders in baseball he has more value than from just offense.  

When you count both offense and defense he becomes the best player on the Reds which is pretty close to the definition of irreplaceable.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

Unless you're horrible
at defense IE Dunn, FeLo their isn't much diffenece in Defense.  You're still overrating Kearns.
But lets take a look.
Go to the same place as you saw the OPS click on some of the fielding stats which I'm sure you will discount anyway and you'll see that Kearns is only slightly above average anyway. Still replaceable.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

In more detail
Right now there are eleven rightfielders in the majors with more VORP (which is just offense) than Kearns.  Of these two are massive flukes (Mark DeRosa and Casey Blake), one a pretty big fluke (Jacque Jones), and one a rookie who might be this good (Brad Hawpe).  In addition JD Drew and Moises Alou have been better hitters but have played less.  I'll give the other side the benefit of the doubt and keep Jones and Hawpe as better hitters so this still leaves us with eleven rightfielders who are better hitters.

But for most of these guys the difference in offense isn't that big so that once you consider defense Kearns leapfrogs a number of them (Ordonez, Hawpe, Jones, Alou).  This leaves the list of rightfielders who are plausibly better than Kearns quite short.  I'll list them:

Jermaine Dye
Ichiro Suzuki
Alexis Rios (if this year is for real)
Bobby Abreu
Vladimir Guerrero
JD Drew
Brad Hawpe (if this year is for real)

Kearns would be an upgrade for the Mets, the Cardinals, the Padres, the Giants, the Brewers, the Yankees, the Tigers, the Athletics, the Angels all of whom have playoff aspirations and are, now, more likely to get there than the Reds.

He isn't even close to an easily replaceable player.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah but that's just this half of a season
He hasn't put up these kind of numbers ever before or stayed healthy this long before. I'm willing to bet that this year(if he stays healthy big if) would be the best year of his career.  You would seriously take Kearns over Ordonez?

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

Health
You critize Kearns' health and then compare him to Ordonez?

I would take Kearns over Ordonez in a heart beat.
Why?

  1. Performance and age.  So far this year they are almost exactly equal with the bat.  However while Ordonez is 32 and getting worse, Kearns is 26 and getting better.  
  2. Defense.  While they are equal offensive players Kearns is a much better defensive player.  While it's difficult to quantify this precisely baseball prospectus has the difference at 14 runs, or one and a half wins.
Now you seem to think Kearns is playing ove his head but that's not really true.  In fact hre is under (though very close) his 50% PECOTA  projection.  In fact he has performed almost exactly how you would expect him to perform on the basis of his previous performance.  

So to summarize, taking only this year into account the difference between Ordonez and Kearns is three wins and that's without even taking into consideration contracts.  The gap between them is going to become a chasm as the years progress.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

Ordonez
is also playing in a tougher pitching league and division.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Besides
I didn't realize Ordonez was 32

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ordonez
  1.  Makes $16 mill/yr
  2.  Is 32 years old
  3.  Has a history of knee trouble - Kearns' injury was caused by getting run over by a 500 lb. pitcher.
  4.  Has not played as much as Kearns in any of the past 2 full, or current half, seasons.
  5.  Is a truly terrible fielder.
Yea, I can see your point.  Ordonez is much more valuable.

Kearns has never hit like this?  In 2002, his last full season, he had a .902 OPS; for '03 it was .973 until he got run over by Ray King. He was jerked around in the lineup in 04-05.  Now that he's playing every day, he's showing what he can do.

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2006 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ok I give your
Ordonez/ Kearns comparison. I didn't look at the numbers.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Defense
Using Chris Dial's defensive numbers, Drew, Vlad and Abreu aren't as good defensively as Kearns.

Oh, and let's talk salary:  Ichiro!, Abreu, Vlad, and Drew all make more than $11 mill/yr, while Dye makes $5 mill.

Now how replaceable is Kearns???

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2006 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

But since noone is claiming FeLo or Wagner
have value we get 2 pitcher for Kearns who is still definately not a great player even in his career year.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

That's just it
Lopez has ALOT of value.

You could argue that Lopez for Clayton, Bray, and Majewski makes sense.  Which makes it Kearns for Thompson and Harris, which is absurd.

But Kearns alone for any combination of these 5?  No.  He's worth more than Bray, Majewski, and Thompson; adding Clayton and Harris only makes sense if the Reds need them, which they don't unless they trade Lopez, who's worth more than those two.

So no matter how you split up the "value", it doesn't make sense.

And Wagner should be able to bring a similar pitcher (young, "needs a change of scenery") by himself.  Adding him just adds salt to the wound.

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2006 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think Lopez has value.
When I looked I found 2 other teams that might be interested in Lopez: Mariners and Cubs. The Reds seem to not want to trade with the central or else I could see that. But we've already got the only piece we'll be able to get from the M's.
But the other problem is teams might see Izturis, O Cabrera and even Lugo with more value than FeLo.  Teams don't want SS who can't field.  Yes there are some SS worse than Lopez in OPS but do you really think St. Louis would take Lopez over Eckstein or Arizona would trade for Lopez when they have Drew waiting in the wings?

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Once again, I'll play
Currently, Lopez is 12th in OPS in MLB at shortstop, ahead of the SS for Boston, LA Dodgers, the White Sox, Arizona, Oakland, and Colorado - all playoff contenders.  He's a better hitter than Cleveland, KC, or the Cubs drag out to play SS.  And the guys playing SS for any of these teams won't win any Gold Gloves, either.

And Drew may be "waiting in the wings" in Arizona, but the wings are pretty big - he's currently playing in low A ball.

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2006 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

But
Boston likes their defensive SS. Drew is in A but it still doesn't seem long. The Indians would take Perhalta any day of the week. Dodgers have Furcal and signed him to a boatload and wouldn't even think about Lopez. Oakland and I like Crosby better. Do you think Guillen would want to play the defensively challenged Lopez? What could we get from KC? Colorado's not ready to get rid of Barmes, but it also seems they have another young player who they would probably like more anyway(I can't remeber his name.) I've already mentioned the Cubs.  Besides Izturiz and O Cabrera who teams like better are/will  be availabe soon.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Drew
Drew is in AAA.

Who plays SS now for the Reds?

Aurilia, Clayton and Castro.

Defensive difference from Lopez?  Not much.
Aurilia has no range anymore.  Clayton has no range anymore.  Castro if you look over at the Twins sites is dropping pop ups and getting favorable calls from the official scorer.  I would argue he isn't better either.

Offensive difference from Lopez?  Whole bunch.  There is no way any fan can say that we can replace his production at SS by any combination of those three guys.

Who plays RF now?

Denorfia, Dewayne Wise and I guess Freel

Defensively?  Downgraded.  None of those guys have the arm that Kearns has.  None have the range or baseball smarts.
Are any of those guys comparable in combination or alone to Kearns offensively?  I don't think so.  No way do we get 15 HRs from them the rest of the season.  Denorfia  may be ready by hitting 350/400/450 in the minors, but that's probably only 300/340/380 in the majors.  In my 12 team fantasy league, there are about OFs with more than 180 ABs that are available on the waiver wire who could put up those numbers.
Freel can't (or Narron won't) play everyday.  Wise is a career 200 major league hitter and a career 250 minor league hitter.

We might have just saved about 18-24 runs, if every other pitcher pitches the same as the first half.  That assumes that Arroyo and Milton don't regress.

But at the cost of about the same number of runs on offense. Its called treading water.

And what happens when Griffey gets hurt at the end of the season?  Where does the offense come from?

by Pinski on Jul 14, 2006 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Furthermore
I'm one that doesn't believe FeLo was the shortstop of the future anyway.

by DisplacedFan on Jul 14, 2006 10:46 AM EDT reply actions  

you got me hokiered...
Well said.  I'm a Columbus boy so I wanted nothing more than to see Westerville raised O'brien succeed.  Lets hope the Milton signing turns out well in the end.

by Davey for Hall of Fame on Jul 14, 2006 10:47 AM EDT reply actions  

Disappointed....
Sorry JD, but I'm real disappointed with your post.

"Worst trade in your lifetime"?  You're a smart guy and a great Reds fan, but right now your wearing your emotions on your sleeve. You can openly miss players that you liked, but don't undercut our team.  

Suck it up...stand tall and stop being a negative influence.  All that does is allow these naysayers to come of of their dungeons, wring their hands, and exclaim doomsday even louder because they can rally around the great JD who has come out so viciously against the trade.

As a founder of RedReporter, you have a responsibility to be a leader.  A leader is one who can invoke confidence, strength, and optimism--even when they disagree with management decisions.

Whatever happens, the Reds will still be standing at the end of the day.  Let's play two!

by jambolyajones on Jul 14, 2006 10:49 AM EDT reply actions  

ARE YOU KIDDING?
JD has to be positive about this deal because he founded this blog? He has a "responsibility to be a leader"?? What the heck is going on here.

JD, I'd far prefer a guy who's honest and can be critical than a yes-man, "rah rah" B.S. artist. That's Marty Brennamen in a nutshell, by the way. Keep it up, JD.

by greg456 on Jul 14, 2006 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with you
that JD should be honest, I just flat disagree with JD on the merits. The problem with blogging is that every action is judged on the spot. The fact is that JD has already decided this was the worst trade ever which is just plain crazy. Nobody knows how this is going to turn out until its done. The worst trade of JD's lifetime is probably Sean Casey for Dave Williams straight which he cheared at the time.

by Brynhoe on Jul 14, 2006 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

You consider Marty a yes-man?
That's hilarious.  He pretty much said "I hate Felipe Lopez" everytime FeLo was on the field.  Last year, he wouldn't give up on how much he disliked Dunn.  A yes man?  He's probably glad to see Lopez out.

by baumer on Jul 14, 2006 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

Marty is wrong
Marty is a great broadcaster, but I have always disgareed with his opinion of F-Lo and Dunn.  

by BuckeyeRed on Jul 14, 2006 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Just sayin'
Just saying I don't consider him a yes man.  I disagree w/ his opinion of Dunn too.

by baumer on Jul 14, 2006 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

NO, marty's not a yes-man.
I wasn't clear, but I was saying I like it that JD is like Marty...he can be critical.

by greg456 on Jul 14, 2006 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

JD
I don't see him as a yes man at all. He speaks his opinion, usually after giving the matter some serious thought.
"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Jul 14, 2006 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Don't be a leader
watch the parking meters.

Or something like that.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

What?
JD is not a mouthpiece for the organization.  He owes no responsibility to tout their moves.  The only reason you are upset that he disagrees with the trade is because you support it.

I expect JD to be honest with us.  If he doesn't like something he should state as such.  If he does like it, same thing.  And I believe JD does that very well.

And if you are surprised that he is wearing his emotions on his sleeve, then you don't read this site very much.  That's what JD does, and that's why he's successful.

And while I don't agree with him that this is the worst trade ever, I appreciate that he didn't try to sugar-coat his feelings for us.

by Slyde on Jul 14, 2006 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

JAMBOYLA or JIM Jones?
Are you telling JD he should be handing out the coolaid?

by cggarb on Jul 14, 2006 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

No...I'm Not Kidding
I can go to any freakin' baseball website on the web and read garbarge from no-nothing "fans" who rip this trade to shreds.  And I'm disappointed because now JD has called them all to come and join the growing ranks of the whiners here.

The bottom line is...all of this is opinion right now.  Despite waiting one day, JD made a rash conclusion about the trade.  There has been no proof from either side.

All I am saying is that, as a fair and supportive Reds fans website, this is not the time for the founder to come out and be so negative, before these kids even play one game for the Reds.

JD can miss Kearns and Lopez, but he should reserve such harsh judgement for now, and call for calm and patience among the RedReporter fans.  

by jambolyajones on Jul 14, 2006 11:07 AM EDT reply actions  

That's plain stupid
Do you come hear for a nice circle jerk or do you want to hear what people actually think.

This is the only time to evaluate the trade because it's the only time that we have the same information that the parties involved had at the time.  Trades should never be evaluated after the fact.  

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

Red states
not sure when JD became president and had to lead Reds country through times of tribulation...

by Whiffle on Jul 14, 2006 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

well
it does look like he is the chosen leader of Reds bloggers...
"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Jul 14, 2006 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

All is well
Remain calm.  All is well.....

by cggarb on Jul 14, 2006 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

Animal House...
look out for the marching band!!!
"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Jul 14, 2006 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Discussion
I want to say that I am enjoying the back-and-forth discussion of the trade, but since JD isn't around right now, I'd like remind people that one of the things that make this site so great is the fact that for the most part, everyone remains civil toward each other.  There are clearly frustrations on each side on the argument, but remember that we are all fans of the same team, no matter what you think of this specific event.  So try not to be a dick to each other.

by Slyde on Jul 14, 2006 11:22 AM EDT reply actions  

Well said Slyde
We all care like Krivsky and the new owner.
We're just showing it in different ways.
War Reds!

by Davey for Hall of Fame on Jul 14, 2006 11:24 AM EDT reply actions  

"Value" is not the only consideration
I like this trade, even though I agree that, in some objective sense, the players we got are less valuable than the players we gave up. But this year, a.) all trades "cost" more because there are more contenders than usual, b.) middle relievers are particularly costly, and c.) middle relievers are particularly valuable to the Reds, who are four games out of first place, and have had thirteen blown saves. So while in some platonic ideal universe, this might be a bad deal, situationally speaking, it's a good one. And this is not the time to "plan for the future." Several Reds (Arroyo, Ross) are having career years, we don't have any major injury problems, and the National League is historically bad. Next season, our current players will probably play worse, one or two key parts (*cough*Griffey*cough) will have major injury problems, and the rest of the league will be better (they could hardly be worse). Even after losing Kearns and Lopez, none of the position players we're sending out there are complete jokes, whereas nearly all of our relief pitchers were. A mere absence of weaknesses is good enough to win in the NL this year. Next year will just have to wait.

by OhioBoy on Jul 14, 2006 11:33 AM EDT reply actions  

First of all ...
JD, I thank you for running this site. You have no responsibility to do anything but be passionate about the Cincinnati Reds. I believe you are. Good for you.

I, too, hate this trade. But it is because I'm assuming that the trade value of Kearns/Lopez/Wagner is greater than what we got. Right now, that assumption seems obvious. Possibly in the coming weeks, when the Cardinals trade Pujols for Logan Kensing and the A's trade Bobby Crosby and Dan Johnson for Ken Ray, we'll look back on this trade and say, "Damn. We got a deal." I doubt it.

I also think that we're emotionally attached to these players because we've been waiting on them for the past three years. Waiting to see if they'd pan out, waiting to see if they'd get traded, waiting to see if they'd be all-stars. At the end of our wait, they pan-out, we're in contention and then suddenly after years of injury and disappointment they're deal to Bowden for a few guys who've never even been on our radar.

It's a tough pill to swallow. Let's hope it's chock full of vitamins.

So I say this. Bitch. Moan. This trade may be the trade that looks awful when it happens looks awful one year from now and looks awful twenty years from now. Most don't. This one may. But while we bitch and moan, let's hold out that little bit of hope that we're wrong.

Right now, unfortunately, the best case senario seems to be: The middle relief helps. The Reds make the playoffs. We've solidified our bullpen for the next two years. Lopez and Kearns become free agents at the end of next year and would have been  unaffordable anyway. We save some money to buy a starter in the off-season. Bruce and Votto are in the starting line-up come 2008.  

Let's hope for that.

Keep your peckers up everybody.  

by jprose on Jul 14, 2006 11:34 AM EDT reply actions  

If anything the emotional attachment is to the new
GM.  Only Reds fans like this trade.  It's actually quite interesting to witness.  The opinion of those who have no stake in the trade think it is universally horrible.  While those who have most to lose, and will have to suffer the consequences, are trapped in a shared delusion.

My favorite part is the idea that middle relief, the least valued commodity in baseball, is especially costly.  Sure every once in a while some idiot will trade Placido Polanco for Ugueth Urbina but those are the teams that lose year after year after year.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree ...
Let's hope for the best, though.

I think this move has all the earmarkings of a panic. Bob was breathing down Krivsky neck to make a trade to prove that they wanted to win now. So he made a trade and proved that they have no interest in winning in the future.

I personally blame the Chicago Cubs for throwing millions at their bullpen over the offseason. But I've always hated the Cubs. I'll bet they wish they'd traded Kerry Wood and Corey Patterson for two middle relievers and a washed-up shortstop. They'd have been able to buy a bat last off-season, and maybe even get a starting pitcher with the money they threw at Scott Eyre and Bob Howry. Wouldn't that have changed some things?  

by jprose on Jul 14, 2006 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

Article from hardball times
Here is a link to an article by Aaron Gleeman at THT.  He calls it the most one-sided trade since Kazmir-Zambrano.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/bowden-1-krivsky-0/

by BuckeyeRed on Jul 14, 2006 11:37 AM EDT reply actions  

His introduction
"However, there's a particular subset of unbalanced trades that still occurs infrequently. These are the trades that not only look unfair from the moment they take place, but look so out of whack that it's difficult to even conceive of what one general manager was thinking during negotiations (or how the other general manager kept a straight face). These are the trades that would get vetoed in any self-respecting fantasy league in the country."

So true. If this trade happened in my diamondmind league I would be up in arms.  This is the kind of trade that can destroy a league because it undermines the credibility of the game.

by Gaelan on Jul 14, 2006 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why this trade sucks
Kearns is a slightly above average MLB RF, which by definition is not easily replaceable.  I have no problem with him being traded, but for middle relief?  Given what they gave up, why couldn't they have pried Chad Cordero from the Nats?  That would have given the Reds a bona fide closer.

The real reason the trade sucks is that the Reds were probably around 30% to make the playoffs before the trade.  Has that number gone up significantly?  Even if they make it, they are going to be big dogs to the Mets or anyone from the AL.

This trade does not make them a WS team realistically.  It does hurt the team beyond this year.  FeLo had no future with the Reds beyond 2008, but that's no reason to give him away.  We could do a lot worse than Kearns in RF.  The people defending this trade are underrating what we gave up, or overrating what we got back.

by MM60 on Jul 14, 2006 11:41 AM EDT reply actions  

The Law of Reggie Sanders
Solid corner OF's can be signed in free agency every offseason.  They do, however, usually come at the cost of a first or second round pick in the following amateur draft.

by ohiobobcat on Jul 14, 2006 12:03 PM EDT reply actions  

Really?
Reggie signed with the Royals just for a job.

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2006 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Encarnacion?
The guy who's making 2x as much as Kearns, but whose OPS is 90 points lower?  At least he's not as good defensively, either.

by sidnancy on Jul 14, 2006 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agree
Late to the party, but I support JD's overall assessment of the trade.

Let me say this, though.  Compared to the babble I heard on the radio yesterday about the trade, I at least appreciate that people who disagree with me have reasons and can articulate them.

It seems as if the rest of the world just wants to talk about how relieved Jerry Narron will be to have "professional" Royce Clayton out there.

I agree we needed relief help.

I think we overpaid, and have damaged the organization long run in the process.

I think we will see middle relivers as good or better than Majewski and Bray traded in the next two weeks for much less.

And I don't think the Reds will finish with a .500 record.

Hoping I am wrong, and ready and willing to be thrilled with the outcome...

by orangeandbrown on Jul 14, 2006 12:27 PM EDT reply actions  

1 or the other
I have to say I'm pretty neutral to the trade at the moment, I don't think it improves our chances to get into the playoffs unless Denorfia shows us the hitting he's had in AAA, which I don't think will happen.

Austin Kearns OR Felipe Lopez, I certainly would have traded either of those guys for either Majewski or Bray, not both for both.  I think it downgrades our offense too much.  Lopez to the Nats for Bray+Harris would've been fine.  BP/Freel/Harris sharing SS and 2B would have worked.  Kearns to the Nats for Bray+Thompson would've been easier to digest, slide Freel/Denorfia into RF.  But both is a big pill to swallow.

The problem I see with this trade is the reason people are saying it is a good trade: the future.  Who's at SS?  What if Junior gets injured?  Where's our RH power going to come from, Aurilia and EE?  EE sure, not Aurilia.  I hope some of the money saved on future arby salaries goes towards the offense, the starting rotation and the bullpen seems to be more solid than they have been in a while!

The face of a child says it all, especially the mouth part

by JJ on Jul 14, 2006 12:40 PM EDT reply actions  

Casey for Williams
Remember the Reds saved 7 million dollars on the Casey trade.  Williams was irrelevant; the important thing was getting rid of a ridiculously overpaid first baseman.  How O'Brien ever got the Pirates to do it is beyond me.  Would you want to pay 8+ million for what Casey's done this year?  Krivsky was also really lucky O'Brien did the heavy lifting of making that trade because it put him in a much stronger position to make the Pena for Arroyo trade (Why? Because we didn't need to make the trade.  It's when you too obviously need to make a deal that you get screwed, as we have just seen)

by HokieRed on Jul 14, 2006 1:08 PM EDT reply actions  

Casey
apparently the Giants are willing to give up much more for Casey than Dave Williams.

by bobestes on Jul 14, 2006 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

So this destroyed our future?
If this trade destroyed the Reds' future, than it must have secured the Nats' future. Does anybody think that's the case? If you're a Nats fan, are you saying "We just traded away our best pitching prospect, plus some decent relievers, and got back a RF with injury history and a .260 batting shortstop that can't make a throw to first, we're all set now!" Give me a break. We didn't really lose much offense, since we can only send out 8 position players a night regardless, the defense averaged out (better infield, worse outfield), and we improved the one weakness in our team that guaranteed us missing the playoffs this year. Because if you think we were going to make the playoffs with that bullpen, well, I think you're crazy. Now, we at least have a chance. And what is it people are complaining about? That we don't know who will be playing shortstop in 2008? I can live with that.

by OhioBoy on Jul 14, 2006 1:47 PM EDT reply actions  

Nats future
is sealed as long as Bowden is involved.
"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Jul 14, 2006 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

They're in good shape
The Nats just went from having a crappy offense to having a good one.  Kearns is going to play CF, where he'll be in the top 5 hitters in the league.  Majewski and Bray weren't even their best relievers - Majewski was like their 7th most valuable reliever.  They gave up nothing, and got starters.  That's the type of deal you make.

by cggarb on Jul 14, 2006 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good offense?
Nats:  3rd to last in NL in runs, 3rd to last in OBP and 12th in SLG.  K&L won't help them that much.

by mattg on Jul 14, 2006 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Majewski
Was Nat's 2nd best pitcher, based on VORP, after Rauch.  See:  http://www.baseballprospectus.com/team_audit.php?stats&team=WAS

by mattg on Jul 14, 2006 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

VORP comparison
Just looking at the aggregate VORP, I'm not encouraged though.
Subtract
----------
Lopez     16.7
Kearns    14.8
Yan        3.3
Total     34.8

Add
--------
Clayton    3.0
Majewski  13.3
Bray       4.4
Total     20.7

Does anyone think that the addition of Denorfia and fixes to the defense will make up 14 runs for the second half?  Even if we assume that they do, that brings us back to break even.  The Reds need more than breaking even in a trade to move toward the playoffs.

by Slyde on Jul 14, 2006 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Majewski
Don't think it's accurate to say, as the statement above does, that Majewski was "like their 7th best" pitcher.

Interesting stats though Slyde.  Even though Clayton, or whoever the Red's play at SS, may not be a great improvement, VORP doesn't figure in defense.

by mattg on Jul 14, 2006 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry
I don't understand your first sentence.

Isn't VORP just an estimate of runs saved or created above replacement?  I think that should mean that we can do a relative estimate of the number of runs that have been traded off in this deal.  Clayton replaces Lopez.  Denorfia replaces Kearns.  The two relievers replace Yan (and technically Belisle, though he is just DL'd).  So, I think we can see the trade-off - though a half of a season in performance in no way guarantees future performance, as I'm sure we all know.

As for the defense, I think it's safe to assume that the best we can expect is for Denorfia to replace Austin's D - and I don't find that out of the realm of possibility.  What gets me is that Clayton is supposed to improve the Reds defense, but based on any metric I can find, his defensive skill has fallen off a lot in the last couple of years.  Based on FRAR (BP's defensive metric) he has only saved one more run this year in just about the same number of games as Felipe.  

I think this trade just shifted runs around on each side of the ledger.  Fortunately, I don't think we will see as many losses in the 8th and 9th innings because of the bullpen.  But, unfortunately, I think we could be watching fewer comebacks than we've grown used to over the last couple of weeks.  Though, I hope I am wrong on that last point.

by Slyde on Jul 14, 2006 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry Slyde
I wasn't clear on that first comment, I was referring to a statement made above by cggarb that Majewski was the Nat's 7th best pitcher.  I agree with your take on the Red's +- VORP return.  It's pretty much a trade off, at least for this season, but it does address a need.  

by mattg on Jul 14, 2006 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Nats' Future
"If this trade destroyed the Reds' future, than it must have secured the Nats' future."

This makes zero sense.  Not even sure what you mean by this statement.

by MM60 on Jul 14, 2006 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

What I meant was
If this trade destroyed the Reds' future, then that must mean that we gave up players which were crucial to our future, which would mean that those players would now be crucial to the Nats' future.  If the players the Nats picked up don't do much for their future (and I don't think they do, it basically depends on whether Kearns's injury troubles are behind him), then losing those players can't have wrecked our future that much.

Everybody on both sides seems to me to be basing everything on name recognition.  At Federal Baseball, Basil called this an "intelligent, forward-thinking trade."  But here's what he said about the players they got:

Austin Kearns: "no sure thing", "a bit of star potential", "injury history", "a risk"

Felipe Lopez: "His power has dropped off this season", "perhaps he'll go all Rey Quinones on us", "There is a question of [his] defense"

Ryan Wagner: "Your guess is as good as mine."

And those are assessments from a guy who thinks this was a great deal (like JD, he seems to think that the key metric for a baseball team is whether they know who their shortstop will be in 2009).

If those players were key to the future of this club, then we didn't have much of a future in the first place.

by OhioBoy on Jul 14, 2006 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well
You apparently missed where I said that I was fine with dealing these guys, for the right return.

This wasn't it.

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. --Oscar Wilde

by JD Arney on Jul 14, 2006 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Negatives
Its great to focus on the positives/negatives of the players we gave up.  But what did we get in return?

Majewski, a ground ball pitcher who has thrown 130 innings over the last year and a half.  That should make anyone worry about overuse.  "worked very hard" "unimpressive peripheral numbers"

Bray is a guy who can strike people out in the minor leagues.  But in the majors has stuck out 6 per 9.  What is he?  Could be good?  Could be a bust.  "how special a property [is he?]"

Clayton sucks.  There is no AMAZING defensive upgrade.  He might save us 1 run on Defense but he costs us on offense.  "being a nothing since 1999." "completely irrelevant" "discarded without hesitation as yesterday's news"

Harris, is another 2b.  We have lots and lots of those, why do we really need any more?  He is not a SS, so people should stop suggesting that.  Maybe if Phillips moves over and he performs like Phillips then we got something (but his minor league numbers aren't that good).  "You don't fret about trading Brendan Harris"  Just like you don't fret about trading Cody Ross, David Ross or Brandon Phillips.

10) Daryl Thompson, RHP, C+
     Just activated from extended spring injury rehab. Has thrown two innings for Vermont. Sample too small to mean anything.

Grade C prospects are the most common type. These are guys who have something positive going for them, but who may have a question mark or three, or who are just too far away from the majors to get an accurate feel for. A few Grade C guys, especially at the lower levels, do develop into stars. Many end up as role players or bench guys. Some don't make it at all.

Those positives and negatives Fed Baseball suggested outweighed the above positives and negatives.

by Pinski on Jul 14, 2006 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Casey
How much cash are the Giants going to get?

by HokieRed on Jul 14, 2006 1:52 PM EDT reply actions  

Hey, anything happen while I was gone?
To me, the bottom line was best expressed by Greg. You must get fair value in any trade. I think this is true regardless of circumstance, with the possible exception of a team that is literally one player away from the trophy (which the Reds clearly are not).I think we can crunch numbers and project stats and debate gluts vs. needs until we're blue in the face. In fact we should do this, this is what makes us such passionate fans.

Nobody likes to see good young players leave, but I usually don't have much problem with a trade as long as it meets two conditions: 1) it makes our team better (at least according to reasonable expectations), and 2) we could not have made a significantly better deal elsewhere. This 2nd condition is basically about maximizing assets -- something any business must do.

I'm not sure about the first condition. I think we may have lost some balance in the batting order. Hope the minor leaguers pan out. And the bullpen sure as hell better improve in a hurry.

As for the second condition, that's what bugs me. Krivsky ostensibly made this deal now  to avoid the higher prices at the deadline. My feeling is that he just set the market for middle relievers, and set it ridiculously high. With several teams desperate for offense, it seems like he could have been the guy who waited for a good deal. Instead, he's the guy who gave a good deal.          

by ctnyc on Jul 14, 2006 7:37 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Cincinnati Reds. Community Guidlines
Start posting about the Reds »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Herve_small
OFF DAY DOPPLEGANGER PARTY!!
12755_172185683753_502418753_2742536_4790236_n_small
Reds vs Cardinals: Who's got the Edge
Vada_jersey_small
This Day in Reds History - July 29
Small
Recap of GABP Visit
Vada_jersey_small
This Day in Reds History - July 28
Vada_jersey_small
This Day in Reds History - July 27
Reds_small
Some Bats That Could Be Available?
Vada_jersey_small
This Day in Reds History - July 26
Vada_jersey_small
This Day in Reds History - July 25
Small
Where's the love for Mike Leake?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Getting Autographs at Cincinnati Reds Games
Oswalt to Phillies, via Rosenthal
Reds-Dodgers rivalry is back ON, son!
If Oswalt Becomes a Cardinal, I might Poop my Pants a Little
Available?
James Gammon, played Lou Brown in 'Major League,' dies at 70
Reds have easiest remaining schedule in the majors
Cordero is a Coronary Waiting to Happen
Braves better with Gonzales? Really?
Reds' Votto dislikes Cubs, disses All-Star Teammate Byrd

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SBNation.com Recent Stories

HOUSTON - JULY 24:  Pitcher Roy Oswalt #44 of the Houston Astros throws against the Cincinnati Reds in the first inning at Minute Maid Park on July 24 2010 in Houston Texas.  (Photo by Bob Levey/Getty Images) +13 updates

Done Deal: Roy Oswalt Traded To Phillies, Will Make Debut Friday Night In Washington

Washington Nationals' third base coach Pat Listach shakes Adam Dunn's hand who rounds third after hitting a solo home run during the eighth inning of a baseball game against the Atlanta Braves, Thursday, July 29, 2010, in Washington. (AP Photo/Drew Angerer)

MLB Trade Deadline: Where Does Your Team Stand As Saturday Approaches?

Philadelphia Phillies' Cody Ransom, left, celebrates with Greg Dobbs (19) and Placido Polanco after Ransom scored on a single hit by Wilson Valdez against the  Arizona Diamondbacks to win the baseball game in the 11th inning Thursday, July 29, 2010, in Philadelphia. The Phillies won 3-2. (AP Photo/H. Rumph Jr)

Phillies Complete Sweep Of D'Backs With 11th-Inning Win

More from SBNation.com >


Manager

Redsmouth_small Slyde

Bench Coaches

Carly_gangsta_small jch24

How-thomas-the-tank-engine-works-11_small BK

Happyhanukkah_small Brendanukkah

417898_small Gray

Jinaz-reds-avatar_small JinAZ

Baseballbugs-thumb_small Charlie Scrabbles

Casey_small RijoSaboCaseyWKRP

Untitled_small nycredsfan

Beat Reporters

Ken_fish_called_wanda_small ken

Tinytim_small andromache

Small riverfront76