Another great part of that Pirate article is that one of their potential starters is listed as "Branson Arroyo." I wonder if Tim McCarver wrote it.

"BTW, while searching for good moves by Bonifay, a search I decided not to bother with"

In case you still need 'em, the ones that spring to my mind:

*Rincon-for-Giles
*Taking Sauerbeck in the Rule 5 draft
*Signing Richie and Mike Williams as NRIs
*Neagle-for-Schmidt (and other stuff)
*Jason Christiansen-for-Jack Wilson
*Some good drafts under Mickey White
*Adding Craig Wilson in that six kajillion player trade with Toronto
*Signing Kevin Young on the cheap in '97
*Al Martin-for-John Vander Wal
*One good, cheap FA year from Ed Sprague

Not a lot, but it's what I've got.

Wow. You have to resort to that stuff to come up with a list of good moves by Cam Bonifay? Scott Sauerbeck? Kevin Young? John Vander Wal? Ed Sprague? I think we just came up with a new dictionary definition for "damning with faint praise."

I wish I had a time machine, so I could go back and find out just what chemicals were coursing through John Hart's bloodstream when he decided to trade Brian Giles straight up for Ricardo Rincon.

Unless...other GMs shared his view that what appeared to be a package of significant trade value was actually two players whose peak had already passed.

It's rare that us outsiders really get to know, it could be that he blew it and a dozen other GMs were either amused or dumbstruck by the stupidity...

There are very few Bonifay/Bell moments- you know when a transaction is announced at the winter meetings, and the immediate reaction of smirks and laughter from other teams' execs was observed by a reported on by quite a few members of the press

Yes, exactly. Generally, we can make the assumption that people in the front office know more than we do about what factors can be used to predict a player's future performance. Statistics are not everything, though we do know all the statistics.

I'm a life long Mets fan, I don't know what team you follow (The Braves?), but aside from a brief period in the 80s before Cashen became senile, it's generally been safe for me to assume that members of that front office know less about such factors than many outsiders do.

Let's be reasonable, though: Krivsky's a garden-variety bad GM, the kind of which there are eight or ten out there as we speak, not a horrendous, destructive force like Brian Sabean or Ned Colletti or Dave Littlefield.

If Colletti had forced the Dodger to play Pierre regularly by dumping one of Ethier or Kemp, then yes I'd say we'd now have enough evidence to lump Ned with DL and Sabes, but Ned hasn't totally screwed the pooch yet, he's wasted his Boss's money yes, and the 2007/08 Dodgers are likely not as good as they could have been, but he hasn't drained off the organization's extensive pool of talent.

I'm a life long Mets fan, I don't know what team you follow (The Braves?), but aside from a brief period in the 80s before Cashen became senile, it's generally been safe for me to assume that members of that front office know less about such factors than many outsiders do.

They know about such factors. They might not do a good job of deciding which of those factors are important or not.

Kearns is year in, year out, the best defensive rightfielder in the majors. Even with disappointing offensive numbers he is a valuable player. Infinitely more valuable than Gary Majewski and Bill Bray who have negative value. Trying to spin this trade as not so bad is idiotic. By results oriented thinking the worst possible scenario has happened for Washington and they still win the trade hands down.

First, Kearns is a very good defender. If he's +10 runs per year, that probably makes up for his offense to bring him back to average.

Second, Brendan Harris has been a better version of Lopez since the trade, and he's making the minimum instead of the $10+ million the Nats have paid Lopez. That's a lopsided exchange, though the Reds didn't take advantage of it.

On the Reds side, Majewski turned into your "worst possible scenario." He got hurt and collapsed right after the trade. They also still have 22 year old Daryl Thompson looking pretty good in AA.

By results oriented thinking that trade cost the Reds the playoffs.

Aurilia and Clayton basically replaced Lopez' production. If you want to talk about "idiotic," I think that's a pretty good description of the idea that there's a 3-4 win difference between Kearns and Freel over 2 months.

I thought the trade was terrible at the time, too, but it really hasn't turned out that badly.

Which, again, was extremely lucky for Krivsky. It was the worst trade baseball's seen since the aforementioned Giles-for-Rincon deal.

Which, again, was extremely lucky for Krivsky. It was the worst trade baseball's seen since the aforementioned Giles-for-Rincon deal.

Are we talking about what projections said at the time?

Which, again, was extremely lucky for Krivsky. It was the worst trade baseball's seen since the aforementioned Giles-for-Rincon deal.

Giants deal Boof Bonser, Francisco Liriano, and Joe Nathan to the Twins for A.J. Pierzynski and cash.

Naturally, Sabean was involved.

The following is NOT an endorsement of Krivsky but a recognition of the trade context:

The Reds were in the race for the NL Central title. At the ASB they were only a game over .500 but also only 4 games back in the division.

Previous to the ASB the Reds had been 8 games over .500 on June 30th and were tied for first. They lost eight of nine going into the break. The losses included a July 2nd loss where the bullpen gave up 3 runs over the last two innings to lose the game 6-3, five runs surrendered over the last 3 innings including 2 in the bottom of the ninth to lose 8-7, and back to back extra inning losses.

Whatever the metrics at the time the PERCEPTION was that the Reds bullpen was "killing the team" in the words of the local media.

When the closer is David Weathers I don't think it's a stretch to state that perception and reality were not so far apart.

Pulling the trigger for bullpen help wasn't a bad idea. But in this case he pulled the trigger and shot himself in the foot.

Anyway, just a reminder of the circumstances......................

Which, again, was extremely lucky for Krivsky. It was the worst trade baseball's seen since the aforementioned Giles-for-Rincon deal.

That's a gross exaggeration. It's not even the most lopsided trade the Nats have been in since Bowden became GM.

Off the top of my head, trades involving Soriano, Maine, Perez, Chris Young, Renteria, and probably a dozen other players that were more lopsided. There are like four or five trades that the Mets alone have made that are more lopsided in one way or another.

Giants deal Boof Bonser, Francisco Liriano, and Joe Nathan to the Twins for A.J. Pierzynski and cash.

An AA pitcher with a gopher ball problem, an A-ball pitcher with serious injury questions, and a decent set-up guy for a catcher with >100 OPS+ and 3 more years of team control. It looked like a pretty good deal for the Giants at the time, and I'd do it again ...

It's hard to find a good comp to AJP these days ... on value, age, and control Mike Napoli I think would be best. Shape of performance-wise, Johjima is a good match, but he's older and a different contract situation. So pick your favorite organization, imagine a gaping hole behind the plate, and comp the three players he'd cost ... for the A's it would might be Eveland or Smith, Henry Rodriguez, and Casilla ... that seems about right.

I'm not a fan of Krivsky and will state that losing him immediately makes the Reds a contender(although they have Dusty Baker slowing that progress down) I couldn't take the Reds seriously under Krivsky because of his juvenile rules (dumping a relief pitcher for being overweight when you have a suspect bullpen) because of his constant attempts to sign average or slightly below average players and hoping something sticks, because he claimed he wanted to be like the Cardinals and then act in a different manner, his inability to get a manager on the same page as him etc.

Fortunately I don't think Walt and Dusty are going to like each other, but I don't think Dusty is going anywhere. Walt does a great job of aligning his teams personality with his managers wishes and still getting good players. People say he hasn't done as much with developing talent as other GM's and I look at the Cardinals current lineup and am curious what percentage of your daily roster needs to be homegrown before you get credit for development?

Krivsky is the master at the holding pattern, he would have made a perfectly fine GM for the Cubs who's fans are happy with just getting to .500 two consecutive seasons, but most other places expect a bit more movement upwards.

Whatever the metrics at the time the PERCEPTION was that the Reds bullpen was "killing the team" in the words of the local media.

and they let a relief pitcher go for being too fat, who was playing for the team that won the world series that year, a guy who led the team in relief innings pitched, but heck it's a good thing he was too fat to play for a team with such healthy thin bodies like Griffey. He was desperate for pitching healp because of his own shortsitedness.

Krivsky is the master at the holding pattern, he would have made a perfectly fine GM for the Cubs who's fans are happy with just getting to .500 two consecutive seasons, but most other places expect a bit more movement upwards.

Ouch, baby. See, this is why you can't travel the world calling yourself an American!

cfb:

Perhaps. But folks are discussing the trade as if Krivsky did it on a whim which was not the case.

The strangeness of that deal was really twofold, as I recall it:

1) Folks had been waiting for the Reds to let one of their young OF go. And people thought Kearns had more upside than Dunn earlier in their careers. Perhaps by the time of the trade, this was not the case anymore. But, it certainly had been. And the Reds waited to long to take advantage of depth on him. They could've had another Arroyo type, like they got for W.M. Pena, and maybe some other shiny baubles too.

2) They gave up their starting SS and their starting RF, both of whom were a part of that team's offense. Sure, Lopez had a fluke year the year before. But, those stats were on the boards, and some GMs might've liked 'em. Plus, he could steal, and looked like he'd at least make a good lead-off hitter.

They gave that up for relief pitchers, which they did need, pretty badly. But, it's just crazy, really. I think a lot of fans thought, after waiting all this time to move Kearns, that's what we get? I know I thought that, though I am not really a Reds fan, per se. And, of course, the two arms that were to help the bull-pen now and later (as Bray was heralded a closer of the future), turned to pillars of salt, and were left on the hillside to melt away. It was a stupid trade for the Reds to make. It might be ok in the end, if the 'lottery-ticket' portion of the deal, who has a 25/1 K/BB ratio in AA turns out to be good. But, Kearns plays amazing defense, and Nats have gotten a lot of quality out of it.

I think Krivsky's pretty middle-of-the-road myself, and wonder if Walt is much help really, since things might have passed him by a bit (he seemed clueless towards the end in StL).

First, Kearns is a very good defender. If he's +10 runs per year, that probably makes up for his offense to bring him back to average.

The average RF in the NL last year had an OPS of .786; Kearns was at .766 in an extreme pitcher's park; he probably was "average" in offense alone. BPro thinks he was 15 runs above average in the field.

On the Reds side, Majewski turned into your "worst possible scenario." He got hurt and collapsed right after the trade.

164 PAs by Royce Clayton is much worse than an injured Majewski. But really, what did the Reds actually get?

- Clayton: 164 PA, .619 OPS
- Majewski: 38 IP, 8.29 ERA
- Bray: 42 IP, 5.57 ERA; currently hurt
- Harris: 11 PA, 9 outs; traded for PTBNL
- Thompson: 23 IP above A ball

That's it in total. I don't know what scenario could have been worse for the Reds.

Second, Brendan Harris has been a better version of Lopez since the trade, and he's making the minimum instead of the $10+ million the Nats have paid Lopez.

Neither Lopez nor Kearns were owed a dime by the Reds past '06. If the money paid to Lopez was out of line (remember, he lost his arb case this year and was still awarded $4.9M), it had nothing to do with the Reds.

AT THE TIME the Kearns trade looked far worse for the Reds than the Nathan/Liriano trade looked for the Giants, in fact I'm not sure the AJ Trade really looked all that bad for the Giants AT THE TIME-

but the AJ trade certainly went south fast- I think it wa sonly in ST that some Giant's pitchers complained about AJ, suggesting they'd rather have the Giants backup start...

It looked like a pretty good deal for the Giants at the time, and I'd do it again

Perhaps, but I hold it against SF that they traded for Pierzynski after a career year and then dumped him after one sub-par year. I suppose the correct analysis would treat the trade as a sunk cost with respect to subsequent personnel decisions, but I just can't get over how boneheaded that was.

Furthermore, given the vast difference in both organizations' ability to develop young players, it's not hard to believe that the Twins knew what they were getting and the Giants didn't know what they were giving up.

When the closer is David Weathers I don't think it's a stretch to state that perception and reality were not so far apart.

Which sounds cute and all, but the Reds traded for Eddie Guardado a week before The Trade (who, in hindsight, was probably as injured as Majewski was, and Krivsky didn't know that either).

Perhaps, but I hold it against SF that they traded for Pierzynski after a career year and then dumped him after one sub-par year.

To be fair to the Giants, I don't think it could have been anticipated that AJ would get along so poorly with the pitching staff, AJ has had issues before and since, but nothing like what seemed to have gone on in Frisco.

Nathan was effective his last year with the Giants, but you see a lot of set up men have 60-80ip like that, most don't suddenly turn into Mariano Rivera in subsequent years.

Liriano had just put up a 174/60 k/bb in 157 FSL and EL innings, making him interesting certainly, but it was his next year that vaulted him into elite prospect status - Garrett Mock put up a 160/33 K/BB in the CAL League one year and was regarded as having stuff to match...

Boof: I love that name, I remember thinking AT THE TIME, that he was the one that could turn out to hurt the Giants (shows you what I know) Actually I find Bonser to be quite perplexing, unless MWE really is right about DIPS, he SHOULD be at least an average MLB pitcher...

TDF:

I wasn't trying to be "cute". I was relaying the "Current State" of the Reds bullpen at the time of the trade.

It wasn't so much as a whim, but he sold low, he didn't get much back for his trade, I mean there were probably other teams out there that would have given him better quality players than what the nationals did. The pirates traded Oliver Perez and Roberto Hernandez for Xavier Nady a couple of weeks later, could the Reds have gottent Hernandez alone for Austin Kearns?

I just remember thinking at the time he just didn't get much for that trade, Austin Kearns seemed like he was a covetted player and the Reds had a specific need, and if they were willing to trade Austin Kearns, only a fool gets convinced to turn a player for player trade to a much larger trade that could change the dynamic of the team. He needed a reliever, was willing to give up a decent controlled player for a bullpen arm or two and yet he didn't do well on his return.

People who are saying we are supposed to look at the results of this trade, but if you do you have to look at the goal of the trade, to get a reliever to help them reach the playoffs, 1. they didn't reach the playoffs, 2. outside of Bray nobody else in the trade figured into their season. 3. The loss of Lopez and his 90 ops+ was replaced with clayton and his 56 ops+(that probably completely negated any advantage Bray brought in his 27 innings pitching) Freel had to move to Right field (replacing Kearns 110 ops+ production with Freels 90) and losing a quality fourth outfielder by making him a starter.

I don't see how Krivsky won on this deal.

I think Krivsky's pretty middle-of-the-road myself, and wonder if Walt is much help really, since things might have passed him by a bit (he seemed clueless towards the end in StL).

that is overblown by the typical clueless press in st louis and their equally clueless frontrunning fans of the last few years. Jocketty has had a tight budget and smartly decided year in, year out that punting at second base is the smart tactic. The fans hated the tactic, but at the time, unless you had one of the few actual good secondbasemen in baseball, the rest was pretty much interchangeable, the difference being 800k vs 4 mil. The clueless--see keith law and his journeyman number four label -- fans thought the Suppan signing was a horrible signing at the time, while most people who knew a thing or two about baseball thought it was a good signing, but in the press Walt got hammered for it. He isn't making as many impact moves as he has in the past but that is because until the last season he had a fairly stable roster and there wasn't much reason to rock the boat, and since he didn't make many impact trades his talent was finally allowed to develop all the way to the majors and you are seeing that result in the Cardinals this year and probably next year.

There are like four or five trades that the Mets alone have made that are more lopsided in one way or another.

Yeah. No one has mentioned Victor "can be fixed in 10 minutes" Zambrano yet.

I was relaying the "Current State" of the Reds bullpen at the time of the trade.

Two things:

1. Guardado himself "fixed" the bullpen. Weathers returned to his spot as a set-up guy (which he seems to be better at).
2. Guardado, a better reliever than either of the guys the Reds got, was acquired for Travis Chick.

It's like Krivsky completely forgot the Guardado trade immediately after it happened - even after The Trade, he gave Rheal Cormier a 2nd year on his contract to agree to a trade to the Reds on July 31. Then he had to release Cormier in May of '07.

outside of Bray nobody else in the trade figured into their season.

Bray pitched 27 2/3 innings of 4.23 ERA ball. Clayton had a bigger impact. And any positive impact Bray had was more than negated by Majewski (8.40 ERA) and Clayton.

The average RF in the NL last year had an OPS of .786; Kearns was at .766 in an extreme pitcher's park; he probably was "average" in offense alone.

From BPro, the average RF in 2007 had an EQA of 272. Kearns was at 271. So he was essentially average offensively.

The average RF in the NL last year had an OPS of .786; Kearns was at .766 in an extreme pitcher's park; he probably was "average" in offense alone. BPro thinks he was 15 runs above average in the field.

BPro says Kearns was 7.4 runs below average offensively in RF. That's measured against the league average in RF, not against other regulars. Once you exclude backups, Kearns looks even worse.

Here are the regular (400+ PA) RF from 2007 ranked by OPS+:

164 PAs by Royce Clayton is much worse than an injured Majewski. But really, what did the Reds actually get?

- Clayton: 164 PA, .619 OPS
- Majewski: 38 IP, 8.29 ERA
- Bray: 42 IP, 5.57 ERA; currently hurt
- Harris: 11 PA, 9 outs; traded for PTBNL
- Thompson: 23 IP above A ball

That's it in total. I don't know what scenario could have been worse for the Reds.

I would consider trading Harris for a PTBNL (who did they get?) as a completely separate deal.

Neither Lopez nor Kearns were owed a dime by the Reds past '06. If the money paid to Lopez was out of line (remember, he lost his arb case this year and was still awarded $4.9M), it had nothing to do with the Reds.

Except that they got a better, cheaper middle infielder in return.

BPro says Kearns was 7.4 runs below average offensively in RF. That's measured against the league average in RF, not against other regulars.

??? They have him at runs above position of -1. From here. For comparison, Brian Giles is at 1.6, Mike Cuddyer 1.1.

cfb:

Are you interpreting that I "support" the trade? Because I have repeatedly stressed that I was providing context so folks recalled the circumstances.

TDF:

Eddie didn't show up in Cincy until July 7th. And he arrived with an ERA over 5 and having given up 29 hits including 8 homers in only 23 innings.

If you are Wayne do you consider your bullpen "fixed" with that addition?

I didn't highlight EG simply because I could understand why Krivsky wouldn't consider his work done. Though in limited action with the Reds until he went on the DL Eddie pitched well striking out more than a batter than inning, not walking anyone and keeping the ball in the ballpark.

But Jocketty did make some odd moves, like the Mulder trade, for example. Sticking with Encarnacion. He seemed to lose the magic a bit. Of course, like you say, he had a tight budget, and he was working with a roster that might have required less tweaking. Yet, Haren would've been a wonderful balm for a tight-fisted budget environment, and he was given up (along with Barton) for a pitcher who went into the tank, nearly upon arrival. The Carpenter contract extension was odd too. It just seemed that he wasn't so hot at the end. I am likely wrong, though, as I don't really know the inner workings of the team, and it seems that some of Jocketty's power was sapped by a divided brain-trust.

Cam Bonifay?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "handful." ;)

Todd Ritchie trade...
And then...um...well, if Kevin Polcovich and Ron Wright hadn't had those injuries, everything would have been completely different. Geez, talk about bad luck!

Correction - Dave LIttlefield sent Todd Ritchie to Chicago for Kip Wells and Josh Fogg. Bonifay gets credit for signing Ritchie to a minor league contract only.

The biggest plus for Bonifay is the aforementioned Giles for Rincon trade. Which he canceled out with the Lieber for Brant Brown deal.

The clueless--see keith law and his journeyman number four label -- fans thought the Suppan signing was a horrible signing at the time,

Considering the fact that the Cardinals signed Suppan before I was writing for ESPN.com, I don't think you should be calling anyone "clueless."

Harvey and I are mostly on the same page here, but I think this is at least a tiny bit misleading:

Eddie didn't show up in Cincy until July 7th. And he arrived with an ERA over 5 and having given up 29 hits including 8 homers in only 23 innings.

If you are Wayne do you consider your bullpen "fixed" with that addition?

I might have, yeah. Guardado's ERA between April 25 and the trade (roughly July 4) was 3.38, with 7.7 K/9. Guardado went on to put up a 1.29 ERA as a Red the rest of the season, so in retrospect Krivsky would have been justified to feel that way.

Now, that said, I think I remember there being rumors and/or reports at the time that Guardado's arm wasn't completely healthy. If that was the case, he'd have been in the market for more relief pitching.

Considering the fact that the Cardinals signed Suppan before I was writing for ESPN.com, I don't think you should be calling anyone "clueless."

Can I call people who lack basic reading comprehension skills clueless?

sorry Harvey I was mischaracterizing your comments I guess. I just think it was a bad trade and is pretty indefensible no matter what, he could have gotten more for what he gave up, he would have been better off just bringing up minor leaguer arms and seeing who could survive 20-30 innings at decent rate.

But Jocketty did make some odd moves, like the Mulder trade, for example. Sticking with Encarnacion. He seemed to lose the magic a bit. Of course, like you say, he had a tight budget, and he was working with a roster that might have required less tweaking. Yet, Haren would've been a wonderful balm for a tight-fisted budget environment, and he was given up (along with Barton) for a pitcher who went into the tank, nearly upon arrival. The Carpenter contract extension was odd too. It just seemed that he wasn't so hot at the end. I am likely wrong, though, as I don't really know the inner workings of the team, and it seems that some of Jocketty's power was sapped by a divided brain-trust.

now that is a trade that needs context, but even with context I don't think it was a smart trade at the time. The context was the Cardinals are a contender they needed a number two level pitcher, and for some reason the fans were clamoring for a left handed starter (not kidding, the press and fans were making a deal about the Cardinals not having a lefty starter, as if that has any meaning, but as I said our fans have become front runners and those people are easy to fool with shiny things, and a few negative words) The Cardinals had two young prospects, Reyes and Haren of which Reyes was almost universally projected as the higher upside player, and of course the Cardinals wanted to get an innings eater type of pitcher, something that most people would not expect out of a young pitcher especially one playing for Duncan and TLR. So the goal was 1. a number two quality pitcher 2. a lefty(god I hate my city sometimes) 3. an innings eater 4. a veteran (this is so that he would be put into the roster right away)

based upon these requirements there wasn't many choices out there and Beane convinced Walt he had to make the deal and for him to throw in Barton to boot (if I was Walt and I had decided to throw in Barton I would have found a way to pull Calero back but Walt decided a free agent minor leaguer wasn't worth holding up a deal---mind you I don't know what is the contract status of Calero, just that he signed a minor league free agent deal with us prior to the previous season)

It was a bad trade and most experts knew it at the time, heck most fans knew it at the time. (I was more ambivalent towards the trade, I hated it at first, defended it for a while then just stop caring to the extent that I can stop caring)


for the record Mulder didn't go into the tank nearly immediately after arriving, he had a solid season posting a 116 era+, pitching 205 innings and posting a 16-8 record, it was pretty much exactly what we wanted, the problem is that Haren outpitched him in the same season posting 217 ip at 117 era+.

??? They have him at runs above position of -1. From here. For comparison, Brian Giles is at 1.6, Mike Cuddyer 1.1.

I was looking at PMLV.

Considering the fact that the Cardinals signed Suppan before I was writing for ESPN.com, I don't think you should be calling anyone "clueless."

Yes I probably should have worded it better, I was comparing your comments about Suppan being a journey man number four, to the same amount of respect given to a career 100 era+ pitcher who had pitched over 200 innings per season for 5 seasons previously to joining the Cardinals. The Cardinals fan base felt about Suppan in the same vein you felt about Suppan signing with the Brewers and neither thought process was supported by the previous evidence. I understand not being happy with the contract size for a guy of his ability, heck I'm a Suppan fan and I thought the Brewers contract was stupid, and would have been perfectly happy with you calling them out for that.

DEAR WALT,

MARK MULDER IS AVAILABLE, AND ALL HE WOULD COST IS VOTTO AND CUETO!!!

THANKS,

TOLAXOR

TOLAXOR, we've missed you.

I couldn't take the Reds seriously under Krivsky because of his juvenile rules (dumping a relief pitcher for being overweight when you have a suspect bullpen)

Considering that relief pitcher has since died in a drunk driving accident (less than a week after another drunk driving incident), I think Krivsky deserves the benefit of the doubt on what his rules were.

Trading Haren, a subsequent star, and Barton for the remains of Mulder was a worse deal than a nice-but-nothing-special OF for a couple of relievers.

When did Jocketty come aboard in Cincinnati? I'm wondering how much input he had in the Baker hiring.

Considering that relief pitcher has since died in a drunk driving accident (less than a week after another drunk driving incident), I think Krivsky deserves the benefit of the doubt on what his rules were.

nope, don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt in this one, the subsequent actions of Hancock a season and a half later doesn't negate the irresponsible power control attitude of a team that knew it was desperate for relief pitching to dump a guy who would have filled a likely niche.

Trading Haren, a subsequent star, and Barton for the remains of Mulder was a worse deal than a nice-but-nothing-special OF for a couple of relievers.

say Harens career turned out to be closer to Reyes, which is what he was projected by most experts (when he was a cardinal he was a fringe number three projected pitcher) Say Haren takes a year longer to mature as a starter even, both cases were much more likely than Haren turning a borderline all star season the season of the trade. The trade was a risk at the time I agree and it obviously came out bad (but once again Mulder had a good first season with the cardinals starting 32 games) there were circumstances for the trade and the Cardinals got what they were going after (mind you it's because of fans insistence on the idiotic---I mean seriously what type of brain dead moron do you have to be to insist on having at least one lefty in the rotation over having the five best starters available--) Once again the trade was borderline justifiable at the time, almost nobody thought it was going to be good for the Cardinals, but the Cardinals were going after a particular need.

The Krivsky trade has no justification at all, it was a bad trade at the time, he easily could have made a better trade to meet his needs. I understand making a trade where you know you are going to lose over the long haul for immediate needs, but at the same time you have to make the best trade you can even though you are dealing from a position of weakness, and the trade Krivsky made wasn't remotely the best he could have gotten.

I will always have a fondness for Krivsky, because he made my Kyle Lohse problem go away.

I'm a Suppan fan and I thought the Brewers contract was stupid

I'm a Brewers fan, and I thought the Suppan contract was stupid. ;)

I'm a Brewers fan, and I thought the Suppan contract was stupid. ;)

I thought the contract was stupid but not the signing, it made perfect sense to me in that it was something a team like the Brewers needed, a reliable 200 95-105 era+ pitcher for a team with a projected above average offense and historically injured pitchers. But the money was just too much to justify.

Totally agreed, CFB. I'll take an average innings eater any day. Not for that kind of scratch, though.

oops wrong thread

Mulder's arm was going to fall off and that wasn't a secret. The miracle was that he got through the 2005 season before that happened. The trade wasn't a risk and it didn't address a need and it didn't solve any problems except with blind label-makers. It was ####ing stupid.

If you can't consider the possibility that Hancock's problems were so severe that a year wouldn't change a whole lot and that Krivsky might have recognized Hancock needed "a change of scenery", then there's not much point discussing the matter with you.

If you can't consider the possibility that Hancock's problems were so severe that a year wouldn't change a whole lot and that Krivsky might have recognized Hancock needed "a change of scenery", then there's not much point discussing the matter with you.

agreed.

Mulder's arm was going to fall off and that wasn't a secret. The miracle was that he got through the 2005 season before that happened. The trade wasn't a risk and it didn't address a need and it didn't solve any problems except with blind label-makers. It was ####ing stupid.

it was suspected that it was going to fall off, but the fact that he was able to get one full season indicates that it wasn't as certain as some people like to think. Once again it was a bad trade but it was made because we have vocal Cardinal fans who are idiots and a press that is even dumber than the fans. The trade was a justifiable but bad trade. Nobody on the planet could predict or woud have predicted Haren to have the career he had, he just wasn't that good. Reyes was clearly the better prospect.

it was suspected that it was going to fall off, but the fact that he was able to get one full season indicates that it wasn't as certain as some people like to think.

It didn't have to be a Biblical certainty to make Mulder a badly overrated commodity.

Once again it was a bad trade but it was made because we have vocal Cardinal fans who are idiots and a press that is even dumber than the fans. The trade was a justifiable but bad trade.

That's a rationalization more than a justification. The team wins 105 games, goes to the World Series and they're worried about the idiots flying banners? If Jocketty couldn't convince his superiors how stupid that mindset is, then he failed miserably at his job, just in another fashion.

Nobody on the planet could predict or woud have predicted Haren to have the career he had, he just wasn't that good. Reyes was clearly the better prospect.

Reyes isn't particularly relevant to the value of Mark Mulder's decaying left shoulder. FWIW when Jocketty called Beane, Beane had no interest in Reyes, probably because of the high injury risk.

one of Reyes or Haren was going to be traded because there was no way both were going to be given a shot. My fault with the Haren trade is that because there was this insitence(god we are stupid) that we get a lefty starter (every time I type it, I have to state that thought process is so idiotic, and yet I still run into people saying the same thing) and Mulder was pretty much the only good one available. I just didn't understand adding both Calero and Barton and not at least extorting a single a pitcher or something else.

The trade was a justifiable but bad trade. Nobody on the planet could predict or woud have predicted Haren to have the career he had, he just wasn't that good.

Sorry to single you out CFB, but this is the part of these trade discussions that irk me. Just because you, me and everyone else at BTF can err wildly on a prospect's ceiling doesn't mean that it's totally unknowable. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Terry Ryan and his scouts knew something when they acquired Liriano, Nathan and Bonser. And Billy Beane and the A's when they acquired Haren. And Larry Beinfest and the Marlins when they got just about everybody. Writing off the results of trades as unpredictable just because we couldn't predict it seems terribly hubristic.

one of Reyes or Haren was going to be traded because there was no way both were going to be given a shot.

Ach! That would be even dumber of Jocketty. With what's transpired with Reyes and Wainwright, it's probably not true anyway.

SOSH, I know what you're saying, but this isn't the best case for that point. Haren led the PCL in strikeouts in 2004, 10.5 per 9, at the age of 23. He was a really good prospect. His shoulders slumped when things didn't go his way and the 2003 bullpen made it a habit to let his bequeathed runners score, so that manager I don't like didn't like Haren.

Ach! That would be even dumber of Jocketty. With what's transpired with Reyes and Wainwright, it's probably not true anyway.

you have to understand the idiocy that is St Louis fans, when McGwire came to town it brought all the fans who had left the team before Whitey had driven the franchise into the ground and when the homeruns weren't coming they were trying to compare the managers and they never really knew much about baseball because of things like Lou Brock being an inner circle hof'er. They understand the actual game on the field just fine, but were clueless on how to build a team, they required that a team have a scrappy white guy, a lefty starter, a closer, a contact hitter batting second, a speedy guy who doesn't walk or strikeout leading off, and good defenders everywhere, throw in average pitching and we have a championship caliber team. They kept looking at the lack of a lefty starter and had pinpointed why we hadn't won the world series, (or they tried to blame the manager, and obviously TLR wasn't as good as Whitey at the primary skill of managing, which is to scapegoat every failure and take credit for every success) The press was killing Walt and TLR saying that they just didn't have what it took to win a world series and that Oquendo needs to take over as manager and Ozzie as gm(or whoever)

You have to deal with external pressure as a gm. I'm not a fan of the trade but I understand why it was made, as our attendence regrew, the average iq of the Cardinal fan went downwards, nearly on par with an umentioned east coast fan.

SOSH, I know what you're saying, but this isn't the best case for that point. Haren led the PCL in strikeouts in 2004, 10.5 per 9, at the age of 23. He was a really good prospect. His shoulders slumped when things didn't go his way and the 2003 bullpen made it a habit to let his bequeathed runners score, so that manager I don't like didn't like Haren.

It wasn't so much this particular comment, but the idea that we have all the information there is to know about a prospect (and in this specific case, I would trust you and CFB to have had more knowledge than me).

Considering the fact that the Cardinals signed Suppan before I was writing for ESPN.com, I don't think you should be calling anyone "clueless."

I was thinking he shouldn't because he said Pujols would be an above average defensive SS yesterday. Or maybe because he thinks the Reds cut Hancock for being fat, not for being an alcoholic who'd later kill himself.

Basically Reyes outpitched Haren at every level they played at and was younger to boot. Reyes had a better K-rate, allowed fewer walks, hits and struckout more.
Haren was considered to be a good prospect with number two potential, Reyes was projected as borderline ace, not much difference but Reyes was better regarded.

I was thinking he shouldn't because he said Pujols would be an above average defensive SS yesterday

in the game chatter? I'm pretty sure I said that I feel Pujols could be an average to above average defensive player at pretty much any spot on the diamond except catcher or centerfield. I wasn't saying if he was put there this minute, but if given a chance.

as to Hancock, whatever. Sorry but you are right the Yankees were stupid for holding onto Mickey Mantle, and Steinbrenner was an idiot for rehiring Billy Martin all those times. Hancock was cut because he was fat, simple as that, there was no 'being a drunk' all the reports flat out said he was cut because he was fat.

Why was Hancock, who put up an ERA below 2 the year before cut for being fat, but Edwin Encarnacion and Hatteberg were fine with their figures? Hancock was cut for being a drunk. If I recall, I remember a lot of the reports mentioned him "not being shape" Sounds to me more like what Speizio was cut from the Braves for. And speaking of Speizio, I think his problems, coupled with LaRussa's napping, show that the Cards wouldn't be shy about picking up a guy with personal problems.

Regarding Pujols at SS, sorry if my phrasing was misleading, I can see how it is now that I re-read it. I did mean to convey what you actually meant though, and I do think it's ridiculous that you think Pujols at the age 28 can become an above average defensive SS.

Why was Hancock, who put up an ERA below 2 the year before cut for being fat, but Edwin Encarnacion and Hatteberg were fine with their figures

?

every press quote listed his weight, listed how much he was over and explained he was injured the previous season, was a marginal player and that marginal players had to prove they wanted to belong, then they also justified it with the argument that he probably wasn't going to make the team and was going to be sent down. Krivsky had already made comments about changing the clubhouse atmosphere before and Hancock was the sacrificial lamb.

Obviously a bias slant on the release but

http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060222&content_id=1319774&vkey=spt2006news&fext;=.jsp&c_id=stl

Why was Hancock, who put up an ERA below 2 the year before cut for being fat, but Edwin Encarnacion and Hatteberg were fine with their figures? Hancock was cut for being a drunk.

Why was Hancock cut but not Freel?

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Terry Ryan and his scouts knew something when they acquired Liriano, Nathan and Bonser.

They did, especially about Liriano. Somtimes teams luck into prospects, I think, but snaring Liraiano from the Giants wasn't luck on the Twins part. They knew. (This is the only piece of inside baseball information I will ever have, but I won't talk about how I know it. I know it seems lame, but I don't want to betray a confidence. Just trust me. The Twins scouting department was all over Liriano.)