Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Rickey Henderson Coming Back to A's? Bar-right-arrows

waste not, want not

Birdos_avatar_tiny by lboros on in News

bernie miklasz hits it on the head vis-vis the cards' organizational dysfunction:

To make the reduced payroll work, the Cardinals need to give significant roles to young players such as like Luna. Players who can start, handle the job, and do it cheaply. But that scenario doesn't hold up, because La Russa prefers playing the veterans, who are pricier, over the youngbloods, who cost less. In this case, the Cardinals dismissed Luna's cheap labor (he made $340,000 this season) to bring in a more expensive temp.
another organization might very well have committed to luna in the offseason, hoping for league-average performance, and used the $1.3 million expended on spivey some other way. likewise, another organization might have committed to reyes and wainwright in the offseason, rather than throwing a million at sid ponson; they might have committed to tyler johnson instead of throwing $2m at ricardo rincon; and they might have committed to a j-rod / rodriguez platoon, rather than trading for larry bigbie, who ended up costing $900K.

spivey, ponson, rincon, bigbie -- that's $5.2 million, plus a left-handed relief pitcher, that the cardinals wasted on "established" veterans who were brought in to do jobs that young players within the organization already could do -- and have done, as it turns out. too bad those resources weren't applied toward a solution for one of the holes that have gone unfilled on this team all season long, and likely will remain unfilled beyond the trading deadline. for example, if the cards had been willing to commit to both wainwright and reyes, they could have traded marquis over the winter when his value was still reasonably high -- might've packaged him with king and a prospect to acquire the "impact bat" they've been missing all season.

i'll acknowledge that la russa does work unproven players into the mix -- molina, flores, and j-rod last year; duncan, luna, hancock, wainwright, reyes, and ty johnson this year. but in the majority of these cases he has not gone out of his way to create an opportunity for a young player; rather, he's turned to youngsters as last resorts, when injuries left him without other options. aside from molina, the cardinals under la russa don't commit to young players; tony's always got to have other (read: veteran) options hovering around, soaking up resources and roster space. over time all those mediocrities gum up the pipeline, and jocketty finds himself with no attractive trade chips and no maneuvering room.

will belliard help? marginally, perhaps; he's got the ability to get hot for two months, and i hope he does. but he's not the type of player who is likely to alter the outcome of the postseason, carry the cardinals to a world series. at any rate, i'm not focusing on this individual trade; in isolation, it's harmless. the troublesome thing is the pattern -- the inefficient use of organizational resources. that's no longer sustainable. jocketty's shopping list for the 2006-07 off-season is already long enough -- 2 or 3 starting pitchers, a left fielder, bullpen help (as always), and bench strength. now he'll also have to buy a 2d baseman, leaving fewer resources available for all the other positions. so the cardinals will spend $2m on a 2bman next winter  . . . . . but they'll come up a few million short in the bidding for jason schmidt.

here's joe sheehan's take on the trade at baseball prospectus (subscrip req'd); you could say he's not a fan:

At the very least, the Cardinals have merely shuffled deck chairs, acquiring a veteran in exchange for a comparably-valued, less-experienced player. It's likely that the difference between the two won't even be a win over the last 60 games of the season. That wouldn't make it a good trade for the Cards--they lose out on Luna's peak seasons at low cost--but it would mean they didn't actively hurt themselves. On the other hand, Luna is trending upward, while Belliard seems to be treading water or sliding back. I've been advocating for Luna most of this year, and I won't stop now; he's going to outplay Belliard over the next two months, take hold of the second-base job in Cleveland and be one of the best 2Bs in the AL in 2007.
i think sheehan's overstating luna's value, but if he isn't -- hoo, boy.

transaction oracle says:

This isn't one of Walt Jocketty's best trades.  While I was skeptical of Luna's play last season, he's playing just as well this season splitting time with Aaron Miles.  While Luna has a disproportionate amount of at-bats against left-handed pitchers, the difference in platoon splits is only 29 points of SLG (identical OBP), so one can't argue that his stats are beefy from beating up lefties.  Speaking of platoon splits, the Miles/Luna sorta platoon has to be one of the most pointless platoons ever - Miles actually has a higher career OPS against lefties and hasn't been as good as Hector Luna at either handedness.

While I appreciate Belliard and his impressive Fat-Leticism at second, I don't see him as all that much a better player than Luna now (if at all) and I'd rather have 4 years of Luna than 2 months of Belliard.  Yes, the trade gets Aaron Miles out of the lineup, but the team could've done that anyway.  My only complaint is of utilization . . .

the luna-belliard deal is a rare one in this sense: it's a straight-up trade of position players at the same position. i've only found two previous instances of this type of deal in jocketty's record: on march 29, 2004 he dealt speedy outfielder kerry robinson to the padres for speedy outfielder brian hunter; and on the trade deadline in 1999, he traded utility guy shawon dunston to the mets for utility guy craig paquette. so this is the first time walt has traded a starting position player for a starter at the same position. in 2002 he did trade the cards' starting 3bman (polanco) for a new starting 3bman (rolen), but it wasn't a straight-up transaction. . . . .

in case you missed it, both the pa.m beach post and the post-dispatch (2d-to-last graph) confirmed the cards' active pursuit of dontrelle willis. . . . .not that it alters the outcome, but at least it clears up any doubts about whether this so-called rumor had any truth behind it.

0 recs | Comment 217 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Great
Nice to see the Reds getting all the bullpen help we need.

by roebirds on Jul 31, 2006 1:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Cormier has 13 K and 12 BB this year
He's like Tyler Johnson, only not free.

by DanUpBaby on Jul 31, 2006 1:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No Tyler Johnson
That's a pretty selective stat to compare the two, since Rheal has never struck people out. It's better to look at his important stats, like a 1.59 ERA, .225 BAA, and 1.18 WHIP in 43 games this season.

Me thinks TJ is a bit off those numbers (5.06/.238/1.59).

by roebirds on Jul 31, 2006 2:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

He's got good numbers
but he doesn't have good peripheral numbers and he's in his late 30s, so I'm willing to bet he's got no chance of keeping them up. Nobody's going to keep an OBA of .225 while striking out all of 3.5 batters per nine innings.

by DanUpBaby on Jul 31, 2006 6:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Trade Deadline
It's over at 3pm Central time, correct?

I have a feeling we are going to stand pat...Mulder can be the #2 pitcher we are looking to get through a trade. I just don't know who the hell we have with any value? Duncan? Marquis? Those guys aren't exactly going to bring in a great player. I have to agree I wish LaRussa would give the young guys more of a shot. I know it is probably a risky situation to play youngsters everyday, but with guys like Pujols, Rolen and JED protecting them in the lineup, I think they would thrive the way J-Rod did last season in the 2nd half and the way Duncan has done so far. We could still have Haren and Daric Barton. Luna. Hopefully Jock pulls off a nice deal today, it just stinks that he has to cater to TLR so much when there are obviously players that we could have gotten or could get that TLR probably wouldn't even be interested in.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:11 AM EDT   0 recs

saw that
I wanted Cormier, oh well.

Transactionoracle hit it right on the head.  Belliard is better than Miles and about the same as Luna.  I, too, would rather have 4 years of Luna (at the low salary for at least the first couple) than 2 months of Belliard.

The trend is also concerning which is why I'm not crazy about the possiblity (probability?) of trading for Shawn Green once the July 31 deadline comes and goes.  Yes, he'll probably be better this year than Duncan, but what will we miss out on b/c we're paying Green $9 million for his .790 OPS when we could be paying Duncan/Rodriguez the minimum each for their .790 OPS.  Plus, they'll be improving (or at least Duncan will) while Green's going downhill.

by houstoncardinal on Jul 31, 2006 10:12 AM EDT   0 recs

Green
He would only be a rental for 2 months, right? If he is going to be under contract after this year I hope the Cardinals stay farrr away. I don't want anything to do with him if it is for more than 2 months.

And after all that penny-pinchin' the Cards wanted to do this past offseason, it looks like they are going to end up spending a bit of money after all is said and done. Maybe if they'd just spent the money on good players in the offseason we wouldn't be scrounging for guys wherever we can find.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:16 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Green
earns $8 million this year, is signed for next year at $9.5 and there is a mutual option for 2008 at $10 million.  He also has a no-trade clause to all but 3 teams I think.  In any case, he may want the Cards to exercise that option in order to complete the trade.  

Presumably the snakes may pick up some of the $$$$ on the contract but there's no way they pick up enough to make it worth not playing Rodriguez/Duncan.

by houstoncardinal on Jul 31, 2006 10:30 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

eww...
I wouldn't mind him for 2 months, but for 2 years after that? Heck no! There are plenty of better options, this might be one of the worst deals ever if this happens.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:34 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree
I thought he was going to be a free agent after this season. His numbers are about the same as J-Rod's and significantly worse than Duncans.

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 10:41 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Just in...
Pirates traded Sean Casey to the Tigers for minor leaguers. Wow...

by cardsrul on Jul 31, 2006 10:22 AM EDT   0 recs

Really?
Not a bad pick-up for Detroit. Shelton hasn't been very good since his hot start to the season and the Tigers have been lookin' for a left-handed bat. The Pirates might as well give us Jason Bay already, they are going to be last in the division every year, forever.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:29 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

how about
jason bay for timo perez and aaron miles, and maybe a five gallon bucket of gatorade.

ha

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Jul 31, 2006 10:54 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

TLR's comments confuse me....
"Sometimes you have to seize the moment," Cardinals manager Tony La Russa said. "This is our chance to win." - on getting Belliard

AND TAKE A BREATH TONY......

On Luna -

"There isn't anybody who's had more confidence in him than our staff," La Russa said. "We've given him playing time. He's responded. I think he has a chance to be a special player and he's still learning."

uh....  these statements conflict.  

by Schnake on Jul 31, 2006 10:23 AM EDT   0 recs

Meh
How is this any different than anything the Cardinals feed their fans? I'd appreciate it if they'd quit blowin' smoke up my butt.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:26 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Spinmasters
Don't you think that Walt or Tony could moonlight in the offseason as press secretary for some politico in D.C.? Spin, spin, spin. It's all they do.

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 10:28 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

cholesterol in the arteries
Lboros' analysis is very clear and I agree completely. This is a trade that has no real point except to exchange a young player for a veteran of nearly identical value. The only "plus" for St. Louis is Belliard's "experience" - no real difference in peformance this season, or expected performance for the remainder of this season - while the "minus" is cost.

Over a series of such deals, the costs add up like cholesterol in the arteries, and it's time for a bypass.

Still, grumbling about trading strategy is less painful thinking about the Cubs series.

by madridbend on Jul 31, 2006 10:26 AM EDT   0 recs

Jocketty Quote in P-D
"Right now he's the best offensive player we felt we could acquire."

Um, but Belliard is only marginally better than Luna, if he is better than Luna at all. This move does not make us better and makes no sense to me whatsoever. At what point does Jocketty tell TLR, "Tony, you are playing the youngsters. I refuse to sign Timo Perez. I refuse to trade for Aaron Miles. I refuse to sign Ponson."

Why didn't we re-sign Grudz? At least we'd be getting above average defense as well.

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 10:26 AM EDT   0 recs

Keith Law
We frequently mock him here, but I believe that he sums up this deal rather well in his latest blog post on ESPN.com Insider:

"It's not clear where St. Louis thought it was helping itself with this deal, and there's a nonzero chance that the Cardinals hurt themselves slightly for 2006."

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 10:31 AM EDT   0 recs

I'm not
sure what that's supposed to mean.
Cheers, Alex Fritz

by Alxfritz on Jul 31, 2006 10:42 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Meaning
It just means that there is not a readily recognized improvement from the trade and that the deal has a chance of hurting the Cardinals come next year when Luna plays well and we sign another Junior Spivey type for $1.7M or something in this ilk.

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 10:52 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't
know what he is trying to say either. Terrible wording, no wonder people mock him.

"nonzero chance of hurting themselves in 2006"

so he is saying that the Cardinals have no chance of hurting themselves in 2006? So he likes the trade? But he doesn't know what the Cardinals were thinking? Gahhh...confusion!

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:10 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes
it caused my eyes to go crossed trying to decode it
Cheers, Alex Fritz

by Alxfritz on Jul 31, 2006 11:21 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

he is saying...
that the cardinals didn't do a trade guaranteed to benefit them.

NEXT year there is a chance (hence nonzero) that this trade will come back to haunt us.

Law seems to make declarations and then back them up very poorly.  All trades have a nonzero chance of being bad for those involved.

Seems like he got his job by being very bold a la Jim Rome, however for fear of being wrong he writes things that are as middle of the road as possible.

by bretsyboo on Jul 31, 2006 11:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

nope
"there's a nonzero chance that the Cardinals hurt themselves slightly for 2006"

he's saying Belliard may be worse than Luna THIS year. Not next year.

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 11:34 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well
whatever the hell he was trying to say, the point is Keith Law is an idiot.
Cheers, Alex Fritz

by Alxfritz on Jul 31, 2006 11:37 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

well...
You could say there's a nonzero chance that he's an idiot.

by john vb on Jul 31, 2006 3:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Mets are
looking at both Schmidt and Oswalt, and are apparently willing to trade Milledge. Heilman is rumored to be included in any deal, too.

by cardsrul on Jul 31, 2006 10:32 AM EDT   0 recs

I wish
We had a starter we could move for Milledge. Too bad Mulder isn't healthy...Mulder for Milledge and Heilman. I'd do it!

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:35 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

oswalt...
if oswalt goes to the mets, thats gonna be a big blow to the cards come playoff time.

by gdowdy3 on Jul 31, 2006 10:35 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Astros
Would the 'stros really part with Oswalt? I thought they were trying to do everything they could to get to the Series this year. They are up to 3rd in the Majors in Payroll and I read they were willing to take on even more to get to the Series.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:37 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If you're the 'Stros
why on earth would you trade Oswalt before Clemens?

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 10:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The Astros
are not all that bright for even discussing trading Oswalt.  He is their best player, including Berkman.  

Richard Justice, a Houston sportswriter, speculated last night that even this talk about trading Oswalt will hurt the Astros when trying to resign Oswalt after next season.  

by houstoncardinal on Jul 31, 2006 10:43 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

So...
Oswalt opts to leave Houston, to get revenge signs with the Cardinals? :D

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:47 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Speculation I've heard...
is they're trying to "shop him" to gauge his value to sign him to a long-term contract.

Y'know that I, as a 'Stros fan, hope so, LOL!

by StrosDux on Jul 31, 2006 5:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Would the Astros trade for Milledge?
With the Astros seemingly going all out to make the WS this year, in order to please Clemens, why would they be willing to pay such a high price for a rookie outfielder?

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 10:52 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You know how NY teams can be...
Thinking they only need to give up a prospect for an ace. Right. Whatever.

by StrosDux on Jul 31, 2006 5:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Oswalt?!?!?!
If he is available why the heck are we not going after him?  I know he has had some injury issues, but sheesh!  If the Stros are that desparate to trade him BEFORE that payroll cancer Clemens we need  to move.

Okay deep breath, Astros would never trade him to us unless a guy names pujols was going the other way (I'm not talking Wilfredo)

by ibby001 on Jul 31, 2006 2:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Long-term deal by trading for the short-term?
Just a possibility.  By getting Belliard for this rental, he has to be considered a Type A free-agent or at the very least a Type B.  That means that we offer him arbitration, he declines, we don't offer enough money and he ends up signing elsewhere and we get a first/second round draft pick plus a supplemental.  That means that Rasmus gets freed up to be traded today because we can afford to do so without really hurting our farm system besides delaying a potential player by a year---and Rasmus is our only trading chip outside of Reyes.  

I don't know, it's just a thought...or a hope that we get something better than Ronnie Belliard to improve this team.

A diamond is just a lump of coal that performed well under pressure

by joker24 on Jul 31, 2006 10:47 AM EDT   0 recs

There
are better bargaining chips than Rasmus in our system. We have a lot of pitchers at the Double-A level who would be intriguing, but the problem is everyone wants guys who are major league ready, like Reyes.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:49 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

How can you say...
that any of our double a pitchers are better bargaining chips than Rasmus?  I don't think Pomeranz, Parisi, or any of our double a pitching prospects are rated that highly.  I think most publications would rate Rasmus as our number one prospect now that Reyes is in the majors.  Our highest pitching prospect might be Jamie Garcia...I don't know, but he's at double a.  I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but what makes you say this?

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 11:10 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Just
going by hearsay...I thought our pitching was far deeper, but you may be right with Rasmus being our highest rated prospect now. I guess I was just saying we are far deeper in pitching than hitting at this point, so i think it would be more likely that Jockety would deal from that rather than trade our best (only?) position playing prospect.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:15 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I meant
garcia is not at AA - I meant to say he's at A.

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 11:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Another take
I think it's possible that Luna got on Tony's bad side by being unhappy about his lack of playing time.  For the same reasons everyone here clamored for him to start, he probably felt that he should be starting as well.  Anyone who has played baseball knows that when a nonstarter plays well and doesn't start he starts to complain.

Why are people saying that his stats aren't inflated from platooning?  They might not be, but what evidence is there that they aren't.  He's facing more lefties than anything else...so i would surmise that it's possible that this situation helped his OBP - am I forgetting something?

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 10:52 AM EDT   0 recs

luna's at-bats
are about evenly split between righties and lefties this season. he does not have a large differential . . . . .

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 11:04 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Right...
...but that's not a normal split.  Pujols has 275 PA (roughly) against RHP, 100 (roughly) against LHP.  Rolen has 268 (roughly) against RHP, 112 (roughly) against LHP.

Luna has 120 vsR and 124 vsL.  That difference is enough to inflate his overall stats.

by whopperman on Jul 31, 2006 11:35 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

My point exactly
thank you.

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 11:58 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

but luna hits
just as well vs right-handers as he does vs lefties . . . . that's what i mean when i say he doesn't have a significant split. he hasn't fattened up his stats by murdering lefties while sucking vs righties. he hits all comers equally well.

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 12:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You sure?
This year he's 310/355/431 vsL, 271/355/402 vsR.  OBP's the same, but 40 points of average and 30 points of slugging.

2004-05, he was 271/336/414 vsL and 260/311/362 vsR.

Not a massive difference -- probably not even statistically significant yet -- but it definitely IS a difference.

by whopperman on Jul 31, 2006 12:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm thinking it might be the same reason
he got on my bad side.   I want a real second baseman.  

yeah, I love Luna's utility and cost.  But I want a 2nd baseman who knows the position.

by sdrone on Jul 31, 2006 11:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i'm sure
if LaRussa and the staff really felt he could be special they would have put the time in to teach him the finer points of being a second baseman. I don't think LaRussa or anyone else thought he could be an everyday option for the Cardinals, which is really too bad.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:37 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Anyone read...
the book Fantasyland? The writer goes around and talks to a lot of managers and mentions stats like OBP and OPS and a lot of managers note that they really never look at that stuff. They just kind of go on what they think they remember about guys and go with who they feel is best.

Probably explains why Miles is playing so often...TLR thinks he remembers him playing well.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:06 AM EDT   0 recs

great book
I started taking my fantasy team a lot more seriously after I read that, and now i've been in first place for two months.

by effin fisk on Jul 31, 2006 2:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Reds acquire SP Kyle Lohse
for a pretty good pitching prospect whose name I can't remember. Kyle Lohse is arguably as bad as Jeff Weaver.
That's beer, that's Budweiser.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Jul 31, 2006 11:14 AM EDT   0 recs

Reds
not Homer Bailey?

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:17 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

you gotta admire
wayne krivsky's guts.  He's going for it and he should.  He's bolstered that pen and now adds a pitcher who is, you're right, about the same as weaver.  After so many bad seasons in a row, Reds' fans have got to be ecstatic.  All this may not work out, but at least he's going for it.

by houstoncardinal on Jul 31, 2006 11:18 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i agree
i like his guts (although not the kearns trade) and would at least be encouraged that he is trying if I was a cincy fan.

I think this is a good move too.  I like Loshe to rebound the next few years.

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 11:22 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i'm with you
krivsky is attacking his weaknesses aggressively and changing the complexion of his team. he obviously understands the game is all about pitching, and he's rapidly broadening the base of mound talent in that organization.

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 11:22 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

true
the cormier trade is nice. the trade with the nats isn't lookin too good already. majewski has had trouble in GAB already and Lopez and Kearns are hitting really well since being traded. The Lohse trade (if true) makes no sense.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:27 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

on the other hand
Kyle Lohse is not a good baseball player.

by DanUpBaby on Jul 31, 2006 1:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Worse indeed
Lohse 2006

63.2 IP/7.07 ERA/50 ER/80 H/8 HR/25 BB/46 SO/

.308 BAA/.378 OBPA/.454 SLGA/.830 OPSA

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 11:21 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This Trade
seems pretty dumb. No way is Lohse better than Brandon Claussen. If they actually traded a minor-leaguer who even has a shot at making it to the majors this is a bad trade.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Zach Ward
Is the pitching prospect they traded.

He is in A Ball , 7-0, with a 2.23 ERA

That's beer, that's Budweiser.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Jul 31, 2006 11:29 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Lohse can easily rebound
next year or this year.

Classic buy low move that can help this year but also has payroll implications for the future.

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 11:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

where
did u get this info?

by cards4ever on Jul 31, 2006 11:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

link?
i didn't see anything about Lohse on espn.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:28 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Stats, not of trade
I can't find anything on this Lohse trade. Any suggestions?

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 11:29 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It's on
the official Reds site, although not anywhere else.

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 11:33 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

redreporter.com
they are talkin about the lohse trade in the comments...where the heck did this even come up? i haven't seen anything on any sports sites, not even the reds homepage.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:33 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

wha-wha-what!?
they traded a 22 year old who was 7-0 with a 2.29 era for a 5th starter who has been horrendous all year? i admire krivsky for "goin' for it" but this just seems like a terrible deal.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:35 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Krivisky worked in Minnesota
w/ Lohse.  Who better to know what this kid has?  Lohse actually has the stuff to be better than a 5th starter but hasn't quite put it together.

I think this is a good buy low move by Krivisky.

and FYI low-A doesn't mean alot.  

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 11:39 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

zac ward
3rd-round draft pick, but he's putting up those stats as a 22-yr-old in low-a ball . . . . doesn't necessarily mean he is any good. he'll need some time at high a, then at least a season and a half at double a / triple a  . . . . and he may not perform at those levels.

guys like him are easily replaceable.

at best he is two years away from sniffing the majors; the reds are trying to get into the playoffs in 2006.

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 11:48 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Minnesota -
has also made some smooth deals for pitching prospects in the past - I hope