From Reds Insider:

When looking at last season’s big trade between the Nationals and the Reds, do so as if Gonzalez came to Cincinnati in the deal as well. Why? Austin Kearns is asking for $4.25 million in arbitration from the Nationals, who offered $3.65 million, and Felipe Lopez is asking for $4.1 million and was offered $3.7 million.

If they still were on Cincinnati’s roster, the Reds would not have had the money to sign Gonzalez.

The question is whether Bill Bray, Gary Majewski and Gonzalez are worth what Kearns, Lopez and Ryan Wagner are.

Ok…what am I missing? If the Reds still had Lopez and were paying him $4.1M (or $3.5M), why would they need to sign Gonzalez? The truth is that the trade has come down to Kearns, Lopez, and Wagner for Bray, Majewski, and 1/2 a season of Clayton.

Fay’s apologies for Krivsky are becoming more ludicrous by the day.

About The Author

I've been a Reds fan since the late '60's, with my luck of being able to attend plenty of games at Riverfront during the BRM era. I was sitting in the Green Seats in the OF when Pete came home in '84 and was in the Red seats when Glenn Braggs reached over the fence in '90 to beat the Pirates. I have had many favorites from Jim Maloney to Johnny Bench, Barry Larkin, Adam Dunn, and Jay Bruce.

Related Posts

9 Responses

  1. Nate

    I don’t mean to defend the trade, but Fay is surely right that salary considerations are relevant, and that the trade freed up money that allowed the Reds to sign Gonzalez. That means that the appropriate comparison is:
    Kearns, Lopez, and Wagner
    vs.
    Bray, Majewski, 1/2 a season of Clayton, and Gonzalez.

    I still wouldn’t have pulled the trigger, but it’s not quite so bad.

  2. EricTW

    Agreed with the above, and after all of the crazy signings that have happened in the offseason, the Gonzalez trade isn’t looking so bad. And if Gonzalez can turn in a year of 20+ HR and 70+ RBI, I do like the signing. We’ll see if he can manage that.

  3. Tom

    The salary concern doesn’t hold water either. Because if you don’t make the trade, you don’t go add Conine and his pathetic bat at 2M either, so it’s the 8M of Kearns/Lopez minus the 6M of Gonzalez/Conine. You then go into the season with the following:

    2B Lopez
    CF Denorfia
    1B Dunn
    3B Encarnacion
    LF Griffey
    RF Kearns
    C Ross
    SS Phillips

    That leaves a very strong bench with Hatteberg, Freel, Castro, Valentine, and probably Hamilton. Only changes in pitching is Mejewski/Bray for Wagner/Shackelford at the end of the bullpen. The trade was a freaking disaster that can’t be sugarcoated.

    If you want to go improve the defense, you at least have the depth to have some chips to trade with. Maybe you could even get something worthwhile in return this time.

  4. Chris

    I agree with Tom – I’ll pretend that Gonzalez’ money came from the LaRue trade; and that trading Kearns let Krivsky spend $2M on Conine and Stanton.

    That theory is just as valid as Fay’s. But even if you buy Fay’s apologia (no clue why he’s staking his meager credibility on Krivsky), the trade is a loser.

  5. Shawn

    I think you missed the point, Bill: Mr. Fay is saying that the money that would be going to Lopez and/or Kearns is going to Gonzalez instead. That doesn’t make the trade a lot better, since it cost the Reds a chance at the 2006 division title, but it explains the vision a bit more.

    I think the LaRue money signs Conine, which isn’t helpful either.

  6. Chris

    Then where does the approx. $10M in new TV revenue go? Into Kyle Lohse, Juan Castro, and Minnesota Twins highlight videos?

  7. Daedalus

    I think more appropriately it was Bray, Majewski, 1/2 a season of Clayton, and the playoffs.

    Not sure about everyone else, but I’d rather have no trade and the playoffs than Gonzalez for this year.