Comments on: Guardado for Travis Chick

By: LB

LB — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 23:42:18 +0000

#191: It seems that our position players often go on to have better seasons elsewhere, Cirillo, Aurilia, Winn, Olivo.

Every player you mentioned went to the JV league (aka NL).

By: lokiforever

lokiforever — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:06:53 +0000

Whoops Apologies. Couldn’t get my href/link to work.
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/index.jsp?c_id=cin

But the Reds contend that Guapo could be their closer and Krivsky is a genious in turning one team’s garbage into Cincinatti’s treasure.

By: lokiforever

lokiforever — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:43:17 +0000

It seems that our position players often go on to have better seasons elsewhere, Cirillo, Aurilia, Winn, Olivo. This may be park effects, or perception, as I (and others it seems) are bothered by the potential upside realized elsewhere, than grateful for those traded away that did nothing, and eventually left the sport altogether.

I wonder if the same will happen with a Pitcher (a la Fuentes).

Here’s the Red’s view of the trade.

Guardado

By: msb

msb — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:21:42 +0000

#187– Krueger thought the outside valuation of Guardado wasn’t very high. Stark was on KJR at the deadline last year and said that the combination of GuardadoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s contract (money, closing incentives) and shoulder injury led to fewer inquiries and lowered perceived value. FWIW, Guardado also had the (mostly East Coast) 10-team no-trade list.

I don’t know that anyone has heard what might have been offered and by whom last year….

By: gwangung

gwangung — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:17:06 +0000

but this this year he is a strong personality without a role in the bullpen (and so without a role in the clubhouse)

You know, this is something “chemistry” proponents and “clubhouse leadership” proponents neglect….

If you don’t contribute to the team, on at least a league average basis, how the heck can you lead? Or provide chemistry?

By: msb

msb — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:56:39 +0000

#185– he also pointed out that last year they also had uncertainty about the closer role going into this year (would Sori be healty, could JJ do the job) and so hangning on to G made some sense, but this this year he is a strong personality without a role in the bullpen (and so without a role in the clubhouse) and they had to move him.

By: westfried

westfried — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:55:58 +0000

Tahnks for the info, msb.

But can you rephrase the double-negative? Or is that a typo? “he [Kreuger] didn’t think… value wasn’t at all high…” Seems the intent of the quote is that Kreuger thought Eddie’s value was pretty low last year, but I just want to be clear.

But, yes, that’s exactly what I was asking. I was pissed last year, because I thought it was obvious we should have traded him. But, if it’s really the case that getting Chick this year was better than what we could’ve had last year, then I’d have to revise my opinion.

Still, I’d love more specifics (ie, they were offered bozo A and bum b, but couldn’t get goodProspect C), rather than the generic “Kreuger thinks his value was low…”

Thanks!

By: eponymous coward

eponymous coward — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:47:40 +0000

171-

DMZ, is this why we can’t have nice things?

By: gwangung

gwangung — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:44:22 +0000

Huh. That raises my opinion of Kreuger back to where it was before he said some dumb things this year.

As it is, some of the mass media pundits still question the trade, thinking that we could have gotten more or that it sends out a “mixed message.”

By: msb

msb — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:41:04 +0000

FWIW, Krueger opined on KJR this morning (when asked if G. had more value last year) that he didn’t think that Guardado’s value wasn’t all that high last year, as he wasn’t a premiere closer any longer, and other teams had more worry about his shoulder…