Rate the Hernandez trade

[McNulty]

This probably the dumbest post you have ever made.

It has nothing to do with anything.

I have clearly laid out my reasons for not liking the deal..It has nothing to do with an agenda about AM.

Please, if these are going to be your posts, put me on ignore because this is just garbage.

Well, you have been critical of AM for months now because he hasn't done anything. Today, he did. I think it was pretty great considering it was Ramon.

You really don't like it because we only saved 2 million? Would you be OK with the deal if we sent them no money in the deal? If yes, I think that's a pretty minor gripe here.

[DonnyUnitas]

Some people will always be negative regardless of whether it's night or day, sunny or rainy, hot or cold. It's always good to have a debbie downer around because sometimes they make good points.

That said, I give the trade a C, but more because of C's description. Acceptable return, elimination of a liability. Good trade.

Welcome to Charm City, Freel. Play well, and maybe we can trade ya this summer and get a few more quality positions back.

[McNulty]

If you go by Roch's numbers, we actually saved 3.5 million in this transaction.

Freel (4 Million) + 2 Million straight salary = 6 Million

Ramon's contract (8.5 Million) + 1 Million buyout next year = 9.5 Million

Edit: Ramon's contract next year is only 8 million, but that's still a savings of 3 million.

[Moose Milligan]

This probably the dumbest post you have ever made.

It has nothing to do with anything.

I have clearly laid out my reasons for not liking the deal..It has nothing to do with an agenda about AM.

Please, if these are going to be your posts, put me on ignore because this is just garbage.

We all pretty much accepted that we'd have to pay someone to take Ramon off our hands this offseason and we've all accepted that we'd have to get a vet like Zaun in here to show Wieters the ropes.

What just happened with Ramon is something that we all wanted.

You were also critical that there were rumors that we'd keep Wieters down for a good chunk of the season. Now that doesn't seem to be the case.

[LuckyHorseshoe]

Can we read something good into our spending money to erase a mistake for the second year in a row? I think that is very important. First Gibbons and now Ramon. I always felt it was a huge part of the advantage of Yankee money . . . ability to buy out mistakes and move on. I like the sign this gives that AM has some autonomy here to make calls on his own. Am I reading too much into this aspect of this deal?

[Moose Milligan]

If you go by Roch's numbers, we actually saved 3.5 million in this transaction.

Freel (4 Million) + 2 Million straight salary = 6 Million

Ramon's contract (8.5 Million) + 1 Million buyout next year = 9.5 Million

Good math El Duderino.

[Lucky Jim]

The resources are not finite (or infinite), they are unknown.

It is simply not true that the $ saved on Player A would be spent on player B.

You can discuss the baseball players past statistics, opine on the chance of improvement or decline of the player. Speculate on the "team chemistry thing", but as fans we should not pretend to know anything about the teams financial resources. He can spend what ever he likes on any player or group of players.

I can very confidently assert that the resources are, in fact, finite. They may be unknown (though they aren't really) but they are most assuredly finite.

[Mike B]

When it is all said and done.....I don't like this trade much at all.

We are getting a UTI guy who isn't that great and he is making 4 million this year.

Then, we are paying 3 million to the Reds for Ramon...So, we are only losing a net of 2 million dollars.

The prospects we got aren't anything special and seem to project out to be bench players at best...according to reports out there.

We paid 3 million for that?

Now, on top of that, we are going to go out and likely pay a few million for a catcher for 2009, to share with Wieters.

So, we are going to end up paying the same money, of not more, for the catchers position as we would have with Ramon.

I know they likely want Ramon out the door and not rubbing off on Wieters but they would have been smarter paying 5 million of his deal and getting back a better player than they got.

XM was saying the figure was 1.5 and ESPN said 2, so there are numbers all over the place. I thought Ramon dogged it the last 2 years so good riddance.

[Sports Guy]

Well, you have been critical of AM for months now because he hasn't done anything. Today, he did. I think it was pretty great considering it was Ramon.

You really don't like it because we only saved 2 million? Would you be OK with the deal if we sent them no money in the deal? If yes, I think that's a pretty minor gripe here.

So, because he did something, I am supposed to bow down and kiss his feet?

[McNulty]

So, because he did something, I am supposed to bow down and kiss his feet?

No, but it seems to me that you are being critical of this deal because of something that's very small. We saved 3.5 million in this deal. Even if we blow all those "savings" on a catcher, who cares? We clearly identified that not blocking Wieters is a priority, we got a player who fits what the front office is trying to do (and the manager loves), and upgraded our UTI position. Its not like Freel is going to be a contract we'll regret since its only for the year.

I guess my point is this deal is pretty much what you've been advocating for AM to pull off for several months, and now that he has you seem disappointed. It doesn't add up to me (and others).

[ChrisAF79]

So, because he did something, I am supposed to bow down and kiss his feet?

No, but you should give credit where credit is due. We all know you'd be critical when the situation would call for it (and even when it really doesn't, such as now).

This honestly comes across like complaining just for the sake of complaining.

[mweb]

Here's what I said in response to SG in the other thread:

I think you're possibly the biggest proponent of eating money to get more talent, so I'm not sure why you're focusing on the lack of savings here. Considering we're not talking about any money beyond 2009, I highly doubt this will matter much in regards to going after other players, especially considering that it was unlikely that we'd just be able to dump Ramon without eating any of the contract.

So lets say we get Zaun, I'd say him, Freel, and the two prospects is much better than Ramon.

Turner seems to have potential to be decent, and him and Freel can at least be viable alternatives if Brob is traded, which is something we obviously lacked after dealing Tejada.

I doubt we could have gotten much or any better in return, and considering the expectations for him over the past 5 months or so, this should be viewed as exceeding those expectations.

So yes, props to AM imo.

[RichmondVA Orio]

Now, on top of that, we are going to go out and likely pay a few million for a catcher for 2009, to share with Wieters.

Whoa here professor. Where are you getting this information? What everyone on the OH thinks will happen is not in line with what MacPhail is planning on doing.

From Roch's blog:

Forget any Jason Varitek rumors that crop up. Totally false. Could you see him agreeing to that arrangement?

"MacPhail said we might not even recognize the name of the veteran catcher who fills in, because it'll take a unique type to fit that description. I'm guessing we'd know the name, but it might not be the ones we've assumed."

http://masnsports.com/2008/12/meeting-with-macphail.html

So first it was pointed out that you were off by 1.5 million on the money going back and now most likely no veteren catcher money being paid out.

[Sports Guy]

Well, I don't particularly agree with the approach MM took, but I do admit that your stance is puzzling at best. You've criticized AM repeatedly for not doing enough because he is trying to milk the other GMs in every deal for every last cent. Meanwhile, CStoner was advocating just releasing Ramon and sucking down all the cost and I saw not a negative word from you toward him about his position (which he advocated long and loud many times since July). Now, AM makes a trade fairly quickly, saves some money, increases MiL depth, and gets a ML caliber player, yet you're still criticizing him by saying "he could have done better". And make no mistake, giving the trade a D or C- is pretty heavy criticism.

It just doesn't come across as an impartial judgment IMO. But, hey, different strokes for different folks...

I'm obviously happy Ramon is gone and I'm happy we got something for him that will help us a bit. If I was a ML GM, I wouldn't have even considered trading for him, let alone, paying him 6 million dollars, which is what Cin is going to pay him after our subsidy.

Lets go over a few things in this post:

1) CRstoner's point about releasing Ramon was to play Wieters everyday starting on Aug 1 of this past season. Chris is on record, on this board in the last few days, of saying that he would rather keep Ramon than do this deal. When attempting to criticize what someone is saying, it would be good if you didn't leave out the big details.

2) AM has been talking to the Reds for weeks...This didn't just happen overnight.(not that this matters really)

3) We traded for Freel, who is making 4 million...We could get similar production from someone making 1/8 his cost...Then, we are sending 3 more million..and, on top of that, we are going to sign a catcher for a few million bucks in all likelihood...a catcher that is probably going to give us production that a journeyman could give us but hey, he will be a vet! So, all in all, i think that is a poor way to spend 9-10 million dollars.

4) The Reds are paying Ramon 6 million but with the loss of Freel, their net gain on their payroll is 2 million...Ramon may be lazy at times(and I agree that it will be nice not to have to watch him) but for 2 million bucks, with the way he can hit, he is cheap.

[Sports Guy]

Whoa here professor. Where are you getting this information? What everyone on the OH thinks will happen is not in line with what MacPhail is planning on doing.

From Roch's blog:

Forget any Jason Varitek rumors that crop up. Totally false. Could you see him agreeing to that arrangement?

"MacPhail said we might not even recognize the name of the veteran catcher who fills in, because it'll take a unique type to fit that description. I'm guessing we'd know the name, but it might not be the ones we've assumed."

http://masnsports.com/2008/12/meeting-with-macphail.html

So first it was pointed out that you were off by 1.5 million on the money going back and now most likely no veteren catcher money being paid out.

First of all, we don't know the true number...We have seen anywhere from 1.5-3 million.

Secondly, the Orioles target appears to be Zaun...Zaun will cost a few million.