Rosenthal: Reds to trade Kearns for Pitching?

[CuseCubFan69]

Hendry and Hughes have had a long standing desire for Kearns (at least that's what has been rumored) and according to Ken Rosenthal, he may now be available. No wonder O'Brien was fired, Kearns for Westbrook would have been a nice deal for the Reds--they need pitching. I would think the Reds would have some interest in Williams due to his age and current cost, but he may not be the top line pitcher they're looking for.

I also don't know where Kearns would play at this time with the Cubs, but if they really want him, as bad as it has been rumored, then I would assume they'll worry about that later.

 

<

 

 

The Royals, Cardinals, Cubs and Nationals are among the teams that have had a long-standing interest in Kearns. The Indians recently offered right-hander Jake Westbrook for Kearns, but former GM Dan O'Brien said no to the deal. Those talks could be revisited now that O'Brien is gone.

 

The Indians wanted Kearns to fill the outfield void that could be created by their trade of Coco Crisp to the Red Sox. But the Reds evidently weren't sold on Westbrook, who was 15-15 with a 4.49 ERA last season after going 14-9 with a 3.38 ERA in 2004.

 

Under O'Brien, who was fired Monday, the Reds consistently sought a potential top-of-the-rotation starting pitcher for Kearns, a price that other clubs viewed as too steep.

 

The Royals, for example, were not willing to part with right-handed starter Zack Grienke for Kearns, but they probably would be willing to trade a reliever such as right-hander Mike MacDougal or left-hander Jeremy Affeldt.

 

If the Reds trade Kearns, they could make Ryan Freel an outfield regular or acquire a first baseman and move Adam Dunn back to left field. Scott Hatteberg, Matthew LeCroy and Russell Branyan are among the free-agent options at first.>>

 

So I wonder if the Cubs would move Murton and 2 pitchers for Kearns and Freel. I wonder if the Reds aren't feeling so good about Freel after his DWI and would be more willing to move him and Murton would give them an OF to replace Kearns. I feel this might happen because of the Hendry love for Kearns.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Murton >> Kearns, no thanks.

 

Figure out a trade for me that nets the Cubs Andy Marte, that's the one I want to see.

[CuseCubFan69]

Murton >> Kearns, no thanks.

 

Figure out a trade for me that nets the Cubs Andy Marte, that's the one I want to see.

 

I agree but if Hendry has a thing for Kearns he may make that move. According to Bruce the Cubs are happy with Murton so maybe that'll stop this from happening.

 

ARam is in a contract year, would you make that move and trade him for Marte and others?

[Blueheart05]

FWIW, the Boston Herald and Rotoworld speculate that the Reds will join in the Indians/Red Sox deal to make it a three team, nine player swap, where Kearns goes to Cleveland and Clement to Cincy.

 

It is also believed that the Reds are interested in reviving the three-team talks that would produce a nine-player swap, in which Matt Clement would go to Cincinnati.

 

We're still not sure of the details here, but as reported earlier, Matt Clement would likely go to Cincinnati and Austin Kearns would be sent to Cleveland. We assume Andy Marte would still go Cleveland. Also, the agreed-upon Jason Michaels-for-Arthur Rhodes swap would probably be killed off.

[wade]

Clement would be the Reds' best pitcher by far.

[RynoRules]

Murton >> Kearns, no thanks.

 

Figure out a trade for me that nets the Cubs Andy Marte, that's the one I want to see.

 

Agree with both, but where would Marte play? 2B?

[USSoccer]

 

ARam is in a contract year, would you make that move and trade him for Marte and others?

 

Heck. No.

 

It's only a contract year if he opts out. Maybe he won't. And even if he does, he's entering his prime. No reason to trade him or not resign him. He's better than Lee is.

[TheDude]

I would trade Williams for Kearns. Williams is surplus.

 

Kearns represents insurance off the bench if Murton falls flat, Jones gets injured, or he is simply a potentially solid first bench option. Having Kearns also insures that any aging spring training invitees hoping to make the club are shown the door.

 

Kearns is in a rare position, which is, he has the talent to be an everyday player, but a team could get away with stashing on the bench for 2006. Not many bench options have that qualification.

[soapy]

I would like to have Kearns on the team. I see no reason why he, Murton and Jones can't split up playing time between the three of them.

 

However, I wouldn't trade Williams for him. Call him "surplus" or whatever you want, but I think he's being extremely underated here. He's, what, 23 years old? If Wood isn't healthy, Williams is probably the Cubs' 3rd best pitcher.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Why is Boston going to waste Andy Marte (and others) on Coco Crisp, and why is Philly settling for Arthur Rhodes to give up Jason Michaels? This makes no sense, why doesn't Boston simply trade for Jason Michaels themselves? He's likely just as good as Crisp.

 

If the issue is that Boston doesn't have the relievers to spare, that's where we come in. Make it a 3-way between the Cubs, Sox and Phils.

 

Phils get: Roberto Novoa and John Koronka; or Michael Wuertz (their choice)

Red Sox get: Jason Michaels

Cubs get: Dustin Pedroia

 

What's wrong with that? Everyone wins. Phillies get a better reliever than Rhodes for Michaels; Red Sox get their CF without giving up Marte; Cubs get a young infielder that could be the 2B of the future.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I would trade Williams for Kearns. Williams is surplus.

 

Kearns represents insurance off the bench if Murton falls flat, Jones gets injured, or he is simply a potentially solid first bench option. Having Kearns also insures that any aging spring training invitees hoping to make the club are shown the door.

 

Kearns is in a rare position, which is, he has the talent to be an everyday player, but a team could get away with stashing on the bench for 2006. Not many bench options have that qualification.

 

How is Williams surplus when he's the 3rd best SP with Wood hurt?

[RynoRules]

I would trade Williams for Kearns. Williams is surplus.

 

Kearns represents insurance off the bench if Murton falls flat, Jones gets injured, or he is simply a potentially solid first bench option. Having Kearns also insures that any aging spring training invitees hoping to make the club are shown the door.

 

Kearns is in a rare position, which is, he has the talent to be an everyday player, but a team could get away with stashing on the bench for 2006. Not many bench options have that qualification.

 

How is Williams surplus when he's the 3rd best SP with Wood hurt?

 

I agree - Williams is hardly surplus. He's probably better than Maddux at this point, and at least he's healthy compared to Wood.

 

Moreover, Kearns isn't worth it for anyone we value, IMO. He's no better than Murton at this point, and we have 3 "ok" OFers already.

 

Dunn or Abreu, please. For them, Williams is tradeable. Though I'd prefer to deal Pie and Hill.

[Blueheart05]

Why is Boston going to waste Andy Marte (and others) on Coco Crisp, and why is Philly settling for Arthur Rhodes to give up Jason Michaels? This makes no sense, why doesn't Boston simply trade for Jason Michaels themselves? He's likely just as good as Crisp.

 

If the issue is that Boston doesn't have the relievers to spare, that's where we come in. Make it a 3-way between the Cubs, Sox and Phils.

 

Phils get: Roberto Novoa and John Koronka; or Michael Wuertz (their choice)

Red Sox get: Jason Michaels

Cubs get: Dustin Pedroia

 

What's wrong with that? Everyone wins. Phillies get a better reliever than Rhodes for Michaels; Red Sox get their CF without giving up Marte; Cubs get a young infielder that could be the 2B of the future.

 

I see a lot wrong with it. First of all, Jason Michaels isn't worth, potentially, two Major League players in a trade (you want to give them Novoa and Wuertz [or Koronka])? Secondly, the Cubs would be the only team not getting a ML quality player in return. Lastly, why do the Cubs need Dustin Pedroia when they are grooming Eric Patterson as the 2B of the future?

[Backtobanks]

I agree with some of you who say that Kearns isn't very much different from Corey Patterson. I would like to have Kearns as a platoon 4th OF, but I don't think he's worth Williams. Offer them Welly plus Koronka. Good luck to the Reds if they think they can get a good starter for Kearns.

[TheDude]

I would trade Williams for Kearns. Williams is surplus.

 

Kearns represents insurance off the bench if Murton falls flat, Jones gets injured, or he is simply a potentially solid first bench option. Having Kearns also insures that any aging spring training invitees hoping to make the club are shown the door.

 

Kearns is in a rare position, which is, he has the talent to be an everyday player, but a team could get away with stashing on the bench for 2006. Not many bench options have that qualification.

 

How is Williams surplus when he's the 3rd best SP with Wood hurt?

 

Because he isn't the 3rd best pitcher with Wood hurt. And if even if we get past the personal opinion difference of his talent level, the Cubs have several other young arms that could use a MLB try-out while Wood is out.

 

Folks about complain about the Cubs not seling high. Here is a chance to sell high while the rotation is stocked.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Because he isn't the 3rd best pitcher with Wood hurt. And if even if we get past the personal opinion difference of his talent level, the Cubs have several other young arms that could use a MLB try-out while Wood is out.

 

Folks about complain about the Cubs not seling high. Here is a chance to sell high while the rotation is stocked.

 

Stocked? Just because we have a bunch of mediocre starters does not mean the rotation is stocked.

 

And who do you believe our 3rd best pitcher is with Wood on the shelf?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I would trade Williams for Kearns. Williams is surplus.

 

Kearns represents insurance off the bench if Murton falls flat, Jones gets injured, or he is simply a potentially solid first bench option. Having Kearns also insures that any aging spring training invitees hoping to make the club are shown the door.

 

Kearns is in a rare position, which is, he has the talent to be an everyday player, but a team could get away with stashing on the bench for 2006. Not many bench options have that qualification.

 

How is Williams surplus when he's the 3rd best SP with Wood hurt?

 

Because he isn't the 3rd best pitcher with Wood hurt. And if even if we get past the personal opinion difference of his talent level, the Cubs have several other young arms that could use a MLB try-out while Wood is out.

 

Folks about complain about the Cubs not seling high. Here is a chance to sell high while the rotation is stocked.

 

By trading for Kearns? If you want to trade Williams or the other starters, that's fine, but Kearns isn't very good, and wouldn't help much, especially for the cost.

[TheDude]

Stocked? Just because we have a bunch of mediocre starters does not mean the rotation is stocked.

 

Yeah, actually it does. Stocked has no reference to quality, just quantity. The Cubs have more than 5 starters going into the season, and will have Wood and Miller joining as the season goes on. They have more than one kid who could plug-in a spot start if someone else goes down in April or May.

 

That very easily qualifies as stocked, regardless of whether you think the quality is just mediocre across the board (which it isn't - it's killer at 1-2 and average from 3-5, which incidently makes it better as a whole than 80% of the league).

 

And who do you believe our 3rd best pitcher is with Wood on the shelf?

Maddux is the number 3, even with decline. With similar ERAs, but with a vastly superior strike-out to walk ratio and lower WHIP, Maddux is still better than Williams.

[TheDude]

I would trade Williams for Kearns. Williams is surplus.

 

Kearns represents insurance off the bench if Murton falls flat, Jones gets injured, or he is simply a potentially solid first bench option. Having Kearns also insures that any aging spring training invitees hoping to make the club are shown the door.

 

Kearns is in a rare position, which is, he has the talent to be an everyday player, but a team could get away with stashing on the bench for 2006. Not many bench options have that qualification.

 

How is Williams surplus when he's the 3rd best SP with Wood hurt?

 

Because he isn't the 3rd best pitcher with Wood hurt. And if even if we get past the personal opinion difference of his talent level, the Cubs have several other young arms that could use a MLB try-out while Wood is out.

 

Folks about complain about the Cubs not seling high. Here is a chance to sell high while the rotation is stocked.

 

By trading for Kearns? If you want to trade Williams or the other starters, that's fine, but Kearns isn't very good, and wouldn't help much, especially for the cost.

 

There isn't anything I can tell you to sway you're opinion. All I can tell you is that you are underwriting Kearns prematurely and overvalueing Williams. The league and scouts don't agree with your stated values of these players.

[USSoccer]

I would trade Williams for Kearns. Williams is surplus.

 

Kearns represents insurance off the bench if Murton falls flat, Jones gets injured, or he is simply a potentially solid first bench option. Having Kearns also insures that any aging spring training invitees hoping to make the club are shown the door.

 

Kearns is in a rare position, which is, he has the talent to be an everyday player, but a team could get away with stashing on the bench for 2006. Not many bench options have that qualification.

 

Would you trade Williams for Corey Patterson? Because there is not a lot of difference in their talent potential, and actual success in the major leagues.

 

Williams is being criminally undervalued lately. He's worth more than Kearns, who had his one good year thanks to an insanely high BABIP. He's not worth a #3 starter.

[soapy]

Stocked? Just because we have a bunch of mediocre starters does not mean the rotation is stocked.

 

Yeah, actually it does. Stocked has no reference to quality, just quantity. The Cubs have more than 5 starters going into the season, and will have Wood and Miller joining as the season goes on. They have more than one kid who could plug-in a spot start if someone else goes down in April or May.

 

That very easily qualifies as stocked, regardless of whether you think the quality is just mediocre across the board (which it isn't - it's killer at 1-2 and average from 3-5, which incidently makes it better as a whole than 80% of the league).

 

And who do you believe our 3rd best pitcher is with Wood on the shelf?

Maddux is the number 3, even with decline. With similar ERAs, but with a vastly superior strike-out to walk ratio and lower WHIP, Maddux is still better than Williams.

 

Even if they are "stocked" (I disagree with your definition), I wouldn't want to trade someone of Williams' talent for someone of Kearns' talent, period. It's not selling high at all. Williams is 24 years old. Maddux is 39. I'm sorry, but I totally disagree that Maddux > Williams. Looking at 2005 alone, they were pretty equal. Williams only got better as the season progressed and is much more likely to continue to do so. Maddux has declined in the last few years and is much more likely to continue to do so.

 

Frankly, (I'm going to be in the minority here) I'd rather trade Hill or Brownlie before I traded Williams. Maybe even Guzman (I doubt it).

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I would trade Williams for Kearns. Williams is surplus.

 

Kearns represents insurance off the bench if Murton falls flat, Jones gets injured, or he is simply a potentially solid first bench option. Having Kearns also insures that any aging spring training invitees hoping to make the club are shown the door.

 

Kearns is in a rare position, which is, he has the talent to be an everyday player, but a team could get away with stashing on the bench for 2006. Not many bench options have that qualification.

 

How is Williams surplus when he's the 3rd best SP with Wood hurt?

 

Because he isn't the 3rd best pitcher with Wood hurt. And if even if we get past the personal opinion difference of his talent level, the Cubs have several other young arms that could use a MLB try-out while Wood is out.

 

Folks about complain about the Cubs not seling high. Here is a chance to sell high while the rotation is stocked.

 

By trading for Kearns? If you want to trade Williams or the other starters, that's fine, but Kearns isn't very good, and wouldn't help much, especially for the cost.

 

There isn't anything I can tell you to sway you're opinion. All I can tell you is that you are underwriting Kearns prematurely and overvalueing Williams. The league and scouts don't agree with your stated values of these players.

 

How in the world do you know what the league and scouts think of the values of some players? Because of what Williams was traded for before he was one of the better starters in the National League last year? Because of what a rumor says the Reds will get in return for Kearns?

[USSoccer]

Stocked? Just because we have a bunch of mediocre starters does not mean the rotation is stocked.

 

Yeah, actually it does. Stocked has no reference to quality, just quantity. The Cubs have more than 5 starters going into the season, and will have Wood and Miller joining as the season goes on. They have more than one kid who could plug-in a spot start if someone else goes down in April or May.

 

That very easily qualifies as stocked, regardless of whether you think the quality is just mediocre across the board (which it isn't - it's killer at 1-2 and average from 3-5, which incidently makes it better as a whole than 80% of the league).

 

And who do you believe our 3rd best pitcher is with Wood on the shelf?

Maddux is the number 3, even with decline. With similar ERAs, but with a vastly superior strike-out to walk ratio and lower WHIP, Maddux is still better than Williams.

 

Even if they are "stocked" (I disagree with your definition), I wouldn't want to trade someone of Williams' talent for someone of Kearns' talent, period. It's not selling high at all. Williams is 24 years old. Maddux is 39. I'm sorry, but I totally disagree that Maddux > Williams. Looking at 2005 alone, they were pretty equal. Williams only got better as the season progressed and is much more likely to continue to do so. Maddux has declined in the last few years and is much more likely to continue to do so.

 

Frankly, (I'm going to be in the minority here) I'd rather trade Hill or Brownlie before I traded Williams. Maybe even Guzman (I doubt it).

 

No, I agree with you. Williams is a guy you hold onto.

[TheDude]

No, I agree with you. Williams is a guy you hold onto.

 

As is apparently every othe Cubs prospect unless the deal involves one of the top 5 players in baseball, and even then people around shake their heads.

 

Trying to talk value on this board usually is very difficult. Williams is a very good trading chip for Chicago right now, perhaps the best they have to maximize value.

[rocket]

No, I agree with you. Williams is a guy you hold onto.

 

As is apparently every othe Cubs prospect unless the deal involves one of the top 5 players in baseball, and even then people around shake their heads.

 

Trying to talk value on this board usually is very difficult. Williams is a very good trading chip for Chicago right now, perhaps the best they have to maximize value.

 

Our starting pitching is weak and you want to trade one of our starters who has proven success at the ML level for a right fielder who isn't very good.

 

I don't care if we trade Williams for someone who is useful. But Williams for Kearns is not good for the Cubs.