To his discredit, Krivsky is again largely focused on adding a reliever, in particularly a closer, in a Dunn deal. For a team that may not win 120 games between now and Opening Day 2009, it’s a ridiculous approach. A closer, even a very good one, isn’t going to make a difference to this team, and it’s a role that can be filled accidentally when the Reds are ready to contend. Krivsky needs to stop worrying about filling a low-value roster role and focus on getting the most talent, at any position, he can get.
First, let me say I am against any trade involving Adam Dunn; it's simply too big of a risk to try to get fair value for a 28 year old masher, especially with our current GM. But for Krivsky to say he's hoping to get a CLOSER in a Dunn deal is insane. Yes, the Reds pen has cost us games this year, but does any rational human being (this might eliminate Wayne) think a closer will net us more wins than Dunn could alone with his bat? And even if he does succeed in getting a closer who pitches well for the rest of the year, how long will that last? Closer is the most volatile position in baseball (and seemingly easiest to fill with a quad-A player). Back to Sheehan:
Wayne Krivsky blew up what was a fringe wild-card contender by overpaying badly for relievers Bill Bray and Gary Majewski. Sending away Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez killed the team’s strength, its offense, while providing absolutely no gains anywhere else.
Allow me to step inside Wayne's head for a bit.
I really blew it last year trading away solid bats for bullpen help, thinking our team was thisclose to contending. I might as well roll the dice on another proven-bat-for-unproven-relievers trade. It can't possibly blow up in my face again. Right? Right?
Okay, enough of that. Not nearly as fun as I thought it would be. But to answer your question Wayne, yes, YES, 1000 times YES, you can (and will) blow it again. Keep Adam Dunn.