creechnasty Posted August 23, 2006 Report Share Posted August 23, 2006 [quote name='BengalsNYC' post='322335' date='Aug 23 2006, 10:10 AM']Although I'm not surprised Krivsky did it, I doubt it will amount to much. MLB takes more of a "buyer beware" mentality when viewing trades between clubs. If we end up keeping Majewski (and I think we do) his arm seems to have greatly improved over the past few weeks. He seems to be itching to get back and really prove himself to all of Cincinnati. I have a good feeling about it.[/quote] Yeah, they were saying that at the very least its the Reds way of saying Bowden is a dirty motherfucker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted August 23, 2006 Report Share Posted August 23, 2006 [quote name='BengalsNYC' post='322335' date='Aug 23 2006, 10:10 AM']Although I'm not surprised Krivsky did it, I doubt it will amount to much. MLB takes more of a "buyer beware" mentality when viewing trades between clubs. If we end up keeping Majewski (and I think we do) his arm seems to have greatly improved over the past few weeks. He seems to be itching to get back and really prove himself to all of Cincinnati. I have a good feeling about it.[/quote] Don't be sure. If we can prove that the Nats hid, and lied about the injury, we could send him back and get one of our players back, or perhaps a different player. It has happened before. If it happens, would you rather have Lopez or Kearns back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengals1181 Posted August 23, 2006 Report Share Posted August 23, 2006 [quote name='Jason' post='322365' date='Aug 23 2006, 10:49 AM']Don't be sure. If we can prove that the Nats hid, and lied about the injury, we could send him back and get one of our players back, or perhaps a different player. It has happened before. If it happens, would you rather have Lopez or Kearns back?[/quote] I'd rather have Kearns, but I don't really want either back. Having Kearns back means either Freel, Aurillia, or Encarnancion have to sit on the bench, and all three bring more to the lineup than Kearns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThurmanMunster Posted August 23, 2006 Report Share Posted August 23, 2006 [quote name='Bengals1181' post='322390' date='Aug 23 2006, 11:25 AM']I'd rather have Kearns, but I don't really want either back. Having Kearns back means either Freel, Aurillia, or Encarnancion have to sit on the bench, and all three bring more to the lineup than Kearns.[/quote] i agree with u 100%. Plus we dont want to waste money on the raise that Kearns will get in arbitration. Id rather use it towards pitching cuz our hitting is fine as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 I would rather have fe-lo back...hes better than clayton at ss, but even then we could still treat him like he do clayton and play aurillia at ss just as often, just cause hes young doesnt mean we would have to play him everyday like hes our ss for the future, even if he was or is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.