Salary Dumping With the Cincinnati Reds
Rejoice ye Reds fans. The team just dumped some smart salary.
Alex Gonzalez, the injury-plagued, slick fielding shortstop has been traded to Boston.
The Reds did pick up some of this Gonzo's salary for this season and in return got a guy named Kris Negron, a 23-year-old Single-A shortstop who has about as much chance to see the inside of the Great American Ball Park's clubhouse as Krusty the Clown.
Why? In January, Negron will be 24. Pretty old for a Single-A guy.
Addititionally, like Krusty, he spells his first name with a "K". If you are male and you spell your name Kris—no chance.
Guys with horrible baseball names never make it to the show.
Plus, Negron can't seem to hit a baseball. So far this season he is batting .264 with 3 HRs, and most disturbingly, he has been struck out 83 times in 409 at bats. If a light-hitting shortstop can't make contact at Single-A, it's time to face the fiddle and start filling out Wal-Mart applications.
With Gonzalez, the Red Sox re-acquire the slick glove they saw in 2006. That's where the positives end.
Ankle injuries have caused him to lose a step, but the guy can still pick it with the best of them.
The trade is good for both teams.
The Reds get to dump salary by getting rid of a guy they don't really need.
Paul Janish who is currently riding the pine is also a slick-fielding, light-hitting shortstop. And he comes about $4.5 million cheaper than Gonzo. The Reds will most likely give him a look.
At least until Scott "#$%^&" Rolen returns home from "la-la land."
The Red Sox get an almost Gold Glove caliber shortstop. Gonzo may even out hit Nick Green. He hasn't exactly set that bar very high.
As noted, ankle injuries have taken their toll—and Red Sox fans looking for the Gonzalez of 2006 may be a bit disappointed, but a post-injury Gonzalez is still a better fielder than 90 percent of the other MLB shortstops.
In short, this is a very minor deal that could have been fully explained in a Twitter thingy— "Reds give Sox slick glove at short to save money."
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?