Despite the anger from the fanbase we won this trade, we gave up 1.7 WAR for 3.1 WAR. Singer would’ve led the Reds in IP and strikeouts and India was kind of redundant.

14 comments
  1. Yeah, like…in a vacuum it’s a like for like swap of slightly above average players

    But we needed reliable starting pitching depth. We needed another middle infielder like we needed an extra hole in our heads.

  2. Offensively the team should be fine dependent on how much the injury bug hits through the season. Pitching will be the difference maker in terms of just getting a shot at the postseason

  3. I’m not angry at the trade. I hate getting rid of him but it was a good trade. There is just A LOT of work left to be done in order to be a WS contender, and SP was not top of the list. Although I think it’s a great move overall.

  4. Yes we did! I get being a fan favorite and I also loved India, as a teammate, personality and motivator on the team. He had an amazing rookie campaign but since then he’s been a mediocre 2B.

  5. Just glad it wasn’t for picks or we let him walk. Sad to see him go but we got a good and needed SP in return.

  6. I liked India, but this is a good trade. If Singer could work on his consistency, he would be very good. We aren’t over crowded with infield talent but definitely have the right pieces to fill in at 2nd base and not miss much.

  7. I think it’s possible to both like and not like a trade. Statistically, it looks good. But India was also a player who was popular with fans and also seemed to be a clubhouse spark—the Reds seemed to be better when he was playing than when he wasn’t. That doesn’t mean it was a poor decision to trade him, it just means people can be conflicted. And to demand the whole fan base view the trade through one lens or the other is selfish and silly.

Leave a Reply