From ESPN:

The New York Yankees traded Tony Womack to the Cincinnati Reds on Thursday, getting rid of the second baseman-turned-outfielder just one season after signing him.

The trade was to be announced later Thursday, a high-ranking baseball official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the teams had not publicly confirmed the swap. It was not immediately known what the Yankees were getting in return.

Womack hit .307 to help St. Louis win the NL pennant in 2004, then became a free agent and signed a $4 million, two-year contract with the Yankees.

$2M for a player not as good as Ryan Freel? What’s the point of this? And no mention who the Reds gave up. This makes no sense to me at all, unless it’s part of another deal?

UPDATE: Here are the players involved:

[A]cquired 2B/OF Tony Womack from the Yankees for IF Kevin Howard and OF Ben Himes.

10 Responses

  1. Ken

    He’s actually much worse (and much older) than Freel. Here is Womack’s line in ’05, in 329 ABs: .249/.276/.280. Freel in 369 ABs: .271/.371/.371. This would be a horrible trade no matter who we’re giving up. My estimation of DOB, which had hovered dangerously close to respectable after the Casey/Williams deal, is back down to its normal depths.

  2. Glenn

    What is OB thinking? Two dumb trades. Neither of these trades makes any sense. Adding another soft tossing, HR plagued pither, and an underperforming, high priced infielder makes no sense at all. How does this improve the Club?
    I know most of the guys on this blog were looking to see Casey traded for some pitching. I didn’t want to see Casey go but I could be convinced if the trade was for “Good” pitching. I don’t think the Reds got a sufficient upgrade with Williams. Now it’s Womack, who is long past his prime and will squeeze Freel for AB’s. Aren’t Howard and Himes pretty decent prospects? Are the Reds moving into Jimenez II here?
    I don’t get it and I doubt that OB does either.

  3. al

    the only person i would have traded for tony womac would have been eric milton. we’re so boned.

  4. al

    I agree with Jim McCullough, the only possible logic i can find in all this is:

    Kearns/Pena will be dealt for a starter
    Freel to the OF
    Aurillia starts at 2b
    Womack plays utility and pinch runner
    Milton or Wilson goes to the pen

  5. Tom

    This looks like a setup to send Kearns to the Cubs for hopefully a better than average pitcher and Freel to right field.

  6. al

    who would that pitcher be do you think? Rich hill?

  7. Glenn

    This trade only makes sense if there’s another trade to come. I’m waiting for the next shoe to drop with no confidence that the front office has any idea what its doing. Eric M, this trade me sick too. I’m pass you the trash can right after I’m done with it.

  8. Blue

    I can’t imagine Freel getting a permanent starting job in the outfield over Chris Denorfia, if another trade goes down.

  9. al

    i know i’m in the minority here, but i really don’t mind this trade so much. There was clearly something going on with Howard if the reds didn’t protect him and he didn’t get taken rule 5. BA had him projected to be taken first, so there’s something fishy with him.

    If kearns or pena is dealt for pitching, then freel or denorfia has to start, and the other will be the backup. Aurillia will start at second, which is reasonable after the way he played in the second half, and that leaves the reds with a need for another utility guy.

    Womack can play several positions well, he’s a threat to steal as a pinch runner, he can move runners over, and he’s getting 1 million. If he bounces back offensively even a little, he’ll be a useful utility guy.

    Now if he is expected to start at 2nd, that’s a whole other story.