PDA

View Full Version : Rolen



15fan
08-17-2006, 06:16 PM
Scott Rolen. He's a gamer.

Remember waaaaay back in 2002 when he was on the market?

It's too bad that the Reds couldn't get their stuff together and come up with a better package than the Cards. Seriously, Placido Polanco, Mike Timlin and Bud Smith was all it took to get a perennial All-Star?

(If I was a Phils phan, I'd be seriously irked at how pathetic that return was for Scott Rolen.)

Junior-Rolen-Dunn-Kearns would have been pretty sweet.

BRM
08-17-2006, 06:17 PM
I thought Bowden did put together a better package and Lindner refused to increase the payroll. Am I remembering it wrong?

Matt700wlw
08-17-2006, 06:18 PM
I thought Bowden did put together a better package and Lindner refused to increase the payroll. Am I remembering it wrong?

I don't know.

Wouldn't shock me.

Red Leader
08-17-2006, 06:19 PM
I thought Bowden did put together a better package and Lindner refused to increase the payroll. Am I remembering it wrong?

That's the way I remember it as well.

I can't remember exactly who the Reds offered but I remembered it was considered superior to the Cards offer at the time.

HotCorner
08-17-2006, 06:19 PM
I thought Bowden did put together a better package and Lindner refused to increase the payroll. Am I remembering it wrong?

That's what I remember too. I thought Bowden had worked out a deal for Rolen and a pitcher and the pitcher made too much jack for Linder's liking.

Red Leader
08-17-2006, 06:20 PM
That's what I remember too. I thought Bowden had worked out a deal for Rolen and a pitcher and the pitcher made too much jack for Linder's liking.

Wasn't the pitcher, Randy Wolf?

OldXOhio
08-17-2006, 06:20 PM
That's what I remember too. I thought Bowden had worked out a deal for Rolen and a pitcher and the pitcher made too much jack for Linder's liking.

Wasn't the pitcher's salary to the tune of $1 million too high? Or was that Colon?

RedsManRick
08-17-2006, 06:22 PM
The package we offered (centered around Brandon Larson) was preferred by Philly, but Bowden couldn't get a promise that we'd spring for an extention. That was my understanding.

That all said, would you rather have Rolen or EE right now?

Red Leader
08-17-2006, 06:23 PM
The package we offered (centered around Brandon Larson) was preferred by Philly, but Bowden couldn't get a promise that we'd spring for an extention. That was my understanding.

That all said, would you rather have Rolen or EE right now?

Both. EE probably would have been moved to the OF or 1B if Rolen were here.

HotCorner
08-17-2006, 06:25 PM
Wasn't the pitcher, Randy Wolf?

I thought it was Terry Adams.

Joseph
08-17-2006, 06:25 PM
Wasn't Williamson and Larson the main parts of our package?

HotCorner
08-17-2006, 06:26 PM
Wasn't the pitcher's salary to the tune of $1 million too high? Or was that Colon?

He supposedly had another deal made for Colon that was nixed by ownership.

Aronchis
08-17-2006, 06:33 PM
He supposedly had another deal made for Colon that was nixed by ownership.

Never was a deal for Colon. The Indians wanted a prospect package they got from the Expos, the Reds didn't have the fire power(or at least prospects the Indians wanted). That is a myth.

Long term, not trading for Rolen was the right thing to do. Injury prone, I wouldn't be surprised that 2007 won't be like 2005 for him. Body is wearing down........oh, there is also that EE guy, who we all knew was going to be a stud in 2002(well, at least I did, really;) ).

reds44
08-17-2006, 06:33 PM
Scott Rolen. He's a gamer.

Remember waaaaay back in 2002 when he was on the market?

It's too bad that the Reds couldn't get their stuff together and come up with a better package than the Cards. Seriously, Placido Polanco, Mike Timlin and Bud Smith was all it took to get a perennial All-Star?

(If I was a Phils phan, I'd be seriously irked at how pathetic that return was for Scott Rolen.)

Junior-Rolen-Dunn-Kearns would have been pretty sweet.
Yes because that Encarnacion guy has been sucking lately.

backbencher
08-17-2006, 06:56 PM
I thought it was Terry Adams.

That's my recollection, too.

BrooklynRedz
08-17-2006, 07:09 PM
The package we offered (centered around Brandon Larson) was preferred by Philly, but Bowden couldn't get a promise that we'd spring for an extention. That was my understanding.


Yep. And Rolen declined the trade to Cincy, choosing St. Louis instead.

Spitball
08-17-2006, 07:29 PM
I'm not sure all our memories are true. You can google and check the articles yourselves, but this one is pretty typical of the information out there.


Past doesn't prove Reds want to win


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Column by The Post's Lonnie Wheeler

Of course, the Reds want to win. Whenever asked, and sometimes anyway, they've preached that from the podium and sung it from the skyboxes.
It just seems like they don't.

It has seemed like that for several years now, but we'll limit the discussion to the last three, which takes us back to 2002, when Jim Bowden, the Cincinnati general manager, dared to think that the Reds stood a chance of hanging in with the Cardinals.

To that end, Bowden worked out a couple deals for better ballplayers. One was Bartolo Colon, a pitcher who beats anybody the Reds have trotted out there in recent seasons. The other was third baseman Scott Rolen, whom St. Louis also wanted. Word is that Philadelphia liked Cincinnati's offer -- alleged to be Scott Williamson, Todd Walker and Brandon Larson -- better than the Cardinals'. The sticking point was Cincinnati ownership, which wouldn't ante up.

Stewie
08-17-2006, 07:31 PM
And if I recall correctly, once Ed Wade decided he liked the Reds' package better, he told Walt Jocketty that he had a deal in place before Bowden got it cleared with ownership. Then, once things fell through, he had to go back to Jocketty with his tail between his legs. And again, if I recall correctly, the original deal from the Cards included Jimmy Journell instead of Bud Smith, but once Jocketty knew there were no other teams involved, he removed Journell and added Smith (not that Jimmy Journell has been wonderful or anything).

Sadly, as bad as that was, the Schilling deal was worse. And the Abreu/Lidle trade to the Yankees a few weeks back, where Gillick had to throw in Lidle in order to get an over-hyped prospect in CJ Henry wasn't all that great, either.

Good times.

redsfan4445
08-17-2006, 07:38 PM
I'm not sure all our memories are true. You can google and check the articles yourselves, but this one is pretty typical of the information out there.

Linder axed the deal.. right at the deadline.. Rolen even said he wanted to play for the Reds.. but Lindner axed itr because of the money he would have to pay Rolen for a extension.. man i wish BOB was the owner then.. things would have been WAY different here..

REDREAD
08-17-2006, 07:40 PM
I thought Bowden did put together a better package and Lindner refused to increase the payroll. Am I remembering it wrong?

I remember hearing that too. IIRC, it was rumored the Reds offered Larson and Williamson and the Phils accepted it, only to have Allen torpedo it.
Then the Phils went to the cards :thumbdown

REDREAD
08-17-2006, 07:42 PM
Long term, not trading for Rolen was the right thing to do. Injury prone, I wouldn't be surprised that 2007 won't be like 2005 for him. .

I disagree. Since the trade, what exactly have Larson and Williamson being doing, compared to what Rolen has done?

All players have a limited shelf life. Rolen has been a steal for the Cards, and would've been a steal for the Reds.

Aronchis
08-17-2006, 07:43 PM
Linder axed the deal.. right at the deadline.. Rolen even said he wanted to play for the Reds.. but Lindner axed itr because of the money he would have to pay Rolen for a extension.. man i wish BOB was the owner then.. things would have been WAY different here..

Lindner axed nothing. The "Limiteds" axed it. That is a WELL known fact.

Wheeler is wrong on Colon, he is mumbling that article with half-truths and saying them as they are true.

Aronchis
08-17-2006, 07:45 PM
I disagree. Since the trade, what exactly have Larson and Williamson being doing, compared to what Rolen has done?

All players have a limited shelf life. Rolen has been a steal for the Cards, and would've been a steal for the Reds.

Disagree right back. Who cares what they would have gave up, it is the big money and injury issues considering the Reds already had a big contract with injuries issues. Bowden's impatience with the 2000-03 offensive decline was the only reason he went after Rolen. He was a very poor GM during that period. Yet, by 2004 the offense was beginning to deliver and continues to this day.

oregonred
08-17-2006, 09:23 PM
Disagree right back. Who cares what they would have gave up, it is the big money and injury issues considering the Reds already had a big contract with injuries issues. Bowden's impatience with the 2000-03 offensive decline was the only reason he went after Rolen. He was a very poor GM during that period. Yet, by 2004 the offense was beginning to deliver and continues to this day.

Back to a four year old topic. No way were the Reds in position to take on another LT contract for a position player with injury history in the 10M+/year range. Not when they had 6+ years left on KGJ's contract.

Without a doubt, Rolen would have walked after the 2-month rental period with the Reds

15fan
08-17-2006, 09:48 PM
Sure they were.

They hadn't shelled out the stupid money to Casey or Milton at that point. Dunn & Kearns were just cutting their teeth, as was Jason LaRue.

And to address an earlier point, having Rolen AND EdE wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Keep one, and deal the other for pitching. Or move EdE to first. or the OF.

Instead, the Reds were left to deal for pitching by shopping guys like Sean Casey, Aaron Boone and Danny Graves. We all know how well that went.

Aronchis
08-17-2006, 11:09 PM
Sure they were.

They hadn't shelled out the stupid money to Casey or Milton at that point. Dunn & Kearns were just cutting their teeth, as was Jason LaRue.

And to address an earlier point, having Rolen AND EdE wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Keep one, and deal the other for pitching. Or move EdE to first. or the OF.

Instead, the Reds were left to deal for pitching by shopping guys like Sean Casey, Aaron Boone and Danny Graves. We all know how well that went.

and Rolen left the Reds with a 11 mill, sapping it from other resources. Simply wasn't meant to be.

oregonred
08-18-2006, 03:23 AM
Sure they were.

They hadn't shelled out the stupid money to Casey or Milton at that point. Dunn & Kearns were just cutting their teeth, as was Jason LaRue.

And to address an earlier point, having Rolen AND EdE wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Keep one, and deal the other for pitching. Or move EdE to first. or the OF.

Instead, the Reds were left to deal for pitching by shopping guys like Sean Casey, Aaron Boone and Danny Graves. We all know how well that went.

You do realize Rolen signed an 8-year 90M deal at the end of 2002. No matter how great the player, the $50M payroll Reds riding a second year of major injury setbacks to their franchise player (and not reaping any of the benefits at the gate for having KGJ on the payroll) were in no position whatsoever to lock themselves into a second $10M+ position player contract (with some injury history) taking them through the end of this decade.

Sure the Reds squandered money in the meanwhile, like almost everyone else due to MLB's inane salary/service time structure, but at the end of 2002 -- the commitment due Rolen and the risk was enormous. I think Casey's contract was after the 2002 season (3/20 with a 4th year option). A bad one but less than a third of the total commitment to Rolen. Milton wasn't signed until 2 years later and thankfully only for 3 years.

REDREAD
08-18-2006, 07:26 AM
Lindner axed nothing. The "Limiteds" axed it. That is a WELL known fact.

Wheeler is wrong on Colon, he is mumbling that article with half-truths and saying them as they are true.

If it was axed, it was axed with Lindner's blessing. Furman and other media types always liked to blame the anonymous "limiteds" for everything bad.

What about in Lindner's last year, when DanO went on his 20 million spending spree. None of the limiteds were aware we were even talking to Milton. They were more surprised than we were at the signing. What does this prove? That Carl was the decision maker when he wanted to be. If he wanted Rolen, he could've made it happen, just like he made it happen for Jr, Vaughn, and Milton. The limiteds didn't have any say in those signings/trades, so it's absurd to blame them for blocking any trades.

REDREAD
08-18-2006, 07:28 AM
Disagree right back. Who cares what they would have gave up, it is the big money and injury issues considering the Reds already had a big contract with injuries issues. Bowden's impatience with the 2000-03 offensive decline was the only reason he went after Rolen. He was a very poor GM during that period. Yet, by 2004 the offense was beginning to deliver and continues to this day.

If you think the best way to run a club is to minimize payroll and not grab the best 3b in the league on the cheap when he's available, I don't know what to say.

REDREAD
08-18-2006, 07:31 AM
You do realize Rolen signed an 8-year 90M deal at the end of 2002. No matter how great the player, the $50M payroll Reds riding a second year of major injury setbacks to their franchise player .

The Reds could've swung it if they wanted to, although they might've had to let Casey or Graves walk as a FA at the end of 2002.

The only reason the payroll was only 50 million was because Allen and Lindner wanted to screw the fans and milk all the money they could out of the franchise.

Boss-Hog
08-18-2006, 08:09 AM
IIRC, Lindner was against trading for Rolen and signing him to extension (allegedly) due to uncertainty over a potential strike that year.

PuffyPig
08-18-2006, 09:21 AM
Rolen signed an 8 year $90M backloaded contract. He's owed about $13M per seaon from here on out.

No thanks.

Don't let one game winning single cloud any thought that Rolen is (today) a $13M a year player.

oregonred
08-18-2006, 02:41 PM
The Reds could've swung it if they wanted to, although they might've had to let Casey or Graves walk as a FA at the end of 2002.

The only reason the payroll was only 50 million was because Allen and Lindner wanted to screw the fans and milk all the money they could out of the franchise.

I just don't think you get the concept of long term contract and risk, especially with a low/mid market revenue team...

Big difference between 3-year deals and an EIGHT year/NINETY million dollar guaranteed deal. Especially one to a player who has had an injury history along the way. Could you have imagined the tragedy of having both KGJ/Rolen combined contributing ~600 ABs total in a season for $25M (it happened last year when Rolen missed 2/3rds of the season and KGJ missed 1/4th of the season).

KGJs 9/116M contract unfortunately set the franchise back a decade wrg to financial flexibility. Looked like a great move at the time in spring 2000 but who could have ever known the breakdowns we'd see on a recurring basis since 2000 and what appears to be a concerning decline in production going forward through 2008. The Reds were in no position to RISK making the same mistake twice and having to pay Rolen/Griffey $25/year from 2005-2008 and Rolen $13M from 2009-2010.

I think your Lindner/Allen rant is a tangent. They were awful and clueless, no one is arguing that. You still have to live within your means and manage risk, that's just common sense.

Johnny Footstool
08-18-2006, 05:24 PM
and Rolen left the Reds with a 11 mill, sapping it from other resources. Simply wasn't meant to be.

That money certainly was well-spent in subsequent years.

Johnny Footstool
08-18-2006, 05:25 PM
IIRC, Lindner was against trading for Rolen and signing him to extension (allegedly) due to uncertainty over a potential strike that year.

Yes, that's how I remember it as well.

oregonred
08-18-2006, 07:03 PM
That money certainly was well-spent in subsequent years.

After this season, Rolen is still owed about $52M through 2010...

Johnny Footstool
08-19-2006, 03:53 AM
Can anyone guarantee that the Reds would have offered the same contract that the Cardinals did?