PDA

View Full Version : Heyman says Rolen to the Reds



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

LoganBuck
07-31-2009, 11:14 PM
About 90% of the criticism on this board amounts to faulting Walt for being unable to walk on water or doing its baseball equivalent: trading 4 and 5 starters with ridiculous contracts like Harang and Arroyo for top quality prospects at exactly the spots we need and getting the other teams to take on all their salaries in addition. If he hasn't done this, the claim is he's not proactive. The Rolen trade is a real deal, the kind that actually gets made, where both sides take calculated risks for returns they think make sense for them. We get one of the top 20 third basemen who's ever played; they get a replacement they need to sell to their fans and two decent prospects. Seems an even, realistic deal to me. I see no evidence in it that Walt's not proactive or that there is no plan or anything to support any of the other high-level inferences here.

Zach Stewart is a special arm. Not a "decent" arm, Josh Roenicke is a decent arm. I am not opposed to trading guys, but as Doug said, how did the Phillies get Cliff Lee without including one player at Stewart's level?

dfs
07-31-2009, 11:16 PM
I see it as ill-conceived, ill-timed and not enough value received for value given when it comes to building a winner. I think Rolen for EdE would have been treading water, but including Roenicke and especially Stewart is a regression.

If they can't shed some of Harang/Arroryo/Cordero they really sacrificed future plans on the alter of "leadership" of a 34 year old that can't stay healthy.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2009, 11:16 PM
Carrasco has a legitimate shot to be a quality starter. As good as Stewart may be, he's a bullpen arm. That's a considerable difference.

CTA513
07-31-2009, 11:18 PM
It wouldn't be impossible at all to trade for him in the offseason.

If they wanted him they should have signed him in the off season instead of having to trade something for him.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2009, 11:19 PM
If they wanted him they should have signed him in the off season instead of having to trade something for him.

They won't trade for him regardless. But trading some chaff for him and getting him for a shorter commitment, wouldn't be a terrible move.

Whatever the Reds would have accomplished this past offseason vis offense wasn't going to matter anyway; the pitching is what's totally collapsed.

HokieRed
07-31-2009, 11:20 PM
Zach Stewart is a special arm. Not a "decent" arm, Josh Roenicke is a decent arm. I am not opposed to trading guys, but as Doug said, how did the Phillies get Cliff Lee without including one player at Stewart's level?

Where I agree with your assumption is that this deal should be understood as Stewart for Rolen. Where, in all due respect, I have to say that you're only reflecting an opinion is in the judgment about "special" and "decent." All kinds of guys with "special" arms never develop into anything noteworthy. Stewart may; I really liked him myself. I wouldn't be surprised if he did. That's the bet the Jays are making and that's why we got Rolen. Scott Rolen's immediately the first or second best position player on the Reds. You're not going to get that for a guy without a position and a possible reliever. We got him for real value--Zach Stewart--which is how real trades are made, something WJ understands a lot better than most of the armchair GM's on this board.

Doc. Scott
07-31-2009, 11:22 PM
Carrasco has a legitimate shot to be a quality starter. As good as Stewart may be, he's a bullpen arm. That's a considerable difference.

People seem to easily forget that Stewart's transition to starter is far from complete. Most of the posters here that are maddest about losing him are forgetting that.

He was and is still a valuable prospect. I'm sad to lose him. But I do not think he would have made the Reds' 2010 rotation.

tripleaaaron
07-31-2009, 11:23 PM
Reading this thread you would think that Rolen will need a wheelchair to get from the dugout to third base.

In reality, since being full time in 1997, Rolen has only played less than 100 games in one season- 2005. He played 142 games in 2006, 112 in 2007, 115 in 2008, and will probably play in about 130 games in 2009. And that is the worst stretch in his career.

He is a 6 time All Star, 7 time Gold Glove, and as for his "declining power" he actually has better power numbers this year than 2007 and 2008.

By the way, Buddy Bell was 33 when the Reds got him and he had 3 1/2 pretty decent years here.

Phew its a good thing we didn't get him on his worst stretch or even worse as he approaches 35.

tripleaaaron
07-31-2009, 11:28 PM
Carrasco has a legitimate shot to be a quality starter. As good as Stewart may be, he's a bullpen arm. That's a considerable difference.

Have you seen Stewarts numbers as a starter? He's more than just a bullpen arm he is a potential TOR arm or a closer as a fallback. Serious potential.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-31-2009, 11:28 PM
People seem to easily forget that Stewart's transition to starter is far from complete. Most of the posters here that are maddest about losing him are forgetting that.

He was and is still a valuable prospect. I'm sad to lose him. But I do not think he would have made the Reds' 2010 rotation.

But he could have started in the bullpen, much like Oswalt did back in the day.

Look, I wasn't planning on Stewart being an anchor to the rotation or staff in 2010, but I would have loved to have seen what he could do. IMO, there was no reason to package him in this deal. Walt panicked. It's really as simple as that.

And for what? More butts in the seats for the remainder of 2009, because the casual Reds fan (and I hear them right now with Doc on 700) love guys like Rolen.

LINEDRIVER
07-31-2009, 11:30 PM
EEE getting 'the hell outta Dodge' will easily rank in my top ten all-time favorite Reds' moments, and I've been a Reds' fan since 1964.

The last time I wanted anybody gone that badly was when Dick Wagner was in charge and thereby ruining everything he touched.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2009, 11:33 PM
But he could have started in the bullpen, much like Oswalt did back in the day.

Look, I wasn't planning on Stewart being an anchor to the rotation or staff in 2010, but I would have loved to have seen what he could do. IMO, there was no reason to package him in this deal. Walt panicked. It's really as simple as that.

And for what? More butts in the seats for the remainder of 2009, because the casual Reds fan (and I hear them right now with Doc on 700) love guys like Rolen.

I think the inclusion of Stewart was less about panic and more about money.
Sure, I'd have liked to have gotten Rolen for less, but I have a feeling that none of three sent to Toronto will have a major impact in 2010 or 11, but Rolen will.

MattyHo4Life
07-31-2009, 11:33 PM
I moved west 27 years ago, I still have a reds sticker on my car (the only sticker at all) I had 19 years of Giants and A's in my face, I live in M's country now, my first real love was the Tigers in the early 70's.

Not once did I think about how the owners treated the fans in that time, I'm not a baseball consumer I'm a baseball fan.

Everything else falls behind that.

I agree with you 100% bro. We both made a choice. You chose the Reds over the Tigers, and I chose the Cardinals over the Reds. Even when I moved back to Ohio, I wore Cardinal red everywhere I went. I'll probably die a Cardinals fan, even though I was born a Reds fan.

edabbs44
07-31-2009, 11:34 PM
Many wanted Milton Bradley this offseason for a multi-year contract. Funny how he makes Rolen look like Gehrig.

Stormy
07-31-2009, 11:40 PM
And for what? More butts in the seats for the remainder of 2009, because the casual Reds fan (and I hear them right now with Doc on 700) love guys like Rolen.

That's precisely who this deal appeals to. It may be the primary rationale behind it, or just a convenient by-product. Walt and Dusty have stereotypes of the kind of players they want, and it seems to have precious little to do with projected production. Unfortunately, this will work just about as well as the 2009 speed and defense mantra/model did, sans offense and pitching.

11larkin11
07-31-2009, 11:41 PM
So this move basically block Frazier. If we go through with Votto to LF, Alonso at first (although we all know he isn't safe anymore), Rolen at third, can we PLEASE try Phillips at short and Frazier at second? That would give us a HELL of an infield offense. Realistically, in 2010 (Mid-May when Alonso/Frazier are up)

Stubbs CF
Bruce RF
Alonso 1B
Votto LF
Rolen 3B
Phillips SS
Frazier 2B
Hanigan/Hernandez C

Bench
Hanigan/Hernandez
2 of Heisey/Dickerson/Gomes/Nix
Janish (Cozart?)
Rosales/Sutton/Barker(pop)

BuckeyeRedleg
07-31-2009, 11:48 PM
Many wanted Milton Bradley this offseason for a multi-year contract. Funny how he makes Rolen look like Gehrig.

Hilarious.

Did Milton Bradley require something back, other than money, to acquire him?

Apples and oranges, my friend.

One other thing, MB is tied with Mr. Scott Gehrig in HR's this year. He's actually not too far off from where Rolen is across the board offensively, which is surprising considering Rolen is playing great and Bradley is garbage, right?

And I wonder, who was playing the part of Gehrig in 2007 an 2008? I'd say Milton Bradley.

HokieRed
07-31-2009, 11:55 PM
So this move basically block Frazier. If we go through with Votto to LF, Alonso at first (although we all know he isn't safe anymore), Rolen at third, can we PLEASE try Phillips at short and Frazier at second? That would give us a HELL of an infield offense. Realistically, in 2010 (Mid-May when Alonso/Frazier are up)

Stubbs CF
Bruce RF
Alonso 1B
Votto LF
Rolen 3B
Phillips SS
Frazier 2B
Hanigan/Hernandez C

Bench
Hanigan/Hernandez
2 of Heisey/Dickerson/Gomes/Nix
Janish (Cozart?)
Rosales/Sutton/Barker(pop)

This is the lineup I've been proposing for a while. I'd prefer to see upgrades, think we should always be looking for upgrades. But short of that, this seems to me the lineup to hope for one year from today.

corkedbat
07-31-2009, 11:56 PM
Where I agree with your assumption is that this deal should be understood as Stewart for Rolen. Where, in all due respect, I have to say that you're only reflecting an opinion is in the judgment about "special" and "decent." All kinds of guys with "special" arms never develop into anything noteworthy. Stewart may; I really liked him myself. I wouldn't be surprised if he did. That's the bet the Jays are making and that's why we got Rolen. Scott Rolen's immediately the first or second best position player on the Reds. You're not going to get that for a guy without a position and a possible reliever. We got him for real value--Zach Stewart--which is how real trades are made, something WJ understands a lot better than most of the armchair GM's on this board.

Unless Rolen factors into the plans for two or three years down the line he takes $11M dollars away from someone who might. He also takes an arm out of the equation for a pitching staff that needs arms badly or at the least hewastes a valuable trading chip.

He should have been able to land Rolen without a prospect of Stewart's level or walked away and let Riccardi sweat. Chances are greater that we could have landed him for less in a waiver or offseason deal. Riccardi got a fair return on Rolen and then he got Stewart to boot. Jocketty folded like a deck chair.

Walt Jocketty vaunted accumen as a GM vanished to me last winter when he actually signed WillyT and thought he had done something. Today's deal (and his stated intentions to extend Rolen) just further confirmed that there's little hope under his "leadership".

Big Klu
07-31-2009, 11:59 PM
Now that EE's Red's career has ended (for this tour, at least), he reminds me a lot of... (without looking at BR) Gary Redus.

I though Redus was going to be the next big thing when he came up.

Of course they played different positions, but Redus also had tons of "potential" that he never did reach (or was his "potential" over-rated and he did just fine??).

EE should hope to wind up with the career that Redus did- Gary played until he was 37 years old.

Edwin Encarnacion reminds me of a righty-hitting Willie Greene.



Reading this thread you would think that Rolen will need a wheelchair to get from the dugout to third base.

In reality, since being full time in 1997, Rolen has only played less than 100 games in one season- 2005. He played 142 games in 2006, 112 in 2007, 115 in 2008, and will probably play in about 130 games in 2009. And that is the worst stretch in his career.

He is a 6 time All Star, 7 time Gold Glove, and as for his "declining power" he actually has better power numbers this year than 2007 and 2008.

By the way, Buddy Bell was 33 when the Reds got him and he had 3 1/2 pretty decent years here.


I think this deal is very similar to the one that brought Bell to the Reds in 1985. (And he turned 34 about a month after the trade, so the age similarity is even closer.)

Kc61
07-31-2009, 11:59 PM
That's precisely who this deal appeals to. It may be the primary rationale behind it, or just a convenient by-product. Walt and Dusty have stereotypes of the kind of players they want, and it seems to have precious little to do with projected production. Unfortunately, this will work just about as well as the 2009 speed and defense mantra/model did, sans offense and pitching.

I wouldn't demean fans who are happy that the Reds just acquired a future Hall of Fame third baseman for an error-prone player and two prospects.

See, some fans aren't that interested in which Carolina Mudcats may help in 2013. Some fans think that 8 years of losing records is enough and it's time to get some proven talent in here to start winning some games now.

I know all the experts focused on the minors are excited about the farm system. But nobody has ever presented me -- and I've asked a dozen times -- for a realistic roadmap to success from the Reds minors. Because nobody can -- even the greatest prospects, the Jay Bruces and Homer Baileys, can struggle for quite some time.

The Reds may have paid a steep price for this move, but if you watch the current Reds -- the Reds, not the Mudcats or the Bats or the Mustangs -- you know that they sorely need some guys who know how to play this game professionally and how to win on occasion. And it's not just the casual fan who thinks it would be good to have some players like that.

HokieRed
08-01-2009, 12:01 AM
Unless Rolen factors into the plans for two or three years down the line he takes $11M dollars away from someone who might. He also takes an arm out of the equation for a pitching staff that needs arms badly or at the least hewastes a valuable trading chip.

He should have been able to land Rolen without a prospect of Stewart's level or walked away and let Riccardi sweat. Chances are greater that we could have landed him for less in a waiver or offseason deal. Riccardi got a fair return on Rolen and then he got Stewart to boot. Jocketty folded like a deck chair.

Walt Jocketty vaunted accumen as a GM vanished to me last winter when he actually signed WillyT and thought he had done something. Today's deal (and his stated intentions to extend Rolen) just further confirmed that there's little hope under his "leadership".


Don't agree. Don't get confused by the fact this trade looks like an exchange of third basemen. EE is not a third basemen; he is, IMHO, somebody for Toronto management to throw to the fans as a "replacement." The deal was about Stewart. No way we get a player of Rolen's caliber without Stewart being included.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 12:03 AM
Walt Jocketty vaunted accumen as a GM vanished to me last winter when he actually signed WillyT and thought he had done something. Today's deal (and his stated intentions to extend Rolen) just further confirmed that there's little hope under his "leadership".


Yep, those two moves, alone, are reason to worry about the future of this organization under his watch.

I'll just have to bring up Mem's word here, because it's is so appropriate after these two moves.

Malpractice. Not an overreaction or hyperbole either.

WVPacman
08-01-2009, 12:04 AM
I for one am GLAD to see EE off this team.he never showed no emotion,played like he was'nt having fun and played like he did'nt care if he helped the reds win or not.When Chris Welsh, said tonight that EE came out of Bakers office with his fist up in the air b/c he was glad he got traded then that done it for me.I am glad he is gone and I don't want him back in a reds uniform.

deltachi8
08-01-2009, 12:05 AM
I'm happy Edwin will get a fresh start in Toronto and wish him the best.

As for the Reds end... eh...there is a reason I am paying more and more attention to the Astros these days...

corkedbat
08-01-2009, 12:06 AM
So this move basically block Frazier. If we go through with Votto to LF, Alonso at first (although we all know he isn't safe anymore), Rolen at third, can we PLEASE try Phillips at short and Frazier at second? That would give us a HELL of an infield offense. Realistically, in 2010 (Mid-May when Alonso/Frazier are up)

Stubbs CF
Bruce RF
Alonso 1B
Votto LF
Rolen 3B
Phillips SS
Frazier 2B
Hanigan/Hernandez C

Bench
Hanigan/Hernandez
2 of Heisey/Dickerson/Gomes/Nix
Janish (Cozart?)
Rosales/Sutton/Barker(pop)

I don't think it blocks Frazier at all. I think he just bides his time in Lousiville next year (or even on the Reds bench). as a super-sub until Rolen goes DL. It probably somewhat lessens the probability that he is dealt.

MWM
08-01-2009, 12:06 AM
I can't be objective here. Scott Rolen is my favorite baseball player of the last 20 years not named Larkin or Griffey. A good deal for the Reds? Maybe. But i love the fact that Scott Rolen is on the Reds.

11larkin11
08-01-2009, 12:07 AM
This is the lineup I've been proposing for a while. I'd prefer to see upgrades, think we should always be looking for upgrades. But short of that, this seems to me the lineup to hope for one year from today.

I think thats actually a pretty good lineup. Alonso/Frazier are unknowns but are polished with high floors. Stubbs is unknown, but can't be worse than Taveras and has a good eye. Bruce is bound to turn it around, especially if he hits in front of Alonso/Votto. Defensively, we should be fine all around, with GG potential at RF, CF, SS, 3B.

THROW THE BANK AT BRANDON WEBB!!! Sign him and a guy like Davis, Capuano or Pineiro.

Webb
Volquez
Cueto
Davis
Whoever

Stormy
08-01-2009, 12:07 AM
I wouldn't demean fans who are happy that the Reds just acquired a future Hall of Fame third baseman for an error-prone player and two prospects.

See, some fans aren't that interested in which Carolina Mudcats may help in 2013. Some fans think that 8 years of losing records is enough and it's time to get some proven talent in here to start winning some games now.

I know all the minor league experts are excited about the farm system. But nobody has ever presented me -- and I've asked a dozen times -- for a realistic roadmap to success from the Reds minors. Because nobody can -- even the greatest prospects, the Jay Bruces and Homer Baileys, can struggle for quite some time.

The Reds may have paid a steep price for this move, but if you watch the current Reds -- the Reds, not the Mudcats or the Bats or the Mustangs -- you know that they sorely need some guys who know how to play this game professionally and how to win on occasion.

KC ~ I'm sorry, as I didn't mean for it to be taken that way. Scott Rolen is, and has been, a great player and we are certainly fortunate to get to watch him play. I'm looking forward to it, as well, and I'm not going to miss EdE much. I'm simply very concerned what this signals for the big picture, which I don't believe Walt has a grasp of in regards to this type of market. We don't have an unlimited budget, he hasn't cleared any payroll space, he hasn't addressed most of the areas of need since his arrival, and the breathing room for 2010 just got a lot tighter. Rolen will be utterly wasted if we return this same cast at SP, SS, LF etc...

The timing of it, the steep price, the failure to exert any leverage, the recent trend of Rolen's health and production all make it very dubious to me. Though, like you, I relish the fact that for a change we are actually adding an impact baseball player, rather than shedding contracts and waiting.

hebroncougar
08-01-2009, 12:08 AM
So this move basically block Frazier. If we go through with Votto to LF, Alonso at first (although we all know he isn't safe anymore), Rolen at third, can we PLEASE try Phillips at short and Frazier at second? That would give us a HELL of an infield offense. Realistically, in 2010 (Mid-May when Alonso/Frazier are up)

Stubbs CF
Bruce RF
Alonso 1B
Votto LF
Rolen 3B
Phillips SS
Frazier 2B
Hanigan/Hernandez C

Bench
Hanigan/Hernandez
2 of Heisey/Dickerson/Gomes/Nix
Janish (Cozart?)
Rosales/Sutton/Barker(pop)

I'd be SHOCKED if Alonso sniffs the majors before 2011 after his performance this year, I don't think he was overwhelming at all in High A, and that is a heck of a long way from the bigs.

osuceltic
08-01-2009, 12:09 AM
I haven't seen this much angst over a Reds trade since we gave up Rob Bell and Todd Coffey when they were minor-leaguers.

Oh, wait ...

11larkin11
08-01-2009, 12:09 AM
I'd be SHOCKED if Alonso sniffs the majors before 2011 after his performance (or lack thereof) this year.

He'll start 2010 in AAA. If he hits well, he'll be up soon, if he's not traded.

westofyou
08-01-2009, 12:10 AM
One of the best things about Scott Rolen?

He doesn't like Tony LaRussa.

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2009, 12:14 AM
I can't be objective here. Scott Rolen is my favorite baseball player of the last 20 years not named Larkin or Griffey. A good deal for the Reds? Maybe. But i love the fact that Scott Rolen is on the Reds.

I really like Rolen too. I really hate that we weren't able to get him when the Cards did. I really want this to work, and hopefully the according moves are on the horizon.

corkedbat
08-01-2009, 12:16 AM
Don't agree. Don't get confused by the fact this trade looks like an exchange of third basemen. EE is not a third basemen; he is, IMHO, somebody for Toronto management to throw to the fans as a "replacement." The deal was about Stewart. No way we get a player of Rolen's caliber without Stewart being included.

That's just it. We should have been shooting for someone above Rolen's caliber to include a top 10 propsect - this is not seven years ago. Rolen does not help this contend, because there is no way this team contends in 2010 - Rolen's $11M dollars should have been earmarked for a talent that could help the Reds 2010 and beyond. Rolen is just the kind of vet this team has no business extending, so only another mistake amkes him a part of this team in 2011 or beyind.

That makes his acquisition a mistake, his cost in talent and salary a waste and this trade very stupid. If Stewart was going to be dealt he should have been packaged to fill the hole at short with a young talent.

VR
08-01-2009, 12:17 AM
We are all protective of our 'core' players and 'quality' prospects. Over the years, who comes to mind that makes us wish we had held on to them?


I would ask as well...which trades did we NOT pull the trigger on because of not wanting to lose those high quality young players?

WMR
08-01-2009, 12:18 AM
I really like Rolen too. I really hate that we weren't able to get him when the Cards did. I really want this to work, and hopefully the according moves are on the horizon.

I don't see how they can add Rolen while addressing the plethora of other needs without significantly raising payroll. If this is the only move made then it will be a colossal failure.

They've GOT to move Arroyo and/or Harang. That'll give you a bit of payflex, but this acquisition is difficult to stomach for the Reds current payroll. Get us up around 85-90 million and I can stomach it a lot easier and buy more into losing a pitcher of Stewart's caliber.

VR
08-01-2009, 12:19 AM
That's just it. We should have been shooting for someone above Rolen's caliber to include a top 10 propsect - this is not seven years ago. Rolen does not help this contend, because there is no way this team contends in 2010 - Rolen's $11M dollars should have been earmarked for a talent that could help the Reds 2010 and beyond. Rolen is just the kind of vet this team has no business extending, so only another mistake amkes him a part of this team in 2011 or beyind.

That makes his acquisition a mistake, his cost in talent and salary a waste and this trade very stupid. If Stewart was going to be dealt he should have been packaged to fill the hole at short with a young talent.

A healthy roster greatly enhances this team to compete in 2010. The acquisition of a quality LF/SS put them in a very favorable position.

Two big ifs....but that's not too far away.

Kc61
08-01-2009, 12:23 AM
KC ~ I'm sorry, as I didn't mean for it to be taken that way. Scott Rolen is, and has been, a great player and we are certainly fortunate to get to watch him play. I'm looking forward to it, as well, and I'm not going to miss EdE much. I'm simply very concerned what this signals for the big picture, which I don't believe Walt has a grasp of in regards to this type of market. We don't have an unlimited budget, he hasn't cleared any payroll space, he hasn't addressed most of the areas of need since his arrival, and the breathing room for 2010 just got a lot tighter. Rolen will be utterly wasted if we return this same cast at SP, SS, LF etc...

The timing of it, the steep price, the failure to exert any leverage, the recent trend of Rolen's health and production all make it very dubious to me. Though, like you, I relish the fact that for a change we are actually adding an impact baseball player, rather than shedding contracts and waiting.

I think Walt and Bob will be adding more good veterans going forward. Bob C didn't hire Dusty for three years to develop kids and then walk away. He had a timetable in mind and I believe we are about to see his attempt to win.

I can't vouch for Rolen's health but he is the type of winning pro this team needs. The price may have been a tad high, but anyone who thinks Bob C is going to sit around waiting for kids to develop for years and years is reading him differently than I do.

There's no guarantee that it will work, we all hope it does, but I think the attempt is about to happen.

WVPacman
08-01-2009, 12:24 AM
Question for the angered fans that does'nt like the trade b/c EE got traded.

Would'nt you want to get rid of a player that did'nt care if he helped his team win or not? Yes EE has talent but the truth is that he was to lazy to show it here.I just can't understand why some are so angered at this trade.Yes we gave up a good pitcher in Stewart but thats the way it goes in MLB.What I fill we got acomplished today was we got rid of a player that did'nt care if he helped this team win or not.We now have a HOFamer that gives 110% every game b/c he wants to win.

Stormy
08-01-2009, 12:31 AM
I think Walt and Bob will be adding more good veterans going forward. Bob C didn't hire Dusty for three years to develop kids and then walk away. He had a timetable in mind and I believe we are about to see his attempt to win.

I can't vouch for Rolen's health but he is the type of winning pro this team needs. The price may have been a tad high, but anyone who thinks Bob C is going to sit around waiting for kids to develop for years and years is reading him differently than I do.

There's no guarantee that it will work, we all hope it does, but I think the attempt is about to happen.

Then they should have gone all in. Rolen is a half-measure, especially when you consider our 2010 rotation isn't going to boast a guy with an ERA under 4.00, and that the offense will be coming a season where they boasted the worst offense in the NL. Rolen's a drop in the bucket, and the budget is already spilling over.

If we're going to go for it, we should have just made the deal EdE, Stewart, Roenicke, Bailey, Frazier and Heisey etc... and seen if we could have gotten Halladay as well. We then could worry about cutting payroll elsewhere later, as we HAVE to do that anyway. I think you will be disappointed ultimately, because I think these guys have ZERO intention of following through with the complementary moves necessary before 2010. We saw what they did prior to 2009, when a Dye and Escobar might have made a difference and were available... they punted.

We'll see.

ochre
08-01-2009, 12:35 AM
Question for the angered fans that does'nt like the trade b/c EE got traded.


yours is the first post I've seen in this thread that mentions anger about EE being traded for Rolen.

corkedbat
08-01-2009, 12:36 AM
We are all protective of our 'core' players and 'quality' prospects. Over the years, who comes to mind that makes us wish we had held on to them?


I would ask as well...which trades did we NOT pull the trigger on because of not wanting to lose those high quality young players?

Ot's not a matter if holding onto every young talent we take a liking to, it's knowing which one's we should hold onto and getting value from the one's we deal off.

It's easy to be smug and say that prospects are over-rated and you should deal them by the ton to bring in major league talent. The Reds aren't fortunate to have the prospects to fill all their holes with proven major leaguers or the prospects to acuire them even if they did.

Fact is if the Reds if the Reds are to contend ny time soon, prospects and young players (along with shrewd veteran acquisitions) are gonna be necessary. Ths francsue will have to plan wisely and use their cash and young talent resources wisely. IMO, today's trade fails miserably on all three counts.

I think you have to let prospects get to the point when they are close to realizing their potential before deciding whether to keep or deal them unless the return in trade is can't miss - rolen is not can't miss and it does not help you going firther.

To me, guys like Stewart, Wood, Frazier and Alonso are about a year away from that keep or deal determination. Whether in the middle of the rotation or in the business end of the bullpen, I think Stewart has the potential to be a solid part of a major league staff.

A team like the Reds cannot afford to squander talent like that on a one-year rental like Rolen unlless they're on the verge. This team only verges on another decade of mediocrity and today's deal is a prime reason why.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 12:38 AM
A healthy roster greatly enhances this team to compete in 2010. The acquisition of a quality LF/SS put them in a very favorable position.

Two big ifs....but that's not too far away.

VR, how is this outlook not different from this past offseason?

Rolen could have been had cheaper then. A LF/SS could have been pursued as well.

We got Willy....and they locked down the evil, EE.

This is the same FO. I guess I just don't see the light at the end with this group of people making the decisions.

Scott Rolen is a band aid on a shot gun wound.

dougdirt
08-01-2009, 12:43 AM
We are all protective of our 'core' players and 'quality' prospects. Over the years, who comes to mind that makes us wish we had held on to them?


I would ask as well...which trades did we NOT pull the trigger on because of not wanting to lose those high quality young players?
Over the last 5 years the only prospects we have had on the same level of Stewart is Bruce, Votto, Bailey, Cueto and Alonso so I don't know if we have really had much to go on in terms of similar types of prospects.

WVPacman
08-01-2009, 12:43 AM
yours is the first post I've seen in this thread that mentions anger about EE being traded for Rolen.

Oh my mistake then I must have read it wrong.Sorry guys my mistake!!

corkedbat
08-01-2009, 12:45 AM
A healthy roster greatly enhances this team to compete in 2010. The acquisition of a quality LF/SS put them in a very favorable position.

Two big ifs....but that's not too far away.

Let's say they sign Dye and let's even be generous and say they're able to pry Escobar away from Atlanta (both big ifs in their own right). Even then, it would probably take moving Arroyo and part of Harang's contract to add a big bat.

Their offense would be quite a bit better, but do you really they have the pitching staff to contend or that the dollars would be there to add meaningful pitching after adding a Rolen and a big bat?

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 12:47 AM
Ot's not a matter if holding onto every young talent we take a liking to, it's knowing which one's we should hold onto and getting value from the one's we deal off.

It's easy to be smug and say that prospects are over-rated and you should deal them by the ton to bring in major league talent. The Reds aren't fortunate to have the prospects to fill all their holes with proven major leaguers or the prospects to acuire them even if they did.

Fact is if the Reds if the Reds are to contend ny time soon, prospects and young players (along with shrewd veteran acquisitions) are gonna be necessary. Ths francsue will have to plan wisely and use their cash and young talent resources wisely. IMO, today's trade fails miserably on all three counts.

I think you have to let prospects get to the point when they are close to realizing their potential before deciding whether to keep or deal them unless the return in trade is can't miss - rolen is not can't miss and it does not help you going firther.

To me, guys like Stewart, Wood, Frazier and Alonso are about a year away from that keep or deal determination. Whether in the middle of the rotation or in the business end of the bullpen, I think Stewart has the potential to be a solid part of a major league staff.

A team like the Reds cannot afford to squander talent like that on a one-year rental like Rolen unlless they're on the verge. This team only verges on another decade of mediocrity and today's deal is a prime reason why.

^^^^^

OMG, like this guy gets it. :beerme:

The rest of you (other than Stormy) I don't know about.

Only kidding, kind of. I apologize to anyone I have been abrasive with in this thread. I'm drinking a few beers and the wife is asleep, so she can't hold me and tell me it's gonna be alright. I'm a little pissed, but I'll be okay.

Tomorrow (which is now, but I'll consider tomorrow when I wake up...9-ish) I'll support our newest Red.

But for now...

gm
08-01-2009, 01:00 AM
One thing for sure is Scott Rolen eats, drinks and craps baseball. It's been awhile since the Reds had a guy like that.

Votto? Now Joey has a big brother named Scott

corkedbat
08-01-2009, 01:06 AM
I think a lot of our fanbase is so starved for any kind of meaningful attempt at change that they're star struck by the Rolen name and not really asking how does this actually help us compete.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 01:08 AM
I think a lot of our fanbase is so starved for any kind of meaningful attempt at change that they're star struck by the Rolen name and not really asking how does this actually help us compete.

You.......complete me.

Redsfaithful
08-01-2009, 01:25 AM
It will be fun watching Scott Rolen play, I've always been a fan.

But it sucks knowing it's going to be a lot of years before the Reds contend again. It's ok though, I've got practice with this sort of thing being a Bengals fan and all. Hopefully the Reds can avoid the complete and total Pittsburgh Pirates franchise death spiral (they're already half way there as far as consecutive losing seasons go), but it's not looking too good right now. We'll probably need another owner and GM before the Reds do anything, Castellini doesn't have the money or doesn't want to spend it and I don't think Jocketty knows how to win with a small payroll.

Hopefully I'm wrong, I'd love to be.

TheNext44
08-01-2009, 01:28 AM
I really like Rolen too. I really hate that we weren't able to get him when the Cards did. I really want this to work, and hopefully the according moves are on the horizon.

Probably the best and most concise summation of the trade. :thumbup:

corkedbat
08-01-2009, 01:37 AM
Reading this thread you would think that Rolen will need a wheelchair to get from the dugout to third base.

In reality, since being full time in 1997, Rolen has only played less than 100 games in one season- 2005. He played 142 games in 2006, 112 in 2007, 115 in 2008, and will probably play in about 130 games in 2009. And that is the worst stretch in his career.

He is a 6 time All Star, 7 time Gold Glove, and as for his "declining power" he actually has better power numbers this year than 2007 and 2008.

By the way, Buddy Bell was 33 when the Reds got him and he had 3 1/2 pretty decent years here.

What that tells me is there is a good chance that Rolen doesn't finish this season on the active roster. :evil:

redsfandan
08-01-2009, 02:19 AM
It's worth noting that the splits for Rolen show that there are only a few ballparks where he hits better than in a Cincinnati ballpark. And it seems like he wanted this deal to happen. Playing for the "home team" could give his career a boost. If he's healthy he could possibly be a top 5 3rd baseman when you look at his offense, splits, and defense. It just depends on that back of his.

Mario-Rijo
08-01-2009, 02:42 AM
Come on Matt - Jocketty has only overseen winners in Oakland and St Louis. Thats only two places! He's obvious either clueless or just lucky.

He didn't oversee the major league team in Oakland. Director of minor league operations for 5 years and Director of Baseball administration for 9 years. Never won a thing in St. Louis until LaRussa got there, I'd argue LaRussa made Jocketty a winner and not the other way around. The guy is a whiz at PR and running a major league operation from an administrative perspective but not much for unearthing a whole lot of unknown talent. Most every player he ever traded for was an established player, he doesn't seem to like to trade for potential stars. Which is fine for right now but this is why the cupboard was pretty bare when he left St. Louis. How can you draft young talent when you don't know it or don't know that you aren't drafting much of it.

Interesting that he's had sustained success only when he had a HOF manager who is an excellent strategist and a pitching coach turning pumpkins into pitchers. Yeah I'd say that is fortunate for him.

Ron Madden
08-01-2009, 03:36 AM
Here's the contrary argument.

Rolen is only 34. He has several good years left. He is a huge upgrade at third, defensively and offensively.

EE isn't worth too much. He could even be considered a liability given his own contract. The Jays may be less than excited to get him.

Alonso is a good prospect but he plays Votto's position. His potential spot is filled on the roster with a free agent who plays the outfield and hits. Votto to LF was always a pipe dream.

It does seem like a lot to give up. But sometimes you have to overpay rather than stay in neutral.

I'm not thrilled at all, but can understand the deal and at least it should make the Reds better for next year.

I'm a life long Reds Fan too but Good God!

At some point you gotta wake up and smell the coffee. This post proves that you would defend any foolish move the Reds will ever make.

:nono:

TheNext44
08-01-2009, 03:43 AM
He didn't oversee the major league team in Oakland. Director of minor league operations for 5 years and Director of Baseball administration for 9 years. Never won a thing in St. Louis until LaRussa got there, I'd argue LaRussa made Jocketty a winner and not the other way around. The guy is a whiz at PR and running a major league operation from an administrative perspective but not much for unearthing a whole lot of unknown talent. Most every player he ever traded for was an established player, he doesn't seem to like to trade for potential stars. Which is fine for right now but this is why the cupboard was pretty bare when he left St. Louis. How can you draft young talent when you don't know it or don't know that you aren't drafting much of it.

Interesting that he's had sustained success only when he had a HOF manager who is an excellent strategist and a pitching coach turning pumpkins into pitchers. Yeah I'd say that is fortunate for him.

Yep, he never won anything during that one strike shortened season that he was GM and Torre was the manager. That prove it was all LaRussa those other 13 seasons, and Walt had nothing to do with it.

And the Cards farm system is bare right now, because so much of it is on the major league roster. Molina, Pujols, Shoemaker, Ryan, Rasmus and Ankiel are all home grown.

TheNext44
08-01-2009, 03:52 AM
Another way to look at the Rolen trade is that the Reds traded EE and Roenicke for Rolen, then sold Stewart for $4M.

Rolen costs the Reds around $9M more this year and next than EE. He's probably worth about $6-11M more, depending on how much he plays.

$4M is a lot to pay for a top 50 prospect. Odds are about 1 in 3 that he'll be an everyday player. If that happens, he's worth close to $10-12M, so $4M is about right, maybe a bit high.

Another way to see how the trade could be considered even, depending on how much Rolen plays.

Ron Madden
08-01-2009, 04:28 AM
Let me say this. I like Scott Rolen, always have but I believe this is a bad move.

Rolen is nearing the end of his career, he ain't what he used to be. The Reds traded some valuable chips in hopes a guy in his mid 30's with a history of injuries can stay on the field long enough to improve the defense and provide leadership in the clubhouse. I honestly hope he does but I doubt it.

The Cincinnati Reds need productive players, sad thing is they have a history of not being able to identify productive players. The young trading chips plus the 11 million dollars Rollen will be paid in 2010 causes me to wonder just what kind of production they expect out of him.

The moans and groans about how much Adam Dunn was paid filled the airwaves, local sports pages, blogs and message boards. I'd bet a dollar to a dougnut both Edwin and Adam will produce more runs than Rolen in 2010.


I hope I'm wrong.

The Baumer
08-01-2009, 04:34 AM
I think Scott Rolen is cool.

redsfandan
08-01-2009, 04:51 AM
The Reds have a history of overpaying for players and giving players bad contracts. I just hope we don't hear about an extension for Rolen.

BearcatShane
08-01-2009, 04:54 AM
As a Reds fan, I see certain players around the league and every now and again I'll see one that would just look good in a Cincinnati Reds uniform. Not because they're good or anything, but they would just look good in a Reds uniform. Scott Rolen is one of those players. Scott Rolen is one of my favorite all time players and I am ecstatic that I will be able to watch him day in and day out for at least the next year and a half for the Reds. Having said that Walt did overpay a lot when he added Stewart in the deal.

edabbs44
08-01-2009, 06:48 AM
Over the last 5 years the only prospects we have had on the same level of Stewart is Bruce, Votto, Bailey, Cueto and Alonso so I don't know if we have really had much to go on in terms of similar types of prospects.

Baseball America - Wagner was #46 in 2004 and EdE was ranked 56 in 2005.

Highlifeman21
08-01-2009, 07:19 AM
Hey, I was in a rush to post because the game was getting ready to start and I didn't want to be "that guy" at the ballpark with his head glued to his blackberry!

I just wanted to make sure you weren't batting what would happen if Juan Castro, Corey Patterson and Willy Taveras all had a kid together...

"3 Men and a Little AVG...."

GAC
08-01-2009, 07:20 AM
I can fully understand those who express their sentiments concerning Scott Rolen as a player and what he has accomplished over his career. I really do. I like the guy. And I'm not really that overly concerned about the prospects we gave up to get him either (Roenicke and Stewart).

IMO, it's just a stupid, dysfunctional move from this GM, who is deluded into thinking that Rolen is going to somehow boost our chances this year, some how/some way, by inserting this veteran player, on the down-side of his career, into a hodgepodge mix of of utility and AAA ballplayers currently trying to hold down the fort because of injury. It's simply ludicrous IMO.

3B was a far less pressing problem when looking at the other areas of dire need facing this team.

I can see a team adding a Rolen if they were in the hunt, and looking to get that extra boost to get them over the top.

I listened to Jocketty last night say that Rolen also helps us next year. True. That's if he stays healthy and replicates 09. But is this ownership then going to go out and seriously spend the money to acquire those OFers and SS we direly need? Or has he just eaten up any payroll leeway we had, and that they are going to fill those other areas of need with marginal players of the same "like" quality we are seeing now?

Or is Jocketty, who has been known to do so, going to sacrifice even some more of our high-level prospects, and utilize them as that tool to try and fill those needs by bringing in more "veteran" players like a Rolen, just to take that shot in 2010, while selling out any future stability?

Who is going to be our LFer and CFer next year? I wish someone would ask Walt that question when he's giving these interviews. Or how about SS? Do they plan on taking up the option on AGon for 2010? Of course I know he's not going to answer them, and do an "end around" like a politician would; but I'd like this guy to be put on the spot instead of kissed up to when doing interviews.

He also said last night that they were done making trades. That's understandable since most of the players he'd like to trade would probably easily make it through waivers. Especially if it's guys like Arroyo and Harang. And I think that is his main objective now - clearing out payroll. And that is fine with me IF this FO then plans on utilizing that to seriously address needs.

I'm not one who has called for Jocketty's head. But he's been our GM now for almost two full seasons. And he is on the cusp right now, going into 2010, where he needs to step up to the plate and show something.....or go into retirement.

Highlifeman21
08-01-2009, 07:22 AM
People seem to easily forget that Stewart's transition to starter is far from complete. Most of the posters here that are maddest about losing him are forgetting that.

He was and is still a valuable prospect. I'm sad to lose him. But I do not think he would have made the Reds' 2010 rotation.

Probably not 2011, if the rotation at all.

Highlifeman21
08-01-2009, 07:25 AM
Yep, those two moves, alone, are reason to worry about the future of this organization under his watch.

I'll just have to bring up Mem's word here, because it's is so appropriate after these two moves.

Malpractice. Not an overreaction or hyperbole either.

Ltlabner's favorite word!

mth123
08-01-2009, 08:31 AM
Another way to look at the Rolen trade is that the Reds traded EE and Roenicke for Rolen, then sold Stewart for $4M.

Rolen costs the Reds around $9M more this year and next than EE. He's probably worth about $6-11M more, depending on how much he plays.

$4M is a lot to pay for a top 50 prospect. Odds are about 1 in 3 that he'll be an everyday player. If that happens, he's worth close to $10-12M, so $4M is about right, maybe a bit high.

Another way to see how the trade could be considered even, depending on how much Rolen plays.

So you feel better knowing the team sold its top pitching prospect for $4 Million? That's the kind of pocket change that this GM spends on the Hairstons and Lincolns of the world. Its also exactly the amount that our beloved speedy CF will make in 2010. I'd say keep Stewart, take the dollar hit for now and make it up by dealing off some of this pricey chaff.

Using your logic, the Reds had to include Stewart to add $4 Million to the coffers. Maybe they need it because the worst player in baseball is signed for next year for precisely that amount. As I implied at the time, the signing of Willy is the root of all evil and you've just established a case where it cost this team its top pitching prospect to compensate.

This doesn't help Walt's scorecard IMO.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 08:41 AM
So you feel better knowing the team sold its top pitching prospect for $4 Million? That's the kind of pocket change that this GM spends on the Hairstons and Lincolns of the world. Its also exactly the amount that our beloved speedy CF will make in 2010. I'd say keep Stewart, take the dollar hit for now and make it up by dealing off some of this pricey chaff.

Using your logic, the Reds had to include Stewart to add $4 Million to the coffers. Maybe they need it because the worst player in baseball is signed for next year for precisely that amount. As I implied at the time, the signing of Willy is the root of all evil and you've just established a case where it cost this team its top pitching prospect to compensate.

This doesn't help Walt's scorecard IMO.

Agree. Let's also not forget what they had invested in Stewart, which was time and his signing bonus (500K+).

Maybe they can get $5M for Alonso in 2010 to help pay for part of the $36-million dollar 3-headed monster of Harang, Arroyo, and Cordero.

Pretty much a bad deal all the way around, but I understand some need time to fully evaluate it. I don't.

But for those people, someone need to remember to bump this thread a year from now (8-1-10) and see how everyone feels then.

HokieRed
08-01-2009, 08:42 AM
What's the most pressing problem for the Reds may depend on your point of view. If I were pitching for the Reds, prior to yesterday I'd have seen my most pressing problem as having EE at 3b.

mth123
08-01-2009, 08:44 AM
What's the most pressing problem for the Reds may depend on your point of view. If I were pitching for the Reds, prior to yesterday I'd have seen my most pressing problem as having EE at 3b.

By this time next year it will be having Drew Sutton over there while Rolen is on the DL.

Ltlabner
08-01-2009, 08:46 AM
Ltlabner's favorite word!

Now why did he have to go and use that word? Battle-stations everybody!

Reds/Flyers Fan
08-01-2009, 08:47 AM
The 2010 free agent class is lousy with LFers and good pitchers.

That's the admittedly optimistic viewpoint.

Matt Holliday would still look good in a Cincinnati uniform and not that George Grande STL clown suit he's wearing now.

Ltlabner
08-01-2009, 08:48 AM
By this time next year it will be having Drew Sutton over there while Rolen is on the DL.

That's not an unlikely scenario. Or Adam Rosales.

What a thrill that will be.

HokieRed
08-01-2009, 08:50 AM
If I'm pitching, I take my chances with anybody but EE over there.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 08:55 AM
If I'm pitching, I take my chances with anybody but EE over there.

Cool. Doesn't mean you have to overspend and throw away prospects.

traderumor
08-01-2009, 08:56 AM
By this time next year it will be having Drew Sutton over there while Rolen is on the DL.How many games did backups play while EE was injured this year? He has missed a lot of games to injury over his career as well, he just doesn't have any known chronic conditions.

traderumor
08-01-2009, 08:58 AM
$11MM and a top prospect. That's a pretty expensive stopgap.

And if EE is so bad, then waive him.

I can't recall anyone being too upset when they signed EE to a two-year deal during the off-season.

All of a sudden, he's cancer. Strange. I wasn't a huge fan either, but I don't get the cutting off your nose to spite your face.$6M is the net between Rolen's and EE's salary next year.

mth123
08-01-2009, 08:59 AM
For the record, I'd reached a point where I thought it was time for EdE to be replaced as well. I think Rolen's age, salary and health status made him a poor target. Having to include good arms in the deal to even up the money makes it that much worse. The Reds could have done a number of things with 3B that did not involve dealing Roenicke or Stewart and they could have done a number of things with Roenicke or Stewart that would have been a much bigger improvement to this team. Taking on money, dealing two of the better prospects in the system to become older and more injury prone is just horrible. The most likely scenario is that a season of full-time duty wears on Rolen's back and he becomes a part time guy again like he was in 2007 and 2008. That is hardly an improvement over EdE and certainly not worth more dollars or the opportunity cost of dealing Roenicke and Stewart. I also share the sentiment that his leadership skills may be over-rated. He was run out of Philly and Larussa banished him from St, Louis. I don't know the details of either situation, but the pattern does not scream team leader to me.

My favorite part of all of this is Jocketty saying "I just decided to give in."

mth123
08-01-2009, 09:03 AM
How many games did backups play while EE was injured this year? He has missed a lot of games to injury over his career as well, he just doesn't have any known chronic conditions.

EdE was hit by a pitch and had his wrist broken. I'd say going forward a chronic back condition is more likely to miss time.

Always Red
08-01-2009, 09:19 AM
My favorite part of all of this is Jocketty saying "I just decided to give in."

I heard Jocketty say that last night and it bothered me, too.

To me, it meant that at some point he stopped thinking rationally and went with his emotions instead. During the interview, GG made mention of the fact that Jocketty and Scott Rolen are friends. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but it did give me the feeling that this was not a coldly calculated move, but rather one from the heart.

I have this picture in my mind of Jocketty and Castellini commiserating together over cocktails, shaking their head. One of them says, "You know what we need? A guy like Scott Rolen on this team." Then they look at each other and the gears begin to grind. They just have to have him.

I'm glad EE is not playing 3B any longer. I'm glad Scott Rolen is a Red. I share the concern that too much was given up for him, at the wrong time in Rolen's career, but I know that a trade cannot really be honestly evaluated until some time later. Young pitching is a roll of the dice, IMO. Somewhat because of talent, but even more because of injury.

nate
08-01-2009, 09:23 AM
My favorite part of all of this is Jocketty saying "I just decided to give in."

Although I'm kind of neutral on this deal, I thought that was a lame thing to say.

Does this mean that Walt doesn't want to win?

:cool:

mth123
08-01-2009, 09:24 AM
Young pitching is a roll of the dice, IMO.

Good post AR I didn't exclude the rest to make you look bad, its just that I only want to address this point.

This sentiment seems to be a prevailing one of those defending this deal. It's true that young pitching is a role of the dice. I just happen to think mid-30 year old ballplayers with chronic back conditions making tons of money are bigger roles of the dice.

HokieRed
08-01-2009, 09:25 AM
I'm amazed that so many people seem to have taken Walt at his word about "giving in." If I were selling somebody a real lemon of a car, or a really bad horse, I'd probably say something like that too: "You know, I hate to do this, I can hardly afford to do this, but I'm just going to give in and give you what you want. You've got me beat."

Jpup
08-01-2009, 09:27 AM
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/images/players/525x330/121409.jpg

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/images/players/525x330/429665.jpg

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/images/players/525x330/502158.jpg

Still no uniform numbers yet.

mth123
08-01-2009, 09:29 AM
I'm amazed that so many people seem to have taken Walt at his word about "giving in." If I were selling somebody a real lemon of a car, or a really bad horse, I'd probably say something like that too: "You know, I hate to do this, I can hardly afford to do this, but I'm just going to give in and give you what you want. You've got me beat."

Last year he signed Willy and said "he's our CF and lead-off hitter." Many on this board said it was only GM speak and not etched in stone. Then the organization proved him to be a man of his word. Walt said he gave in for various reasons and it sounds like he knew he overpaid. I believe him.

HokieRed
08-01-2009, 09:30 AM
Last year he signed Willy and said "he's our CF and lead-off hitter." Many on this board said it was only GM speak and not etched in stone. Then the organization proved him to be a man of his word. Walt said he gave in for various reasons and it sounds like he knew he overpaid. I believe him.


I don't believe a word of it.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 09:33 AM
I'm amazed that so many people seem to have taken Walt at his word about "giving in." If I were selling somebody a real lemon of a car, or a really bad horse, I'd probably say something like that too: "You know, I hate to do this, I can hardly afford to do this, but I'm just going to give in and give you what you want. You've got me beat."

So you think Walt thinks he ripped off the Jays?

If he did think that, we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

traderumor
08-01-2009, 09:41 AM
EdE was hit by a pitch and had his wrist broken. I'd say going forward a chronic back condition is more likely to miss time.That isn't the first time EE has spent a chunk of time on the DL, such as last year. All I'm saying is that comments about backup 3B getting considerable time due to injury were true before. At least when Rolen is in there, we have someone who will do a better job, and Rolen has been healthy this year.


My favorite part of all of this is Jocketty saying "I just decided to give in." Yea, that is the way deals work. You have to agree to the other team's asking price at some point. You forgot to mention the part about how they had reached a stalemate on the deal the night before. I still marvel at all the hand wringing over letting go of a "pitching prospect."

Of course, if you have a bias toward "this guy is clueless," then you hear "well, I knew it was overpaying, but daggone it, I couldn't control myself. I just had to satiate my uncontrollable desire to obtain Scott Rolen."

Jpup
08-01-2009, 09:43 AM
What is the deal with Rolen wanting to be traded for "personal reasons?" That is 2 teams that he has asked to be traded from.

traderumor
08-01-2009, 09:47 AM
What is the deal with Rolen wanting to be traded for "personal reasons?" That is 2 teams that he has asked to be traded from.I think it has something to do with family.

mth123
08-01-2009, 09:47 AM
That isn't the first time EE has spent a chunk of time on the DL, such as last year. All I'm saying is that comments about backup 3B getting considerable time due to injury were true before. At least when Rolen is in there, we have someone who will do a better job, and Rolen has been healthy this year.

Yea, that is the way deals work. You have to agree to the other team's asking price at some point. You forgot to mention the part about how they had reached a stalemate on the deal the night before. I still marvel at all the hand wringing over letting go of a "pitching prospect."

Of course, if you have a bias toward "this guy is clueless," then you hear "well, I knew it was overpaying, but daggone it, I couldn't control myself. I just had to satiate my uncontrollable desire to obtain Scott Rolen."

EdE played 139 games in 07 and 146 games in 08. Rolen played 112 games in 07 and 115 games in 08.

My bias is against dealing assets that could be dealt for other needs for a mid 30's player making 8 figures with a chronic back condition. Foolish me.

Always Red
08-01-2009, 09:47 AM
Good post AR I didn't exclude the rest to make you look bad, its just that I only want to address this point.

This sentiment seems to be a prevailing one of those defending this deal. It's true that young pitching is a role of the dice. I just happen to think mid-30 year old ballplayers with chronic back conditions making tons of money are bigger roles of the dice.

I don't know Zach Stewart other than from what I read here- and he is very highly regarded on these pages.

I did say that I was concerned that too much was given up for Rolen at the wrong time in his career. Jocketty spoke last night about Rolen's health and said that the Reds were satisfied that he had healed properly from his surgeries.

I'm really not sure if if I am defending the trade or not. I think Edwin at 3B was a disaster that was not improving. I'm glad Rolen is on our team. I liked watching Roenicke pitch, and follow his progress.

If I had to say right now, I think the Reds probably gave up a little bit too much. But we really don't know, do we?

Is Alonso really that good? He was not really tearing it up when he got injured. Should it have been him instead of Stewart? Maybe that's a topic for another thread.

nate
08-01-2009, 09:48 AM
To me, this deal has elements of like and dislike.

Likes

1. I still think Scott Rolen is a good player. Good average hitter, nice walk rate, good power, good glove.

2. I'm not big on "leadership first," I'm big on "talent first." I believe that Rolen provides both.

3. I was getting to the end of my rope with EE. I think he was maligned for silly reasons like "he doesn't care." By all accounts, he was a hard worker and really tried to improve his overall game. I think it was probably best for him and the Reds to move on.

Dislikes

1. I think Walt gave up too much in both Stewart and Roenicke. I don't care or subscribe to the "pitching prospects are a roll of the dice" or "the Reds can't develop pitching" theorems as to why they should be expendable. I mean, if the latter is true, might as well contract the team because we'll forever be sniffing the butts of the Cards, Astros, Cubs and Brewers with our bosom buddy, the Pirates.

2. Although BtP and TheNext44 have done some excellent work looking into the numbers and finances, I still worry about Walt being able to put a complimentary lineup around Rolen.

3. I'm worried about Rolen's injury history.

So it's kind of a net "push" for me. Emotionally, I think it's a good deal for the organization because people know who Rolen is. I'm sure George will be gushing tonight!

mth123
08-01-2009, 09:49 AM
I don't know Zach Stewart other than from what I read here- and he is very highly regarded on these pages.

I did say that I was concerned that too much was given up for Rolen at the wrong time in his career. Jocketty spoke last night about Rolen's health and said that the Reds were satisfied that he had healed properly from his surgeries.

I'm really not sure if if I am defending the trade or not. I think Edwin at 3B was a disaster that was not improving. I'm glad Rolen is on our team. I liked watching Roenicke pitch, and follow his progress.

If I had to say right now, I think the Reds probably gave up a little bit too much. But we really don't know, do we?

Is Alonso really that good? He was not really tearing it up when he got injured. Should it have been him instead of Stewart? Maybe that's a topic for another thread.

I wouldn't have liked the deal with Alonso either, but I would have rather dealt EdE and Alonso as opposed to EdE, Roenicke and Stewart.

Always Red
08-01-2009, 09:54 AM
I wouldn't have liked the deal with Alonso either, but I would have rather dealt EdE and Alonso as opposed to EdE, Roenicke and Stewart.

Yeah, we haven't seen much good pitching around these parts in years.

I have no problem with seeing if the pitching that this team scouts, drafts, signs and develops can actually do the job for the Reds before trading them away.

dsmith421
08-01-2009, 09:56 AM
I think it has something to do with family.

Jeez, this actually makes Jocketty's decision to 'give in' dumber. How many teams besides the Reds are closer to Rolen's home than the Blue Jays? Seems like we had all the leverage in the deal and still ended up getting hosed.

mth123
08-01-2009, 10:03 AM
Yeah, we haven't seen much good pitching around these parts in years.

I have no problem with seeing if the pitching that this team scouts, drafts, signs and develops can actually do the job for the Reds before trading them away.

Yeah, but pitching prospects are worth more than 1B prospects as a general rule and Stewart would have probably gone into next spring with more hype and market value than many on this board who only read the top ten lists prior to their fantasy drafts realize. So it isn't so much dealing him that I'm against as much as who they gave him up for.

I do think Alonso may be a special hitter though so its hard to say who would have more value.

traderumor
08-01-2009, 10:04 AM
EdE played 139 games in 07 and 146 games in 08. Rolen played 112 games in 07 and 115 games in 08.

My bias is against dealing assets that could be dealt for other needs for a mid 30's player making 8 figures with a chronic back condition. Foolish me.My bias is toward the Reds getting a major league lineup. They took a step toward that yesterday, and congratulation to Zach Stewart, who went from a "highly regarded pitching prospect" (boy, haven't I heard that before) to "future AL Cy Young Award winner" with this deal.

kaldaniels
08-01-2009, 10:07 AM
Jeez, this actually makes Jocketty's decision to 'give in' dumber. How many teams besides the Reds are closer to Rolen's home than the Blue Jays? Seems like we had all the leverage in the deal and still ended up getting hosed.

Nah. The Jays had the leverage...as it appeared that the Reds were the ones actively looking to make the deal. Its not as if Rolen was going to be traded no matter what yesterday. The Jays, smartly or not, were willing to stand pat ala Roy H. That's leverage.

mth123
08-01-2009, 10:12 AM
My bias is toward the Reds getting a major league lineup. They took a step toward that yesterday, and congratulation to Zach Stewart, who went from a "highly regarded pitching prospect" (boy, haven't I heard that before) to "future AL Cy Young Award winner" with this deal.

Some one else called him a future Cy Young winner. That wasn't me. I just think if the Reds are taking on a mid-30's player making $11 Million in 2010 that the Reds are entirely responsible for who has a high likelihood of missing a lot of time, it should have been the Jays adding the prospect for the Reds taking on that risk.

For the record, if both stay on the field, I think Rolen is better than EdE. But that doesn't really change the circumstances of this deal. The Reds are taking on a lot more risk here. If Stewart and Roenicke stink, the Jays aren't out much.

jojo
08-01-2009, 10:13 AM
I think it has something to do with family.

Rolen was born in Evansville and grew up in Jasper, Indiana-roughly a scenic 3hr drive to Cincy. Cincy is about as close to "home" as he could get.

GAC
08-01-2009, 10:14 AM
What's the most pressing problem for the Reds may depend on your point of view. If I were pitching for the Reds, prior to yesterday I'd have seen my most pressing problem as having EE at 3b.

Our pitcher's most pressing problem is the 1st inning, and simply being able to throw the ball over the plate on a consistent basis and quit issuing BBs. Hard for the guys playing behind them to defend that.....or balls leaving the yard. ;)

As far as defense goes...what about the statues we have in the OF, and a CFer who, while speedy, takes terrible routes to balls? Who is going to be my SS after 2010?

EE, while a concern, would be a little bit further down on MY "to do" list for this team.

mth123
08-01-2009, 10:25 AM
Nah. The Jays had the leverage...as it appeared that the Reds were the ones actively looking to make the deal. Its not as if Rolen was going to be traded no matter what yesterday. The Jays, smartly or not, were willing to stand pat ala Roy H. That's leverage.

The Reds could have done te same. Instead they "gave in."

kaldaniels
08-01-2009, 10:28 AM
The Reds could have done te same. Instead they "gave in."

My point exactly. The Reds were more desparate to do the deal. Thus leverage Blue Jays.

kpresidente
08-01-2009, 10:31 AM
My bias is toward the Reds getting a major league lineup. They took a step toward that yesterday, and congratulation to Zach Stewart, who went from a "highly regarded pitching prospect" (boy, haven't I heard that before) to "future AL Cy Young Award winner" with this deal.

Yeah. You heard it about Cueto and Volquez.

Just stop it. We're a long way from being a contender, and now we're out of money. Yeah, Rolen's a slight upgrade over EE. Maybe next year we can win 75 games! I think that's worth trading our best starting and relieving prospects for.

mth123
08-01-2009, 10:35 AM
My point exactly. The Reds were more desparate to do the deal. Thus leverage Blue Jays.

You're right. The Reds gave the Jays leverage by giving in. Great GM job. First Willy now this. What's next? Juan Pierre? Gary Mathews Jr? Ugh.

kaldaniels
08-01-2009, 10:39 AM
You're right. The Reds gave the Jays leverage by giving in. Great GM job. First Willy now this. What's next? Juan Pierre? Gary Mathews Jr? Ugh.

I'm not that upset about the deal at all...I only bring up the point because someone mentioned that the Reds were the ones that had the leverage. Hogwash.

Hoosier Red
08-01-2009, 10:57 AM
Yeah. You heard it about Cueto and Volquez.

Just stop it. We're a long way from being a contender, and now we're out of money. Yeah, Rolen's a slight upgrade over EE. Maybe next year we can win 75 games! I think that's worth trading our best starting and relieving prospects for.

And Cueto currently has a 9.00 ERA for the month, and Volquez has a busted wing. Now, I'm not suggesting that I'm not happy we have them, but they do show the perils of predicting future Cy Youngs.

Maybe Stewart does it, maybe not.

traderumor
08-01-2009, 11:01 AM
Some one else called him a future Cy Young winner. That wasn't me. I just think if the Reds are taking on a mid-30's player making $11 Million in 2010 that the Reds are entirely responsible for who has a high likelihood of missing a lot of time, it should have been the Jays adding the prospect for the Reds taking on that risk.

For the record, if both stay on the field, I think Rolen is better than EdE. But that doesn't really change the circumstances of this deal. The Reds are taking on a lot more risk here. If Stewart and Roenicke stink, the Jays aren't out much.I know that wasn't you. Why would it have to be for me to make that comment? The Jays paid the rest of Rolen's salary, which was the Jays answer to the Reds taking on that risk. As for who is taking on "a lot more risk here," I would say there is a higher probability that Scott Rolen will help the Reds than Zach Stewart ever would.

westofyou
08-01-2009, 11:06 AM
And Cueto currently has a 9.00 ERA for the month, and Volquez has a busted wing. Now, I'm not suggesting that I'm not happy we have them, but they do show the perils of predicting future Cy Youngs.

Maybe Stewart does it, maybe not.

Pitching prospects are are the equivalent of grandmas Hummel collection, fragile, and often valued higher by the owner than by everyone else. Sure there's some good ones in there, but most of them get chips and cracks before they can gain value.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 11:09 AM
Pitching prospects are are the equivalent of grandmas Hummel collection, fragile, and often valued higher by the owner than by everyone else.

This describes Rolen as well.

HokieRed
08-01-2009, 11:10 AM
Our pitcher's most pressing problem is the 1st inning, and simply being able to throw the ball over the plate on a consistent basis and quit issuing BBs. Hard for the guys playing behind them to defend that.....or balls leaving the yard. ;)

As far as defense goes...what about the statues we have in the OF, and a CFer who, while speedy, takes terrible routes to balls? Who is going to be my SS after 2010?

EE, while a concern, would be a little bit further down on MY "to do" list for this team.


Do you honestly think that it's not a disincentive to young pitchers to throw the ball in the zone when they're worried that somebody on one side of the diamond or another cannot catch it?

westofyou
08-01-2009, 11:14 AM
This describes Rolen as well.

Not really, pitching prospects are new, unproven, Rolens are vintage, classic and perhaps too old. But they have established worth.

Future promise isn't established worth.

Nice try though.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 11:17 AM
Not really, pitching prospects are new, unproven, Rolens are vintage, classic and perhaps too old. But they have established worth.

Future promise isn't established worth.

Nice try though.

Nice try?

Umm, okay.

Ho hum, nothing to see here.

RANDY IN INDY
08-01-2009, 11:20 AM
Not really, pitching prospects are new, unproven, Rolens are vintage, classic and perhaps too old. But they have established worth.

Future promise isn't established worth.

Nice try though.

Agree.

Highlifeman21
08-01-2009, 11:24 AM
Now why did he have to go and use that word? Battle-stations everybody!

Got my helmet on, how 'bout you?

Highlifeman21
08-01-2009, 11:25 AM
By this time next year it will be having Drew Sutton over there while Rolen is on the DL.

As opposed to the Sutton/Nix/Gomes OF we saw last night?

Marc D
08-01-2009, 11:26 AM
Not really, pitching prospects are new, unproven, Rolens are vintage, classic and perhaps too old. But they have established worth.

Future promise isn't established worth.

Nice try though.


and past performance is no guarantee of future results. Its all perception and how much value the market says a tulip has. Right now prospects are the prized tulip in the MLB trading economy, potential future flame out is factored into the price.

No way a team should be sending prospects and taking on increased payroll for an aging player in this market.

UKFlounder
08-01-2009, 11:26 AM
Yeah, but "past performance is no guarantee of future results" either, as they say. :D

Don't we have to put that disclaimer on every move?

Anyway, as with all trades, only time will tell, but give Rolen's price tag and history of injury, I'm a bit skeptical. Hopefully Walt knows best.



Not really, pitching prospects are new, unproven, Rolens are vintage, classic and perhaps too old. But they have established worth.

Future promise isn't established worth.

Nice try though.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 11:28 AM
No way a team should be sending prospects and taking on increased payroll for an aging player in this market.

Especially one of the 5 worst teams in baseball.

Marc D
08-01-2009, 11:31 AM
Especially one of the 5 worst teams in baseball.


and poor allocation of resources like this will ensure they stay in that elite group.

traderumor
08-01-2009, 11:32 AM
and past performance is no guarantee of future results. Its all perception and how much value the market says a tulip has. Right now prospects are the prized tulip in the MLB trading economy, potential future flame out is factored into the price.

No way a team should be sending prospects and taking on increased payroll for an aging player in this market.Of course, that disclaimer is basically meaningless here, because there is data showing that past results are predictive for major league players. We all understand there are no guarantees when it comes to ballplayers, though. There is also a long established history of pitching prospect success rates. If there weren't then you have no basis to even have a discussion on this deal.

westofyou
08-01-2009, 11:34 AM
Of course, that disclaimer is basically meaningless here, because there is data showing that past results are predictive for major league players. There is also a long established history of pitching prospect success rates. If there weren't then you have no basis to even have a discussion on this deal.

Bruce Chen is pitching tonight.....heading into the 1998 season, he was named the Atlanta Braves top prospect by Baseball America. That year, he was named the Southern League’s (AA) most outstanding pitcher.

Tonight he's a Royal

Marc D
08-01-2009, 11:41 AM
Of course, that disclaimer is basically meaningless here, because there is data showing that past results are predictive for major league players. There is also a long established history of pitching prospect success rates. If there weren't then you have no basis to even have a discussion on this deal.


So if the well known pitching prospect success rates are to be taken as gospel then why would a team like Philly pass on a talent like Hallady in order to hold on to theirs?

Right wrong or indifferent prospects are the coin of the realm right now and Walt just wasted a couple. If he thinks they aren't actually going to be any good fine, they still have value out there as "top 50 pitching prospect" types. Put them to better use.

Rolen and his salary straight up for EE is a fair trade. If that's not good enough to get Rolen for whatever reason then so be it, we can finish well below .500 with him or without him.

traderumor
08-01-2009, 12:03 PM
So if the well known pitching prospect success rates are to be taken as gospel then why would a team like Philly pass on a talent like Hallady in order to hold on to theirs?

Right wrong or indifferent prospects are the coin of the realm right now and Walt just wasted a couple. If he thinks they aren't actually going to be any good fine, they still have value out there as "top 50 pitching prospect" types. Put them to better use.

Rolen and his salary straight up for EE is a fair trade. If that's not good enough to get Rolen for whatever reason then so be it, we can finish well below .500 with him or without him.The flip side of that is not letting a pitching prospect that the trading partner covets hold up a deal that brings an immediate transfusion of offensive and defensive talent to a club that is sorely lacking both at the position being filled. That sounds like what tipped the scales in completing the deal for Walt.

Jpup
08-01-2009, 12:07 PM
Especially one of the 5 worst teams in baseball.

I'm not sure there not one of the 3 worst.

Scrap Irony
08-01-2009, 12:14 PM
Isn't Moneyball's premise to do something everyone else isn't? Jocketty is valuing older, more expensive players over prospects. It's been his modus operandi before. And worked.

Has anyone else mentioned Mark McGwire? He was moved at 33 after a couple years of injuries and a bounce-back season. The years don't quite fit, but it may be what Jocketty's got in the back of his head here.

Marc D
08-01-2009, 12:19 PM
The flip side of that is not letting a pitching prospect that the trading partner covets hold up a deal that brings an immediate transfusion of offensive and defensive talent to a club that is sorely lacking both at the position being filled. That sounds like what tipped the scales in completing the deal for Walt.

Sure it upgrades that position but that position doesn't exist in a vacum. The rest of the team still has major holes to plug and a disproportional amount of scarce resources were just squandered on 3B.

cincrazy
08-01-2009, 12:21 PM
I don't have a problem with the deal, and I've been as hard on Walt and the rest around here as anyone. We gave up nothing of consequence on the current ML roster to land Scott Rolen. As much as everyone is upset about losing Stewart, I hardly heard the guy mentioned around these parts before the deal ever happened. He was hardly in the "untouchable" category. Roenicke is a bullpen arm and those are more than replacable, and EdE.... well, I'll take Rolen over him any day of the week.

I think, as others have mentioned, if Walt follows this deal up with more deals in the offseason, it can be a good deal. But if this is it, and this is all they're going to do to try and improve the offense for next year... well, then we're going to run into problems.

TeamBoone
08-01-2009, 12:21 PM
Black Friday in Cincinnati Reds' Country by Illya Harrell (Scribe)
Illya HarrellScribe, Featured Columnist

When I heard we had traded Edwin Encarnacion, Jerry Hairston, Josh Roenicke, and Zach Stewart, I thought of Walt Jocketty and Iron Mike. Then I thought of Tyson saying he "want[ed] to eat [Lennox Lewis'] children."
I now have the same feeling.

Mine is not directed toward the children of Lewis but rather to the kids of Jocketty, the General Manager of the Reds.
I never understood the rage one bellied to say such a despicable thing. I now know.

Yay. We got Scott Rolen. Jocketty traded two of next year's key pitchers and Encarnacion for his friend (cough, cough: man crush).

I didn't hide my feelings about this three weeks ago in this article. Back then, I was just talking an Edwin-for-Rolen straight-up deal.

In a nutshell, it said that their numbers were strikingly similar, with Rolen having the advantage defensively and Edwin having more power.

I wouldn't have done the deal straight-up, but read that article if you want to see my reasoning.

This article is going to whine like a 12-year-old girls FriendFace journal. Please just leave right now...all of you.

I hate Walt Jocketty! I know hate is a strong word. I don't use hate regarding people. Ever. Jocketty is not a human.

It is a wretched, vile, cretinous, worm-like being probably sent from outer space to ruin what could have been a contending team...for years to come.
Dusty currently has 10 guys on the DL. I've been harsh on Dusty in the past, but his managing compared to Jocketty's general managing is first-ballot, Hall-of-Fame material when held side by side.

Let's look at some of the things Jocketty said while in the booth with George Grande and Chris Welsh during Friday night's game

Okay, Walt told the Reds' announcers a few things. I tried to write down the exact quotes but may have been off by a word or two—so let's call these paraphrases but pretty bloody close to the horse's mouth.
Scott Rolen is "as good as Brooks Robinson."

Scott Rolen is "a franchise-type player who will anchor the infield with Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto for a long time."

Scott Rolen is "a player who wants to play here."

As good as Brooks Robinson? I'll just raise my eyebrows, shake my head and let you guys do the same. Might want to hurry and get a trash can or something, so you don't vomit on the carpet.

Walt thinks Rolen will anchor the infield for a long time? In the five seasons between 2004 and 2008, he only had one with more than 500 at-bats.
Hard to anchor an infield when you are too injured to play.

A player who wants to play here? Shouldn't any player who is going to a new team want to "play here"? Man, this article is hard to write without using expletives in every other sentence.

Oh yeah, and the Reds lost on Friday night. Our 39-year-old reliever, David Weathers, gave up back-to-back jacks to the Colorado seven- and eight-hole hitters. Wonder if Roenicke would have done that?

Wonder how Zach Stewart would have fared next year considering the Dayton Daily News has reported this: "Pitcher Edinson Volquez, scheduled for a simulated game today [July 31], didn’t complete it. He walked off the mound clutching his elbow. The Reds aren’t saying it—yet—but don’t be surprised if he has to undergo Tommy John surgery and will miss next year."
Guess we'll never know. Thanks, Walt.

Oh, but all is fine, the Reds now have Kip Wells in the bullpen. Yeah, that Kip Wells—the one who was cut by the Nationals because he was too inept to hold a spot in their pen.

So what do you do if you just traded for an injury-prone third baseman while you already have an injury-prone shortstop? If your name is Walt Jocketty, you trade uber-utility man, Jerry Hairston Jr. to the Yanks for a single-A catcher. This quote I know I got word for word: "We project him to be a starting catcher...possibly, someday."

Perhaps the greatest quote of the night came from Chris Welsh. This is golden. Somehow in regards to bringing Rolen over Welsh said, "[Rolen will] show Joey Votto and Brandon Phillips how to play the game."

Sorry guys and gals, I need to go steal some more of my granny's anti-anxiety medication.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/228521-black-friday-in-cincinnati-reds-country

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 12:23 PM
Me too. I'm too big of a Reds fan that I could just switch teams and pretend that I could feel the same emotion for a team like the Cards as I could for the Reds.. For that, the Reds are deeply ingrained in me.

And I know the same thing is true for OBM. OBM, you take everything the Reds do to heart, I don't know you personally, but Im about 100% sure that you could never care about the Cards or any other team half as much as you care about the Reds.


You may not know me personally but you nailed that. I could never switch teams, but I have considered taking a break for a while, which is something I thought I would never even consider. I'm sick and tired of watching the Reds shoot themselves in the foot over and over again. I slept on this trade and woke up hating it even more. The Reds paid an awful steep price for veteran leadership. :rolleyes:

Caveat Emperor
08-01-2009, 12:23 PM
Bruce Chen is pitching tonight.....heading into the 1998 season, he was named the Atlanta Braves top prospect by Baseball America. That year, he was named the Southern League’s (AA) most outstanding pitcher.

Tonight he's a Royal

Stop making sense.

Marc D
08-01-2009, 12:25 PM
Isn't Moneyball's premise to do something everyone else isn't? Jocketty is valuing older, more expensive players over prospects. It's been his modus operandi before. And worked.

Has anyone else mentioned Mark McGwire? He was moved at 33 after a couple years of injuries and a bounce-back season. The years don't quite fit, but it may be what Jocketty's got in the back of his head here.


No doubt that's what he's got in the back of his head but they test for steroids now and he doesn't have the coaches he had in St Louis so I'm a little skeptical. Tavaras was the kind of move that probably would have worked for him back then as well.

If he's going for the lightning striking twice model I hope he plans on picking up a Pujols in the 13th round again soon. We could use it.

VR
08-01-2009, 12:30 PM
Wasnt' it Ty Howington that prevented the Reds from acquiring Rolen 7 years ago?

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 12:32 PM
Rolen to Cincy
by Erik Manning - 7/31/2009 - Comments (40)

Man-crushes can die hard. Reds’ GM Walt Jocketty has swapped Edwin Encarnacion, Josh Roenicke and Zachary Stewart for Scott Rolen. This is the second time Jocketty has traded for Rolen, but now under very different circumstances.

The Reds playoff hopes are nil, and this isn’t the same Scott Rolen of old. Granted, he’s hitting much closer to the Rolen of old with a .320/.370/.476 line, but that’s largely inflated by his .347 BABIP. Even with some falling off, Rolen still is an above average hitter at his position. His defense is no longer Brooks Robinson-esque, but he’s still slick with the leather – his UZR/150 last season was 8.5, this season 8.

Rolen is due around $20 million, including the rest of this year and the next, and reportedly Toronto is going to foot a portion of the bill. For the Reds’ sake let’s hope it is a good piece of the contract. Rolen is a moderately safe bet to be worth 2.5-3 WAR next year, and has upside to be worth 3.5-4 if he can stay healthy. That’s a big if. In the process, the Reds give up cheap players.

Edwin Encarnacion is due to make $4.75 million next year. With the stick, he’s fine, with the leather, he’s terrible – he’s been a career -12 UZR per 150 and is -23 per 150 this season. He’s probably a 1.5 win player next year, making his contract pretty fair.

Josh Roenicke looks like a decent middle reliever who will be glad to get off the Louisville-Cincinnati shuttle. His fastball has some giddyup and he throws a solid cutter as well.

Zachary Stewart is the “get” of the trade. He has a 92-95 MPH fastball with good sink and a hard cutting 82-85 MPH slider. He’s quickly climbed the ladder, pitching at High-A, Double-A and now Triple-A this season, and has a cumulative 2.92 FIP in 92 innings pitched. He pitched mostly out of the bullpen last year but is showing some good promise as a starter. He’s a solid B grade pitcher.

Rolen doesn’t make the Reds a contender next year, and he certainly doesn’t make them one this year. He’s a good player, but I just can’t understand this from Cincy’s perspective. Toronto must be be ponying up a lot of cash. Even if they are, I still can't quite wrap my head around this.

http://www.fangraphs.com/

mth123
08-01-2009, 12:41 PM
I know that wasn't you. Why would it have to be for me to make that comment? The Jays paid the rest of Rolen's salary, which was the Jays answer to the Reds taking on that risk. As for who is taking on "a lot more risk here," I would say there is a higher probability that Scott Rolen will help the Reds than Zach Stewart ever would.

Wrong. The Jays are paying the remainder of his 09 salary. The Reds are on the hook for the entire 2010 cost of $11 Million.

As for the whole, value of pitching prospects thing, I'm not saying hold them forever. Trade them for something that is out there that the team needs. The team does not need a mid 30's, guy making $11 Million with a high liklihood of being sidelined. Throwing prospects at that is giving them away. So you may not like your one dollar bills as much as your fives or tens, but I bet you just don't give them away for no good reason. If the Jays were paying that entire $11 Million in 2010 it would change the entire risk equation of this deal and would be much more acceptable, but that is not the fact here.

The jays are pitching in about $4 Million. That isn't worth Roenicke and Stewart. Let the Jays keep their cash and deal off guys like Weathers, Willy, Gonzalez and Hernandez to make up the difference. Not only would the Reds fix the money the same way, but they may just uncover a player who may help next year to boot (long shot for that chaff though).

GAC
08-01-2009, 12:44 PM
Do you honestly think that it's not a disincentive to young pitchers to throw the ball in the zone when they're worried that somebody on one side of the diamond or another cannot catch it?

Nope.

Do your job and quit worrying about how others are going to, or are suppose to do theirs.

Any pitcher, young or old, that carries the mindset that they're afraid to throw the ball over the plate, or within the zone, because of a fear, or lack of trust, that the guys behind them won't field a ball put into play, is a pitcher who doesn't have his head screwed on tight, and is not long for the rotation.

Can you show me any evidence that any Reds pitcher has somehow alluded to the line of reasoning you suggest? Sure, a pitcher can get frustrated when a fielder misplays or commits an error on a ball. See it all the time. And we can also sight many examples where errors have cost games.

But a pitcher isn't out there worried over the defense, and that it's going to let them down. They have enough problems to worry about.

And when I look at this Reds staff, the defense behind them ain't the problem, nor the reason as to why they struggle so.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 12:50 PM
I can't help but wonder what's next? Maybe Todd Frazier and Yonder Alonso/Homer Bailey for Christian Guzman? I think this move indicates that Jocketty is going to empty out the farm for old vets in hopes of catching lightning in a bottle next season.

Scrap Irony
08-01-2009, 12:51 PM
Another factor no one has spoken of yet (I think, this thread is humongous), is both Stewart and Roenicke struggle occasionally to throw strikes. Stewart walked almost a batter an inning in AAA and Roenicke also nibbled in the majors. (Small sample alerts for both, however.)

Perhaps Jocketty doesn't like relievers who refuse to throw strikes?

mth123
08-01-2009, 12:54 PM
Another factor no one has spoken of yet (I think, this thread is humongous), is both Stewart and Roenicke struggle occasionally to throw strikes. Stewart walked almost a batter an inning in AAA and Roenicke also nibbled in the majors. (Small sample alerts for both, however.)

Perhaps Jocketty doesn't like relievers who refuse to throw strikes?

Could be a factor. They still had more value than dealing them for an $11 Million injury risk.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 12:54 PM
Another factor no one has spoken of yet (I think, this thread is humongous), is both Stewart and Roenicke struggle occasionally to throw strikes. Stewart walked almost a batter an inning in AAA and Roenicke also nibbled in the majors. (Small sample alerts for both, however.)

Perhaps Jocketty doesn't like relievers who refuse to throw strikes?

Stewart walked 18 batters in 80 innings as a starter. That's a walk rate barely above 2.0.

Roenicke has walked only 10 batters in 41.1 innings between AAA and the majors this season.

Scrap Irony
08-01-2009, 12:58 PM
Stewart walked 8 batters in 10 innings in AAA. I saw him in AAA and he nibbled. Perhaps good hitters lay off the slider/ heavy fastball and he can't throw strikes. (Ryan Wagner says hello.) Roenicke's walked four in 13 major league innings.

I saw both of them in AAA and both are high pitch count relievers who don't mind 3-ball counts. They both nibble.

VR
08-01-2009, 01:00 PM
Ot's not a matter if holding onto every young talent we take a liking to, it's knowing which one's we should hold onto and getting value from the one's we deal off.

It's easy to be smug and say that prospects are over-rated and you should deal them by the ton to bring in major league talent. The Reds aren't fortunate to have the prospects to fill all their holes with proven major leaguers or the prospects to acuire them even if they did.

Fact is if the Reds if the Reds are to contend ny time soon, prospects and young players (along with shrewd veteran acquisitions) are gonna be necessary. Ths francsue will have to plan wisely and use their cash and young talent resources wisely. IMO, today's trade fails miserably on all three counts.

I think you have to let prospects get to the point when they are close to realizing their potential before deciding whether to keep or deal them unless the return in trade is can't miss - rolen is not can't miss and it does not help you going firther.

To me, guys like Stewart, Wood, Frazier and Alonso are about a year away from that keep or deal determination. Whether in the middle of the rotation or in the business end of the bullpen, I think Stewart has the potential to be a solid part of a major league staff.

A team like the Reds cannot afford to squander talent like that on a one-year rental like Rolen unlless they're on the verge. This team only verges on another decade of mediocrity and today's deal is a prime reason why.

I guessed I missed the 'smug' reasoning.
Start evaluating the % of success the top 30-100 prospects eventually have....and it is pretty deflating. By no means should an organization empty the cupboards....but I think we all can be a little guilty of putting together lineups and pitching staffs made up of our optimistic development expectations of these kids. In reality, the success rate is miniscule, at best to ever contribute at the big league level.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/at100.html

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 01:00 PM
Stewart walked 8 batters in 10 innings in AAA. I saw him in AAA and he nibbled. Perhaps good hitters lay off the slider/ heavy fastball and he can't throw strikes. (Ryan Wagner says hello.) Roenicke's walked four in 13 major league innings.

I saw both of them in AAA and both are high pitch count relievers who don't mind 3-ball counts. They both nibble.

And yet Stewart walked just 18 batters in 80 innings as a starter. 10 innings is a very small sample size.

Btw, four walks in 13 innings is a 2.8 BB/9. That's not bad at all.

Ltlabner
08-01-2009, 01:00 PM
They still had more value than dealing them for an $11 Million injury risk.

And an $11mil injury risk that pretty much address no long-term needs to boot.

Yaaaaaay!

traderumor
08-01-2009, 01:02 PM
Sure it upgrades that position but that position doesn't exist in a vacum. The rest of the team still has major holes to plug and a disproportional amount of scarce resources were just squandered on 3B.I think there are plenty more Zach Stewart's and Josh Roenicke's. Our prospects are adequately hyped right now, so I'm sure some more deals can be hammered home including some of our "maybe's" talent for some major leaguers that can produce now. If not, the draft is next June to get some more. Glad to see Walt finally crap and get off the pot on something. People think he has been doing nothing, but if he thought like RZ, talk about a hamstrung organization afraid to make a move because "gee, that prospect might be a Cy Young award winner some day."

Ltlabner
08-01-2009, 01:05 PM
Someone else mentioned it so props to them, but this is a BCast inspired move to appeal to the fans. "See, we're still doing everything we can, please come to the stadium". This season's cooked and without major surgery 2010 isn't looking hot either. Without other major moves Rolen is the big move that will accomplish nothing.

Then we'll use Rolen to get prospects to start the treadmill all over again and the fans will be convinced we are "rebuilding".

traderumor
08-01-2009, 01:06 PM
Wrong. The Jays are paying the remainder of his 09 salary. The Reds are on the hook for the entire 2010 cost of $11 Million.
But they were on the hook to EE for $5M. 11-5= 6 incremental additional salary taken on.

Puffy
08-01-2009, 01:07 PM
Stewart walked 8 batters in 10 innings in AAA. I saw him in AAA and he nibbled. Perhaps good hitters lay off the slider/ heavy fastball and he can't throw strikes. (Ryan Wagner says hello.) Roenicke's walked four in 13 major league innings.

I saw both of them in AAA and both are high pitch count relievers who don't mind 3-ball counts. They both nibble.

Come on Scrap - don't you know that Zach Stewart is going to win a Cy Young??

Ltlabner
08-01-2009, 01:08 PM
People think he has been doing nothing, but if he thought like RZ, talk about a hamstrung organization afraid to make a move because "gee, that prospect might be a Cy Young award winner some day."

There's only a couple of folks that are really upset about trading those two specific guys. Most of us understand you gotta give to get. Right now they are lotto tickets and I have no issue with trading them. I also agree we get way too in love with our prospects around here.

It's what we got in return that I don't like.

(which is ironic because I missed-the-boat on "the trade" where we also didn't get the right return for our resources)

westofyou
08-01-2009, 01:09 PM
I think there are plenty more Zach Stewart's and Josh Roenicke's........ if he thought like RZ, talk about a hamstrung organization afraid to make a move because "gee, that prospect might be a Cy Young award winner some day."
I used to think they'd all be stars, now I also think they all perhaps have an equal chance to sell insurance too.

mth123
08-01-2009, 01:11 PM
I think there are plenty more Zach Stewart's and Josh Roenicke's. Our prospects are adequately hyped right now, so I'm sure some more deals can be hammered home including some of our "maybe's" talent for some major leaguers that can produce now. If not, the draft is next June to get some more. Just glad to see Walt finally crap and get off the pot on something.

I don't think the Reds have any other pitching prospects that would rate as highly at Stewart. Roenicke may be replaceable, but he's probably a reliever who could pitch in high leverage situations on a team that has had a recent history of too many soft tossers in the pen. They may be guys to trade, but it should have been in a package that aimed a lot higher. Stick 'em with Stubbs, Alonso and Valaika and go after an ace. Rolen's a bit player these days. He's expensive, probably too short term to matter in the bigger scheme of righting this ship and most importantly a high liklihood of being sidelined while he siphons needed funds from the budget.

This was a case of overpaying due to man love.

nate
08-01-2009, 01:14 PM
Stewart walked 8 batters in 10 innings in AAA. I saw him in AAA and he nibbled. Perhaps good hitters lay off the slider/ heavy fastball and he can't throw strikes. (Ryan Wagner says hello.) Roenicke's walked four in 13 major league innings.

I saw both of them in AAA and both are high pitch count relievers who don't mind 3-ball counts. They both nibble.

I think if Walt is going off a tiny slice of an already small sample size, he should transition from the front office into doing JTM commercials.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 01:14 PM
I think if Walt is going off a tiny slice of an already small sample size, he should transition from the front office into doing JTM commercials.

Yep. If Walt is judging pitchers on 10 innings then he's even worse than I thought.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 01:15 PM
The Jays believe the arms they received from the Reds for Rolen - Josh Roenicke and Zach Stewart - will provide depth. Stewart, they think, can be a No. 3 starter. And third baseman Edwin Encarnacion will be going into a contract year next season. He will be motivated.

But mostly, the Blue Jays netted $6-million in swapping Rolen for Encarnacion's salary. So nothing that happened yesterday will remove the doubts lingering over this team - that they have just slightly interested ownership and no direction, bouncing from crisis to crisis while awaiting a 2010 payroll that will likely be right in the middle of the major-league scale.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/halladay-stays-put-but-jays-seem-to-be-sliding-backward/article1238761/

nate
08-01-2009, 01:17 PM
Further, even if Walt didn't think the prospects were "all that," the Blue Jays certainly did.

nate
08-01-2009, 01:19 PM
Did anyone catch these two Walt quotes from Jhno Fya?


"Scott Rolen makes up better for this year and next."

Jocketty also said he hopes to keep Rolen beyond 2010.

WMR
08-01-2009, 01:21 PM
Following in the rich tradition of his predecessors, I could definitely see Jocketty extending Rolen for another 2-3 years before he pawns this job off on the next sap.

VR
08-01-2009, 01:23 PM
Yep. If Walt is judging pitchers on 10 innings then he's even worse than I thought.

How about 100 innings?

jojo
08-01-2009, 01:27 PM
Trade minor league bullpen arms for above average major league position players all day, every day, twice on Sunday, and three times on the important holidays.

Caveat Emperor
08-01-2009, 01:30 PM
Come on Scrap - don't you know that Zach Stewart is going to win a Cy Young??

The amusing part of all this is that maybe a dozen people on the board have actually seen Stewart pitch.

There are about 50 pitching prospects I wish the Reds had traded sooner over the years. Additionally, there are about 50 pitching prospects (many of whom were "top 10" guys themselves) that were acquired by the Reds in deals like this one who never amounted to squat (see: Ramirez, Elizardo / Chick, Travis / Valentine, Joe / Germano, Justin etc.).

I've watched too much baseball to put total faith in a 20-something in the minors. Some are gonna be good, some are gonna be bad -- the only mistake you can make is selling 'em all or hording 'em all and hoping for the best.

Maybe the Reds screwed the pooch on this, but look at anyone who tells you the answer to that question with certainty or conviction with a health dose of skepticsm.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 01:32 PM
How about 100 innings?

Stewart has a 2.57 BB/9 in 91.2 innings this season. For his career his minor league walk rate is 2.90 BB/9, which is very solid.

reds44
08-01-2009, 01:36 PM
The odds that Zack Stewart end up being a produtive major league player aren't very high. They never are for pitching prospects.

The trade still sucks.

Marc D
08-01-2009, 01:41 PM
I think there are plenty more Zach Stewart's and Josh Roenicke's. Our prospects are adequately hyped right now, so I'm sure some more deals can be hammered home including some of our "maybe's" talent for some major leaguers that can produce now. If not, the draft is next June to get some more. Glad to see Walt finally crap and get off the pot on something. People think he has been doing nothing, but if he thought like RZ, talk about a hamstrung organization afraid to make a move because "gee, that prospect might be a Cy Young award winner some day."

There are more prospects in the system but not all are of equal value. They are a finite resource. I can't speak for all of RZ but I have no fear of moving prospects because of what they may be some day. I fear giving them away for a disproportional return. Why give away what you can sell?

The only answer I can come up with is the difference in perceived value to this organization and that of perceived value to everyone else. I feel the organization thinks this is a good move because it will let the fans know they are trying to build a winning team and because of that the fans will continue to come on down and watch. The pro's and con's of that model have been rehashed many times.

Scott Rolen embodies the status quo to me. I think most fans are sick to their stomach of the status quo while ownership is quite content with it despite being misquoted about wanting to win from time to time.

TheNext44
08-01-2009, 01:42 PM
Just for the record, both BP and Keith Law like this trade from the Blue Jays side.

That makes me feel so much better about the trade, given their history. :cool:

Also, other "experts" have weighed in, and nearly all have

1) valued EE as about equal to Rolan or as an actual valuable piece to the trade,

2) not mentioned the money involved nor the money that EE was due next year (which was huge imo),

3) have not like the trade mainly because they don't think the Reds can compete this year or next with only the addition of Rolen.

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

1) EE is bench player at best. He simply will not hit enough to justify playing LF or DH, and we all know he is not a 3B.

2) Basically the Reds absorbed $6M in this deal over a year and a half. That really is pretty fair, considering the talent involved on both sides.

3) I agree, as do most non-haters of this trade, that the Reds have to do more to justify this trade. I am confident that they will between now and next season. Either a payroll bump or shedding one of the big contracts, or maybe even both.

VR
08-01-2009, 01:42 PM
Stewart has a 2.57 BB/9 in 91.2 innings this season. For his career his minor league walk rate is 2.90 BB/9, which is very solid.

It is, but projecting Major league success off a minor leaguer's first 100 IP's isn't an exact science.....especially when he's a college arm, pitching against much younger competetion at each stop.

kaldaniels
08-01-2009, 01:43 PM
Stewart has a 2.57 BB/9 in 91.2 innings this season. For his career his minor league walk rate is 2.90 BB/9, which is very solid.

For such a highly touted guy, I'm unimpressed by that rate.

TheNext44
08-01-2009, 01:48 PM
The amusing part of all this is that maybe a dozen people on the board have actually seen Stewart pitch.

There are about 50 pitching prospects I wish the Reds had traded sooner over the years. Additionally, there are about 50 pitching prospects (many of whom were "top 10" guys themselves) that were acquired by the Reds in deals like this one who never amounted to squat (see: Ramirez, Elizardo / Chick, Travis / Valentine, Joe / Germano, Justin etc.).

I've watched too much baseball to put total faith in a 20-something in the minors. Some are gonna be good, some are gonna be bad -- the only mistake you can make is selling 'em all or hording 'em all and hoping for the best.

Maybe the Reds screwed the pooch on this, but look at anyone who tells you the answer to that question with certainty or conviction with a health dose of skepticsm.

Well put.

The philosophy to trading prospects is to keep trading them, but make sure you get solid veterans who produce back every time.

The prospects will become productive major leaguers around 20-30% of the time, and stars maybe 5-10% of the time. And history has shown, that no one knows who those will be.

If you keep getting solid production back every time, you always will be ahead of the game, even if one of them becomes a star.

Brutus
08-01-2009, 01:49 PM
There are more prospects in the system but not all are of equal value. They are a finite resource. I can't speak for all of RZ but I have no fear of moving prospects because of what they may be some day. I fear giving them away for a disproportional return. Why give away what you can sell?

The only answer I can come up with is the difference in perceived value to this organization and that of perceived value to everyone else. I feel the organization thinks this is a good move because it will let the fans know they are trying to build a winning team and because of that the fans will continue to come on down and watch. The pro's and con's of that model have been rehashed many times.

Scott Rolen embodies the status quo to me. I think most fans are sick to their stomach of the status quo while ownership is quite content with it despite being misquoted about wanting to win from time to time.

I have expressed my thoughts on the trade in another post, but I'm going to say this as a generic observation.

While I have my own thoughts on the deal, and whether it should have been made, it really goes like this:

If the Reds had just traded the enigmatic third baseman (Encarnacion) and a solid but dime-a-dozen middle reliever (Roenicke), everyone here would have been overjoyed at this trade, I imagine. After all, while Rolen's age and health history can be called into question, he does have a proven track record and brings both talent to third base and intangibles that most agree Encarnacion does not provide.

If what the article posted in this thread is true, the Jays see Stewart as a No. 3 starter, then does the trade of an unproven No. 3 starter (who's had less than a year experience in the minors as a starting pitcher) really take this deal from solid to horrendous?

I like Stewart a lot. And I'd rather the Reds not have traded him. However, given the past success (or rather lack of success) rates of guys just like Stewart, I know better than to allow his inclusion too strongly dictate my opinion on the trade. There's a better chance he amounts to little or nothing than this trade haunting the Reds for years to come.

I'm more concerned about the production and how it equates to the financial cost than whether the Reds include a projected No. 3 starter.

RANDY IN INDY
08-01-2009, 01:51 PM
Trade minor league bullpen arms for above average major league position players all day, every day, twice on Sunday, and three times on the important holidays.
:thumbup:

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 01:51 PM
For such a highly touted guy, I'm unimpressed by that rate.

I don't know why. A 2.57 walk rate is very good, as is his career 2.90 walk rate.

Here's a look at some other pitchers career minor league walk rates:

Greg Maddux - 2.7
Brandon Webb - 3.2
Chris Carpenter - 4.3
Roy Oswalt - 2.5
Matt Cain - 3.7
Tim Lincecum - 3.3
Cole Hamels - 3.3
Roy Halladay - 2.9

Please note that I'm not saying Stewart is as good as those guys, I'm just pointing out that his walk rate is very good and is right in line with some of the best pitchers in the game.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 01:55 PM
People are going a bit overboard in an attempt to justify dealing prospects.

The many of that hate this trade do so, not because we want the Reds to hoard prospects (because they will all be future HOF'ers), but because these two prospects in particular (and especially Stewart) should not have been necessary to get this deal done.

That's the point. So let's stop with the red herrings that prospects are unimportant and overvalued.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 01:56 PM
For such a highly touted guy, I'm unimpressed by that rate.

You really think this?

What do you think would be a good rate?

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 01:58 PM
People are going a bit overboard in an attempt to justify dealing prospects.

The many of that hate this trade do so, not because we want the Reds to hoard prospects (because they will all be future HOF'ers), but because these two prospects in particular (and especially Stewart) should not have been necessary to get this deal done.

That's the point. So let's stop with the red herrings that prospects are unimportant and overvalued.

Great post.

I LOVE the Reds and I know everyone else here does too, but it's okay to disagree with a move every now and then. We don't have to agree with everything and try to justify every move they make.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 01:59 PM
I guessed I missed the 'smug' reasoning.

I dunno. I'm seeing plenty of smug just in the past few pages of this thread.

kaldaniels
08-01-2009, 02:02 PM
You really think this?

What do you think would be a good rate?

Give me a 2.5 and I'm gonna start to be impressed by a pitchers' control. 2.9 for a career is an average rate for a guy who is hoping to be a good big league pitcher. You can stack up his walk rate to other superstars' walk rates in the minors, but that doesn't speak to whether it is a good one or not. Trust me...Chris Carpenter's walk rate of 4.3 in the minors was a concern. It has no implication of whether or not Stewart will be sucessful. I'm not putting down Stewart at all...just saying that if you isolate his walk rate it is average.

VR
08-01-2009, 02:06 PM
I dunno. I'm seeing plenty of smug just in the past few pages of this thread.

That's great.
I was trying to start some conversation on evaluating the past maximization of Reds prospects.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 02:07 PM
Give me a 2.5 and I'm gonna start to be impressed by a pitchers' control. 2.9 for a career is an average rate for a guy who is hoping to be a good big league pitcher. You can stack up his walk rate to other superstars' walk rates in the minors, but that doesn't speak to whether it is a good one or not. Trust me...Chris Carpenter's walk rate of 4.3 in the minors was a concern. It has no implication of whether or not Stewart will be sucessful. I'm not putting down Stewart at all...just saying that if you isolate his walk rate it is average.

If they have a high K rate, I don't think anything around 3.0 is an issue.

Marc D
08-01-2009, 02:07 PM
If the Reds had just traded the enigmatic third baseman (Encarnacion) and a solid but dime-a-dozen middle reliever (Roenicke), everyone here would have been overjoyed at this trade, I imagine. After all, while Rolen's age and health history can be called into question, he does have a proven track record and brings both talent to third base and intangibles that most agree Encarnacion does not provide.

Rolen and his salary for EE would have been fair to me. I cannot get on board with any trade that takes on both the financial risk of an aging veteran and ships out prospects for a non contending team.



I'm more concerned about the production and how it equates to the financial cost than whether the Reds include a projected No. 3 starter.

Same here. I'm not hung up on projecting Stewarts future production. There is a current thread discussing the speculative bubble of inflated prices for prospects and how to exploit it. BP and pretty much any place people talk baseball are noticing the same thing. Its real its going on, MLB teams are over valuing prospects right now. Then I look at this thread and people are ok with essentially giving two of them away, I just don't get it.

Again, it has nothing to do with some naive belief that all prospects will turn into stars. They don't give away lottery tickets at 7-11, they sell them. If I had a stack of tickets I would agree with anyone that said to sell them for cold hard cash that can be used to buy food with now instead of holding out for the big winner. I would disagree strongly with anyone who said give them away for free because they probably weren't going to be a winner anyway.

kaldaniels
08-01-2009, 02:08 PM
If they have a high K rate, I don't think anything around 3.0 is an issue.

Never said it was an issue. Just said it was average.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 02:09 PM
That's great.
I was trying to start some conversation on evaluating the past maximization of Reds prospects.

I get that. Thanks.

VR
08-01-2009, 02:13 PM
I get that. Thanks.

Good to hear.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 02:14 PM
Never said it was an issue. Just said it was average.

You said you were unimpressed and his walk rate was average. I'm just saying an "average" walk rate with a high K rate is okay for anyone.

I'm guess I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.

Brutus
08-01-2009, 02:19 PM
Rolen and his salary for EE would have been fair to me. I cannot get on board with any trade that takes on both the financial risk of an aging veteran and ships out prospects for a non contending team.




Same here. I'm not hung up on projecting Stewarts future production. There is a current thread discussing the speculative bubble of inflated prices for prospects and how to exploit it. BP and pretty much any place people talk baseball are noticing the same thing. Its real its going on, MLB teams are over valuing prospects right now. Then I look at this thread and people are ok with essentially giving two of them away, I just don't get it.

Again, it has nothing to do with some naive belief that all prospects will turn into stars. They don't give away lottery tickets at 7-11, they sell them. If I had a stack of tickets I would agree with anyone that said to sell them for cold hard cash that can be used to buy food with now instead of holding out for the big winner. I would disagree strongly with anyone who said give them away for free because they probably weren't going to be a winner anyway.

I absolutely agree with you that the obsessive evaluation of prospects is a widespread epidemic in Major League Baseball right now. But should that be a reason the Reds not trade prospects? If we essentially agree on the rates in which these prospects will produce, would it not benefit a team like the Reds to go against the grain and trade guys if it helps their team?

To me, the fact that all these teams are over-valuing prospects is more of a reason to not follow the trend. Someone mentioned Moneyball and the philosophy of finding value that others are not. I agree with this completely. If all the other teams are clinging to prospects to a fault, the Reds should not fall in line, but rather be willing to trade guys to acquire players they otherwise might not or could not. That's not to say it should have been for Rolen, but in principal, the prospect bubble is an even better reason the Reds should look to make these kinds of deals.

Understand I want the Reds to be smart about it. I'm not for mortgaging all of a club's resources to compete when it's not prudent. Nor am I for giving up the farm for one player. But if the payroll is given better flexibility, and the Reds can improve the talent of the ballclub, I would rather they spurn the trends of other clubs with regard to their valuing of prospects.

kaldaniels
08-01-2009, 02:20 PM
You said you were unimpressed and his walk rate was average. I'm just saying an "average" walk rate with a high K rate is okay for anyone.

I'm guess I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.

His walk rate is average.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 02:25 PM
The Reds acquired Rolen for his veteran leadership in the clubhouse? Oops.

"Rolen's probably pretty happy today," Gaston said. "This guy's a class player. ... He's not a clubhouse lawyer -- he's not a leader in the clubhouse per se -- but he leads in the way he plays and the way he goes about his business, as far as preparing himself and playing the game every day."

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090731&content_id=6169044&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor

"We accommodated him," Ricciardi said. "In doing so, we got a younger player at third base with a little bit more power and we got two really good arms that we've liked for a long time. We're very, very happy with the arms."

kaldaniels
08-01-2009, 02:29 PM
The Reds acquired Rolen for his veteran leadership in the clubhouse? Oops.

"Rolen's probably pretty happy today," Gaston said. "This guy's a class player. ... He's not a clubhouse lawyer -- he's not a leader in the clubhouse per se -- but he leads in the way he plays and the way he goes about his business, as far as preparing himself and playing the game every day."

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090731&content_id=6169044&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor

"We accommodated him," Ricciardi said. "In doing so, we got a younger player at third base with a little bit more power and we got two really good arms that we've liked for a long time. We're very, very happy with the arms."

On this issue, we are probably going to get spin from each side. Last night on the broadcast Doc Hollywood was saying how he personally saw Rolen be a clubhouse leader when visiting the Blue Jay clubhouse. Now Gaston, knowing that Rolen wanted out, says he is not a leader. Subjective opinions from both sides and I'm not really listening to either side on the issue.

Brutus
08-01-2009, 02:31 PM
The Reds acquired Rolen for his veteran leadership in the clubhouse? Oops.

"Rolen's probably pretty happy today," Gaston said. "This guy's a class player. ... He's not a clubhouse lawyer -- he's not a leader in the clubhouse per se -- but he leads in the way he plays and the way he goes about his business, as far as preparing himself and playing the game every day."

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090731&content_id=6169044&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor

"We accommodated him," Ricciardi said. "In doing so, we got a younger player at third base with a little bit more power and we got two really good arms that we've liked for a long time. We're very, very happy with the arms."

You can find many, many people from the St. Louis organization that often cited his leadership and presence in the clubhouse.

I think people are trying too hard to find additional faults in this trade.

cincrazy
08-01-2009, 02:35 PM
The Reds didn't get Rolen to be a leader in the clubhouse. Lets not be ridiculous. They got the man to play 3B, and to play it well, something he's capable of. I'm not doing cartwheels over this trade, but I'm not dancing on the ledge with a bottle of pills in my hand like I was when I found out Alonso was supposedly in the deal.

I don't know where all of this love for Stewart is coming from. The Reds had to give up someone, and I'm going to trust Walt's judgment as far as that's concerned. His track record in St. Louis, until the Haren deal, was fantastic in terms of knowing who to give up in the farm system.

Scott Rolen, if healthy, makes us a better club. If they sign a SS, say Marco Scutaro, and somehow find a way to plug two huge holes in the outfield, then they have the makings of a decent lineup.

TheNext44
08-01-2009, 02:36 PM
The Reds acquired Rolen for his veteran leadership in the clubhouse? Oops.

"Rolen's probably pretty happy today," Gaston said. "This guy's a class player. ... He's not a clubhouse lawyer -- he's not a leader in the clubhouse per se -- but he leads in the way he plays and the way he goes about his business, as far as preparing himself and playing the game every day."

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090731&content_id=6169044&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor

"We accommodated him," Ricciardi said. "In doing so, we got a younger player at third base with a little bit more power and we got two really good arms that we've liked for a long time. We're very, very happy with the arms."


To me his leadership is that he is a talented, very professional baseball player. He doesn't need to bring anything else than that to bring leadership to this Reds team, which sorely lacks that.

HokieRed
08-01-2009, 02:38 PM
Nope.

Do your job and quit worrying about how others are going to, or are suppose to do theirs.

Any pitcher, young or old, that carries the mindset that they're afraid to throw the ball over the plate, or within the zone, because of a fear, or lack of trust, that the guys behind them won't field a ball put into play, is a pitcher who doesn't have his head screwed on tight, and is not long for the rotation.

Can you show me any evidence that any Reds pitcher has somehow alluded to the line of reasoning you suggest? Sure, a pitcher can get frustrated when a fielder misplays or commits an error on a ball. See it all the time. And we can also sight many examples where errors have cost game.

Respectfully, this has nothing to do with the way baseball is played. It is played by human beings. You cannot, as a pitching coach, tell a young right-hander he has to pitch inside when both you and he know that the third-baseman can't catch the ball if it's hit that way. Teams are not made out of statistics; they are very largely made out of mutual faith. I would be very surprised if a primary factor in this trade was not that EE playing third was considered to be bad for the development of the pitching staff.




But a pitcher isn't out there worried over the defense, and that it's going to let them down. They have enough problems to worry about.

And when I look at this Reds staff, the defense behind them ain't the problem, nor the reason as to why they struggle so.

WVRedsFan
08-01-2009, 02:42 PM
I do not know if this trade will work out at all. And neither does anyone else. The problem with this trade is the principals involved for many people. Edwin Encarcinon had more love on this board than any player I can ever remember who just didn't do much for the team. Anytime he was criticized, he became eternally young. Youth is valued on RedsZone more than any other place in the universe, unless you're Scotty Hatteberg, then it didn't matter. The young love the young and the old tolerate them. Such is life.

I can look back over the 10-11 years, I've discussed Reds baseball on here and other boards and remember the names of "can't miss" players:

1. Brandon Larson - Playing in the minors at last report. Played 100 games and batted .179.
2. Chris Denorfia - Oakland - has played 100 games and has been in the minors off & on.
3. Justin Germano - Out of baseball.
4. Jay Bruce - Has played 191 games with a .235 avg. and nearly as low a OBP.
5. Homer Bailey - Well, you know and we still protect him even today. Why?
6. Edinson Volquez - He likely will never be the same unfortunately.
7. Johnny Cueto - There is hope, but it's way in the future.
8. Joey Votto - so good, everyone wanted to trade him last year. Hmmm.
9. Alonso - a question mark at best.

That's only nine, but out of those nine, who is producing at a major league level today? Joey Votto. Only Joey Votto.

That doesn't make the trade good or bad, though, but the gnashing of teeth and wailing around here over Ecanancion and Stewart (and not so much the other guy for some reason) really confuses me. Something was wrong with Edwin, and I do not know what. He was gifted, but he also could do dumb things at the drop of a hat. He needed to go. Stewart had "potential," and was young. that's all. Rolen? He will bring competence to the field for the Reds, something that five positions last night could have used.

The work has just started, but we have to remember that those ludicrous contracts that Wayne gave to Harang, Arroyo, and others handcuffed us from the beginning. The Reds will have to eat some contracts (which seemed to be a common occurrene under Krivsky and now Jocketty) and spend some money. The sad fact is no one wants Harang, Arroyo, Gonzalez, Weathers, Cordero, etc at their current level of pay. No one.

traderumor
08-01-2009, 02:50 PM
People are going a bit overboard in an attempt to justify dealing prospects.

The many of that hate this trade do so, not because we want the Reds to hoard prospects (because they will all be future HOF'ers), but because these two prospects in particular (and especially Stewart) should not have been necessary to get this deal done.

That's the point. So let's stop with the red herrings that prospects are unimportant and overvalued.What's amazing is that you used a red herring to request others to stop using red herrings. I haven't seen the argument made "that prospects are unimportant and overvalued." Can you provide some instances where that argument has been made?

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2009, 02:52 PM
His walk rate is average.

Your getting picky over .4 BB/9. For a starting pitcher that's 1 walk over about one and a half starts. For a reliever, every 9 appearances.

His walk rate is fine. There are reasons not to like Stewart, and better reasons not to value relief pitchers particularly highly.

This is not one of them. His walk rate is not average, it's above average. He has above average GB rates. If you want to pin you one thing on Stewart, it's probably that his K rate isn't as good as his scouting report would suggest.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 02:53 PM
I can look back over the 10-11 years, I've discussed Reds baseball on here and other boards and remember the names of "can't miss" players:

1. Brandon Larson - Playing in the minors at last report. Played 100 games and batted .179.
2. Chris Denorfia - Oakland - has played 100 games and has been in the minors off & on.
3. Justin Germano - Out of baseball.
4. Jay Bruce - Has played 191 games with a .235 avg. and nearly as low a OBP.
5. Homer Bailey - Well, you know and we still protect him even today. Why?
6. Edinson Volquez - He likely will never be the same unfortunately.
7. Johnny Cueto - There is hope, but it's way in the future.
8. Joey Votto - so good, everyone wanted to trade him last year. Hmmm.
9. Alonso - a question mark at best.


Come on now, really, who thought of Brandon Larson, Chris Denorfia, or Justin Germano as can't miss prospects? Most folks thought Denorfia could be a Brady Clark (or slightly better) type of player. Germano was a soft tossing right hander.

Jay Bruce is 22 years old and has been roughly a league average player so far. He's hardly a bust. He has a very bright future ahead of him.

Why do we still protect Homer Bailey? Maybe because he's only 23 years old and has made only 25 major league starts? Oh, and he has great stuff.

Volquez will never be the same? Even if he has TJ surgery it's not the end of the world. He still has a bright future.

Cueto is 23 and has taken a step forward this season. He's pitched better than I expected a 23 year to.

Marc D
08-01-2009, 02:53 PM
I absolutely agree with you that the obsessive evaluation of prospects is a widespread epidemic in Major League Baseball right now. But should that be a reason the Reds not trade prospects? If we essentially agree on the rates in which these prospects will produce, would it not benefit a team like the Reds to go against the grain and trade guys if it helps their team?

Of course, that's exactly what I'm getting at. Prospects are over valued, by all means trade away. The fact they are over valued implies to me that one should expect a superior return on them, not throw them into deals for free.


To me, the fact that all these teams are over-valuing prospects is more of a reason to not follow the trend. Someone mentioned Moneyball and the philosophy of finding value that others are not. I agree with this completely. If all the other teams are clinging to prospects to a fault, the Reds should not fall in line, but rather be willing to trade guys to acquire players they otherwise might not or could not. That's not to say it should have been for Rolen, but in principal, the prospect bubble is an even better reason the Reds should look to make these kinds of deals.


Agreed 100%, exploiting the inefficiencies of the market should always be the guiding principle. Selling low and buying high isn't exploiting any inefficiencies imo.


Understand I want the Reds to be smart about it. I'm not for mortgaging all of a club's resources to compete when it's not prudent. Nor am I for giving up the farm for one player. But if the payroll is given better flexibility, and the Reds can improve the talent of the ballclub, I would rather they spurn the trends of other clubs with regard to their valuing of prospects.

We are on the hook for more money next year and out two less trade chips with many holes left to fill. I don't see how that helps flexibility at all.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 02:55 PM
What's amazing is that you used a red herring to request others to stop using red herrings. I haven't seen the argument made "that prospects are unimportant and overvalued." Can you provide some instances where that argument has been made?

Why don't you read the thread and see them for yourself.

VR
08-01-2009, 02:58 PM
Come on now, really, who thought of Brandon Larson, Chris Denorfia, or Justin Germano as can't miss prospects? Most folks thought Denorfia could be a Brady Clark (or slightly better) type of player. Germano was a soft tossing right hander.



97% of Redszone thought Larson would be a very very good major leaguer.
Denorfia wasn't far behind.

And they had proven themselves (over time) quite a bit more than Stewart has.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 02:58 PM
By the way, I am a big fan of Scott Rolen. Like others have said, he's one of my favorite players to watch. If this deal had been EdE for Rolen straight up then I would have been pleased. What makes me angry is the fact that the Reds had to throw in two power arms for an older, more expensive third baseman. I'm fine with trading prospects but not in a deal like this. Rolen is 34years old and is far from the missing piece. If you're going to trade prospects like Stewart then target a young shortstop or outfielder, not an aging 3B with injury problems.

traderumor
08-01-2009, 03:02 PM
Of course, that's exactly what I'm getting at. Prospects are over valued, by all means trade away. The fact they are over valued implies to me that one should expect a superior return on them, not throw them into deals for free.



Agreed 100%, exploiting the inefficiencies of the market should always be the guiding principle. Selling low and buying high isn't exploiting any inefficiencies imo.



We are on the hook for more money next year and out two less trade chips with many holes left to fill. I don't see how that helps flexibility at all.I imagine the deal started at EE for Rolen, we pay the salary. Then I imagine that the Jays balked because that only brought salary relief but did nothing to add talent to their org. since EE is prob. not in their long-term plans, either. So, Toronto wanted some young power arms in the rumor mill, maybe they threw out Bailey, the Reds said "what about Roenicke and you pick up some of Rolen's 2009 salary." The Jays said, "still not enough, need another A prospect if we're sending any cash your way. We like Zach Stewart." Its Thursday night, WJ says, "boy, I like Zach too, gonna have to think on that one a little more." Rolen hears the deal is off, reemphasizes to JP that he needs this deal to go through. The 11th hour comes around, WJ gives in on the additional prospect if JP pays all of Rolen's salary for the rest of this year. That is what I've pieced together, and I don't at all see that as "hosing," but a good baseball trade that will likely benefit both organizations.

Disclaimer: There is some speculation and conjecture included, but I think the facts fit with what I've heard both sides reporting and rumoring.

AmarilloRed
08-01-2009, 03:06 PM
Just heard about the trade- a lot to give up for Rolen. The thing of it is, we didn't have anyone in our minor league system who was close to playing third base for the Reds. We have some prospects who might pan out a couple of years from now- about the time Rolen's contract is up.I like Roenicke, but isn't he 26. Roenicke's got good stuff, but he seems to have some control problems. The trade really is about Stewart-Toronto seems to think he will be a reliever, not a starter. I think it was a lot to give up for Rolen, but time really will tell.

kpresidente
08-01-2009, 03:24 PM
By the way, I am a big fan of Scott Rolen. Like others have said, he's one of my favorite players to watch. If this deal had been EdE for Rolen straight up then I would have been pleased. What makes me angry is the fact that the Reds had to throw in two power arms for an older, more expensive third baseman. I'm fine with trading prospects but not in a deal like this. Rolen is 34years old and is far from the missing piece. If you're going to trade prospects like Stewart then target a young shortstop or outfielder, not an aging 3B with injury problems.

I agree 100%. If it's EE > Rolen straight up, the debate is whether the swap was worth a somewhat better player for twice the price. Very reasonable.

Then you remember that we threw in two of our better prospects.

Ugh.

Plus, if you're that interested in upgrading 3B, there's probably going to be several good options on the FA market. Why not sign one of them and trade EE for a prospect? Maybe he could have been involved in a deal for a SS or LF, which have extremely weak markets. It just makes no sense.

Marc D
08-01-2009, 03:25 PM
That is what I've pieced together, and I don't at all see that as "hosing," but a good baseball trade that will likely benefit both organizations.

That's where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see anything equitable about taking on more money for an aging veteran and giving up prospects.

I agree that your scenario could be pretty close to how it played out and it makes me all the more frustrated. There is no reason in the world Walt should have gotten himself involved in a situation where he felt pressure to get it done before the trade deadline. If Rolen is part of the plan for 2010 and beyond, fine. Go get him this off season with no deadline looming and work for a better deal. There is no urgent need for Scott Rolen or anyone else in 2009. Why on earth would you give up leverage and let yourself be pressured by the trade deadline when 2009 is gone?

klw
08-01-2009, 03:38 PM
I am back and forth on this. I go from hating the trade because of Stewart to thinking it was the sort of pickup the Reds needed to make. I see it as the Ray Allen trade for the Celtics. It is not enough by itself but may be a good starting point. I know I also hated to see Al Jefferson go to Minnesota in the Garnett trade but it looks like that will work out for both sides. My fear is that by itself the move is not enough and that the organization may not be able to pull off the rest of the necessary steps. Burton and Viola also better come around or else those young arms giving bullpen depth are starting to look thin too.

My other concern with the deal is whether the same players going out could have gotten someone better in. Ex is this better than the Victor Martiez haul?

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2009, 03:40 PM
UNIFORM NUMBERS: 3B Scott Rolen will wear uniform number 27. IF/OF Drew Sutton will now wear number 15.

http://redsintern.mlblogs.com/

Kc61
08-01-2009, 03:47 PM
By the way, I am a big fan of Scott Rolen. Like others have said, he's one of my favorite players to watch. If this deal had been EdE for Rolen straight up then I would have been pleased. What makes me angry is the fact that the Reds had to throw in two power arms for an older, more expensive third baseman. I'm fine with trading prospects but not in a deal like this. Rolen is 34years old and is far from the missing piece. If you're going to trade prospects like Stewart then target a young shortstop or outfielder, not an aging 3B with injury problems.

I don't love the trade, but I fundamentally disagree with this idea that you do nothing until there is a "missing piece."

Just watch the Reds. What they need is not more unproven prospects on the team. What they need are three or four established, starting, good players.

I can understand people saying that the Reds gave up too much value. The Jays probably got a tad more value in the deal.

But the idea that it is "too soon" for the Reds to be trading prospects for veterans is just nonsense. They will never be any good unless they get real MLB baseball players in here. They have plenty of kids and more are on the way. That is not the problem -- mostly, it's the veterans who need to be better.

SirFelixCat
08-01-2009, 03:49 PM
So here it is the day after...


And with the news on Volquez, this trade smarts. I do feel as though the Jays knew they had the Reds over a barrel and made them overpay. Yes, this trade helps the Reds, but I think the cost will end up being too high. Esp. w/ Volquez out for all of this year and possibly all of next and no one in sight to take his place.

WVRedsFan
08-01-2009, 03:58 PM
Come on now, really, who thought of Brandon Larson, Chris Denorfia, or Justin Germano as can't miss prospects? Most folks thought Denorfia could be a Brady Clark (or slightly better) type of player. Germano was a soft tossing right hander.

I know, but to hear it here, they were all that and more. And to be frank, I though Larson and Germano would do fine and play many MLB seasons, but...


Jay Bruce is 22 years old and has been roughly a league average player so far. He's hardly a bust. He has a very bright future ahead of him.

I agree, but it worries me a lot. He just seems lost at the plate and with our batting coach, he is liable to stay lost. I have many doubts about him being no more than a Reggie Sanders. He has the tools to be better than that.




Many pitchers are young with great stuff and only one out of ten will pan out. Watching Bailey, I doubt he'll be anything more than a No. 5 starter. If the right deal came along (and it probably already has), I'd move him.

[quote]Volquez will never be the same? Even if he has TJ surgery it's not the end of the world. He still has a bright future.

I'll disagree here. Few pitchers come back with the velocity they once had and without that, Edinson is not all that.


Cueto is 23 and has taken a step forward this season. He's pitched better than I expected a 23 year to.

Yep, but he has a long way to go. I think he'll be OK, but not in the short term.

My point was, you never know about prospects. We don't know everything about Stewart, just like we didn't know everything about Edwin. I think those kinds of concerns played into this. I think :)

The Baumer
08-01-2009, 04:05 PM
I just hope Rolen doesn't pull a Bichette. I remember being all excited for some Coors field home runs and all I got was a fat dude who got hit in the leg once while hitting and there was a huge welt/bump on his shin.

^ Seriously, the only memorable memory I have of Dante Bichette with the Reds.

Marc D
08-01-2009, 04:05 PM
I can understand people saying that the Reds gave up too much value. The Jays probably got a tad more value in the deal.



Anyone who thinks it was close to fair or even in the Reds favor needs to ask themselves why we couldn't move any of our bloated contracts for salary relief and prospects.

nate
08-01-2009, 04:12 PM
I don't love the trade, but I fundamentally disagree with this idea that you do nothing until there is a "missing piece."

Just watch the Reds. What they need is not more unproven prospects on the team. What they need are three or four established, starting, good players.

I can understand people saying that the Reds gave up too much value. The Jays probably got a tad more value in the deal.

But the idea that it is "too soon" for the Reds to be trading prospects for veterans is just nonsense. They will never be any good unless they get real MLB baseball players in here. They have plenty of kids and more are on the way. That is not the problem -- mostly, it's the veterans who need to be better.

I don't see it as the veterans need to be better. I see it as we need better players. Rolen is a better player, for sure, but he can't turn the Reds around on his own.

Walt's roster needs a serious makeover before opening say 2010.

Playadlc
08-01-2009, 04:13 PM
I just hope Rolen doesn't pull a Bichette. I remember being all excited for some Coors field home runs and all I got was a fat dude who got hit in the leg once while hitting and there was a huge welt/bump on his shin.

^ Seriously, the only memorable memory I have of Dante Bichette with the Reds.

The funny thing about this is I bet Rolen puts up very similar offensive numbers to what Bichette put up here in 2000. With Rolen's defense, I would be okay with that.

Reds Fanatic
08-01-2009, 04:24 PM
Rolen is batting 5th in the order tonight.

Always Red
08-01-2009, 04:28 PM
Rolen is batting 5th in the order tonight.

That's only because Phillips gets on base far too often to qualify for leadoff or #2 in Dusty's batting order. So, Phillips has to bat 4th. ;)

Johnny Footstool
08-01-2009, 04:38 PM
Anyone who thinks it was close to fair or even in the Reds favor needs to ask themselves why we couldn't move any of our bloated contracts for salary relief and prospects.

Possibly because there were no takers.

Or more likely because Jocketty wants to keep Harang, Arroyo, et al. around for 2010.

Marc D
08-01-2009, 04:47 PM
Possibly because there were no takers.

Exactly. Not many see the point in taking on salary and sending out prospects.


Or more likely because Jocketty wants to keep Harang, Arroyo, et al. around for 2010.

To many reports of them all being shopped for me to believe that for a second.

Will M
08-01-2009, 05:01 PM
Anyone who thinks it was close to fair or even in the Reds favor needs to ask themselves why we couldn't move any of our bloated contracts for salary relief and prospects.

disagree. it was Rolen for EE and Roenicke but the Reds didn't want to pay Rolen's entire salary. therefore we sold Stewart for $4M.

EE is a 1B/DH type who doesn't hit well enought to play these positions every day. on top of that he has a $5M deal for 2010. imo he had negative trade value.

Roenicke is a 27 year old rookie reliever. nice stuff but he is 27 years old.

IMO Rolen for EE plus Roenicke is a fair trade for the Reds. we fill a need (3B) by giving up really only Roenicke.

is Stewart worth $4M? probably. kinda depends on what Bob does with the $4M. if he pockets it then i would rather have Stewart. if he uses it as part of a bid for Webb/Harden/etc then I'll be happy.

HokieRed
08-01-2009, 05:50 PM
We get a hall of fame third baseman and they get a reliever with about 10 innings or so of major league experience--and they get a guy who has no position. Does that sound like a deal you'd do from the Toronto side?

Matt700wlw
08-01-2009, 06:00 PM
Isn't $11 million around the figure that Harang, Arroyo, or both are scheduled to make next year?

traderumor
08-01-2009, 06:03 PM
Anyone who thinks it was close to fair or even in the Reds favor needs to ask themselves why we couldn't move any of our bloated contracts for salary relief and prospects.Because our "bloated contracts" are not performing well currently, have not been above average performers at their positions recently, nor is anyone expecting them to be going forward. Plus, WJ may be playing along with the going wisdom that those players will be movable in August, so he didn't feel the urgency and/or did not receive offers for what he calculated as a reasonable return. If we have a mind to move Harang and/or Arroyo, they should have some leverage dealing with a team legitimately in the pennant race who is looking for short-term rotation help. The Yankees might be getting more and more desparate and we already know they kicked the tires on Arroyo. And now, he and Arod could compare PEDs stories.

HokieRed
08-01-2009, 06:13 PM
I don't think WJ has been playing along with any going wisdom, Traderumor. I think your first point is more likely. A 4 and 5 starter paid like top of the line 1 and 2 is unlikely to receive a lot of interest, in this or any market.

Hoosier Red
08-01-2009, 06:20 PM
Anyone who thinks it was close to fair or even in the Reds favor needs to ask themselves why we couldn't move any of our bloated contracts for salary relief and prospects.

Probably because they're not batting .320.

Marc D
08-01-2009, 06:53 PM
disagree. it was Rolen for EE and Roenicke but the Reds didn't want to pay Rolen's entire salary. therefore we sold Stewart for $4M.

EE is a 1B/DH type who doesn't hit well enought to play these positions every day. on top of that he has a $5M deal for 2010. imo he had negative trade value.

Roenicke is a 27 year old rookie reliever. nice stuff but he is 27 years old.

IMO Rolen for EE plus Roenicke is a fair trade for the Reds. we fill a need (3B) by giving up really only Roenicke.

is Stewart worth $4M? probably. kinda depends on what Bob does with the $4M. if he pockets it then i would rather have Stewart. if he uses it as part of a bid for Webb/Harden/etc then I'll be happy.

You can try and dice it up anyway you want to but over the life of Rolens current contract we just took on 6M of additional exposure to his 35 year old bad back and gave up prospects for the privilege of doing so.

Anyway, this is starting to get into dead horse territory so I'm going to let it go. I hope Rolen wins a triple crown but poor decisions have a high probability of yielding poor results. I won't hold my breath.

I think we over paid based on the current value of prospects in this market and I think people are seeing one good year blip on the downside of Rolens career and banking on it to continue just like they were banking on Tavaras to repeat his career year.

If this is the first step of many and Walt completely changes the franchise come spring training then I'll reconsider but right now this looks like just another dumb move in a long history of them for this franchise imo.

jojo
08-01-2009, 09:07 PM
You can try and dice it up anyway you want to but over the life of Rolens current contract we just took on 6M of additional exposure to his 35 year old bad back and gave up prospects for the privilege of doing so.

Anyway, this is starting to get into dead horse territory so I'm going to let it go. I hope Rolen wins a triple crown but poor decisions have a high probability of yielding poor results. I won't hold my breath.

I think we over paid based on the current value of prospects in this market and I think people are seeing one good year blip on the downside of Rolens career and banking on it to continue just like they were banking on Tavaras to repeat his career year.

If this is the first step of many and Walt completely changes the franchise come spring training then I'll reconsider but right now this looks like just another dumb move in a long history of them for this franchise imo.

There is a greater likelihood of Rolen being a 2 win upgrade over EE next season than there is of Rolen completely collapsing as some are fearing in this thread.

OnBaseMachine
08-02-2009, 02:23 AM
Rolen enjoying a homecoming of sorts
Reds' new third baseman happy to be back in Midwest
By Mark Sheldon / MLB.com

08/01/09 7:30 PM ET

CINCINNATI -- Right now, there might not be a happier person in the city of Cincinnati than Scott Rolen.

Rolen, the Reds' new third baseman and a native of Jasper, Ind., couldn't have been more pleased about the Friday trade that brought him over from the Blue Jays.

"I'm thrilled to be here, no question," Rolen said on Saturday, with general manager Walt Jocketty sitting to his right in the Reds' dugout. "This is as close to home as I can be. My parents brought me here to watch ballgames. Where I'm from, there's a St. Louis-Cincinnati split right down the middle. I've hit them both. I'm a Midwestern guy and like being here. I enjoyed my time in St. Louis with Walt and this part of the country. This is the spot I wanted to get back to and be for a while."

Jasper, by Rolen's estimate, is only 2 1/2-three hours away from Cincinnati.

"Depends on who's driving," said Rolen, who batted .320 with eight home runs and 43 RBIs this season with Toronto. "We might see a spike in beer sales on some of these weekends from a Southern Indiana group of folks when my buddies come over."

Rolen was acquired along with cash from Toronto for third baseman Edwin Encarnacion and pitchers Josh Roenicke and Zach Stewart. In Rolen, the Reds received a five-time All-Star and a seven-time Gold Glove winner. He's also won a World Series ring -- with the Cardinals in 2006.

The rest of the Reds wasted no time accommodating their new teammate. Rolen was issued his old number from his Cardinals days, No. 27, which had belonged to rookie Drew Sutton, who switched to No. 15.

Rolen was given one of the coveted double lockers -- often reserved for respected veterans -- at the end of the Reds' clubhouse. His new locker, however, had previously been occupied by 22-year-old slugger Jay Bruce. At the request of clubhouse manager Rick Stowe, Bruce was asked if Rolen could have the locker, and Bruce wasted no time acquiescing and moving to Encarnacion's old locker.

"We got the big guy here so I moved over," Bruce said. "The guy is an All-Star and Gold Glove winner. He deserves that locker."

Upon his arrival from Oakland, where the Blue Jays were when the trade went down, Rolen had a long conversation with Reds manager Dusty Baker.

"He'll help make us better," Baker said. "He is one of the foundation guys that you need to build a new house with. I'll tell you one thing. He's a big ol' man, especially to be as agile as he is playing third base. He makes plays. He almost never throws balls away. When he gets his hands on it, it's on the money."

Sure enough, on Saturday vs. Rockies, Rolen made a nice stop on the first ball hit his way. In the first inning, he nabbed a sharp line drive from Clint Barmes on one hop and threw Barmes out at first.

Before the trade was made, the Reds did an extensive medical background check on Rolen, who has a lengthy injury history. From 2005-08, he played more than 115 games in a season only once, because of a left shoulder injury. Reds medical director Dr. Tim Kremchek repaired a torn labrum when Rolen was with St. Louis.

"Perfect, no trouble at all," Rolen said of his shoulder this season.

Rolen broke into the Majors in 1996 with the Phillies and stayed in Philadelphia until 2002. He was with the Cardinals from 2002-07 before his trade to the Blue Jays.

Rolen had a no-trade clause that had to be waived before his trade could be completed before Friday's 4 p.m. ET deadline. That proved to be a no-brainer since it was Rolen who requested Toronto GM J.P. Ricciardi to deal him.

And to deal him to Cincinnati, if possible.

"I kind of took a leap of faith going to a new league, going to a new country, going to a new team," Rolen said of the Blue Jays. "I have a 4-year-old and a 2-year-old and my wife. My parents travel around quite a bit. My brother lives in this area. I always wanted to try and finish up at home or get back to this area and this part of the country. I did approach [Ricciardi] and ask if he'd consider moving me back to this area and the Midwest. This was certainly my No. 1 choice."

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090801&content_id=6189652&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

redsfandan
08-02-2009, 02:40 AM
I thought this part was interesting:

Rolen was given one of the coveted double lockers -- often reserved for respected veterans -- at the end of the Reds' clubhouse. His new locker, however, had previously been occupied by 22-year-old slugger Jay Bruce. At the request of clubhouse manager Rick Stowe, Bruce was asked if Rolen could have the locker, and Bruce wasted no time acquiescing and moving to Encarnacion's old locker.

"We got the big guy here so I moved over," Bruce said. "The guy is an All-Star and Gold Glove winner. He deserves that locker."
That says something about Bruce and how (hopefully) Rolen is looked at by the other players. Hopefully he can stay healthy for 120+ games.

CrackerJack
08-02-2009, 04:09 AM
Yawn. Comfortable commute to earn his last bit of retirement $ here for a perennial loser. Yay, how exciting.

UKFlounder
08-02-2009, 08:31 AM
140+

If he only plays 120 next year for $11 million, this deal stinks. Who plays the other 40 - Rosales? Yikes.


I thought this part was interesting:

That says something about Bruce and how (hopefully) Rolen is looked at by the other players. Hopefully he can stay healthy for 120+ games.

GAC
08-02-2009, 08:40 AM
Isn't $11 million around the figure that Harang, Arroyo, or both are scheduled to make next year?

In 2010....

Arroyo.... 11M (a club option for 2011 @ 11M or a 2M buyout)
Harang.... 12.5M (a club option for 2011 @ 12.75M or a 2M buyout)

That's why they are still here, and we be stuck. ;)

Jpup
08-02-2009, 09:50 AM
After all is said and done, I think I would rather have Edwin Encarnacion. I'm probably the only one, but I don't think Rolen improves the team considering the price difference and the talent given up in the trade.

WVRed
08-02-2009, 10:04 AM
After all is said and done, I think I would rather have Edwin Encarnacion. I'm probably the only one, but I don't think Rolen improves the team considering the price difference and the talent given up in the trade.

Leadership.

Rolen provides it, and the Reds desperately need it.

I hate to say it, but I really don't think we ever had a "true leader" since Greg Vaughn was here in 1999. That also includes Larkin and Griffey, who were more hometown fixtures than anything.

Jpup
08-02-2009, 10:06 AM
Leadership.

Rolen provides it, and the Reds desperately need it.

I hate to say it, but I really don't think we ever had a "true leader" since Greg Vaughn was here in 1999. That also includes Larkin and Griffey, who were more hometown fixtures than anything.

The problem with the Reds has very little to do with leadership. The Reds need to spend their money wisely. That is their problem.

George Anderson
08-02-2009, 10:30 AM
Maybe this idea is kinda out there but from what I understand Rolen and Jocketty are pretty good friends from their Cardinal days. Is it possible one of Jocketty's goals with Rolen is to get insight from him after the season as to what needs to be done to improve the team ?

KoryMac5
08-02-2009, 10:38 AM
Maybe this idea is kinda out there but from what I understand Rolen and Jocketty are pretty good friends from their Cardinal days. Is it possible one of Jocketty's goals with Rolen is to get insight from him after the season as to what needs to be done to improve the team ?

If Walt needs Rolen's help on who to keep and who to discard on this roster, than the Reds are in bigger trouble than I thought.

westofyou
08-02-2009, 11:03 AM
I love the assumption that Greg Vaughn was leader because he yelled at people, he also brought facial hair to the team and a coffee maker. Using the same logic that makes him a leader to some I've come to the conclusion that he was also Rollie Fingers and Juan Valdez.

nate
08-02-2009, 11:10 AM
I love the assumption that Greg Vaughn was leader because he yelled at people, he also brought facial hair to the team and a coffee maker. Using the same logic that makes him a leader to some I've come to the conclusion that he was also Rollie Fingers and Juan Valdez.

Yeah, but he didn't bring a comfy chair or Cardinal Fang.

Unassisted
08-02-2009, 11:14 AM
I always wanted to try and finish up at home or get back to this area and this part of the country. I did approach [Ricciardi] and ask if he'd consider moving me back to this area and the Midwest. This was certainly my No. 1 choice."The Reds landed a veteran who wanted to be in Cincinnati. That's a rare thing and IMO, something to be celebrated.

KoryMac5
08-02-2009, 11:22 AM
If Rolen wanted to be a Red you would think Walt would have had some kind of leverage on this deal that would have resulted in us not including Stewart.

Unassisted
08-02-2009, 11:24 AM
If Rolen wanted to be a Red you would think Walt would have had some kind of leverage on this deal that would have resulted in us not including Stewart.Or it could have worked the other way. Walt recognized that as a local guy, Rolen would be more marketable and thus he was willing to give up more to get him.

kaldaniels
08-02-2009, 11:28 AM
If Rolen wanted to be a Red you would think Walt would have had some kind of leverage on this deal that would have resulted in us not including Stewart.

How so. Its not like the Jays had to worry about him leaving after this year. Sure he would have liked to go to the Reds, and he apparently requested a trade...but as a GM that really doesn't give you leverage per se...it does give you a reason to shop the guy around...but if you don't like the offer its not the end of the world if Toronto gets stuck with Rolen.

bucksfan2
08-02-2009, 11:32 AM
I have read this whole thread and still like the trade. I have always liked Rolen and thought he should have been a Red 5 years or so ago.

I have also thought that the hoarding of prospects as well as the over-valuing or prospects has become a little too rampant in MLB. Prospects need be thought of as assets, nothing more, nothing less.

We as Reds fans have seen the best pitching prospect in baseball (Bailey) struggle during his time in the bigs, and the #1 prospect in baseball (Bruce) struggle daily.

Rolen makes this Reds team better right now, even though it really doesn't matter, but it also makes the team better next season. It fills a major need for the Reds, although it is a little expensive, and WJ needs to go out and make this team even better for the 2010 season.

VR
08-02-2009, 11:35 AM
I love the assumption that Greg Vaughn was leader because he yelled at people, he also brought facial hair to the team and a coffee maker. Using the same logic that makes him a leader to some I've come to the conclusion that he was also Rollie Fingers and Juan Valdez.

I believe the translation of Greg Vaughn to Spanish is "Rollisimo Valdez"

mth123
08-02-2009, 11:35 AM
If Rolen wanted to be a Red you would think Walt would have had some kind of leverage on this deal that would have resulted in us not including Stewart.

Exactly. Its why the "gave in" remark was telling. The other evidence points to it being more than GM speak.

Always Red
08-02-2009, 11:39 AM
The most puzzling aspect of the trade to me is that this team should be selling, not buying.

They added payroll (albeit next year) and reduced the overall assets of the team in order to get better now. That is the last thing one would expect a last place team (yes, we have sunk to the level of the Pirates) to do at the trade deadline.

I guess that means that the FO and management feel this club is still a contender, both for this year and next. Could be.

Fay did note that it is clear that Castellini will never "burn it down" and attempt to rebuild, ala the Marlins in years past and the Pirates currently. I agree with Fay's thinking here.

If he's not going to attempt a rebuild, then Castellini's only other option is to add payroll.

...or continue to tread water.

Tony Cloninger
08-02-2009, 11:41 AM
This trade reminds me of a soon to be often back injured Glenn Davis going from HOU to BAL for Steve Finley, Pete Harnisch and Curt Schilling...back in 1990.

Now EE is no Finley but the other 2....you just don't know how good they are going to be....just like you did not know about Harnisch and Schilling.

mth123
08-02-2009, 11:42 AM
I have read this whole thread and still like the trade. I have always liked Rolen and thought he should have been a Red 5 years or so ago.

I have also thought that the hoarding of prospects as well as the over-valuing or prospects has become a little too rampant in MLB. Prospects need be thought of as assets, nothing more, nothing less.

We as Reds fans have seen the best pitching prospect in baseball (Bailey) struggle during his time in the bigs, and the #1 prospect in baseball (Bruce) struggle daily.

Rolen makes this Reds team better right now, even though it really doesn't matter, but it also makes the team better next season. It fills a major need for the Reds, although it is a little expensive, and WJ needs to go out and make this team even better for the 2010 season.

I'm as skeptical about prospects as anyone, but they are valued around the game and the team should act accordingly. There is simply no reason to give up the team's top pitching prospect in order to take on an 8 figure salary of a guy who is a huge injury risk. If you wanna trade prospects, I'm in. The team should have been shooting for a bigger fish.

To me this smells like a guy wanting to accomodate a player out of "man love" and overpaid to ensure it happened.

kaldaniels
08-02-2009, 11:44 AM
This trade reminds me of a soon to be often back injured Glenn Davis going from HOU to BAL for Steve Finley, Pete Harnisch and Curt Schilling...back in 1990.

Now EE is no Finley but the other 2....you just don't know how good they are going to be....just like you did not know about Harnisch and Schilling.

I imagine going back to 1990 you could find a ~34 year old traded for some prospects who turned out to be worthless as well...are there any specifics at all when you mention how these 2 trades are alike other than they were both 3 for 1 trades that included some prospects.

VR
08-02-2009, 11:55 AM
This trade reminds me of a soon to be often back injured Glenn Davis going from HOU to BAL for Steve Finley, Pete Harnisch and Curt Schilling...back in 1990.

Now EE is no Finley but the other 2....you just don't know how good they are going to be....just like you did not know about Harnisch and Schilling.

Good reference Tony, but those 3 had all been with the Orioles for the better part of 3 years.....with 100's if not 1000's of professional innings under their belt in the bigs.

The Reds dealt 1 guy with 100 professional innings (most in A & AA), and another with 160 innings together at all levels....and at 26, could crack the Reds pitching staff.

Glenn Davis was no Scott Rolen....and these 'prospects' for the Orioles had already proven themselves at the ML level.