PDA

View Full Version : How did Walt do?



GOYA
07-31-2009, 06:30 PM
Rate all the deals as a total package.

Balantien deal, Hairston deal, Rolen deal equals...

schroomytunes
07-31-2009, 06:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rate all the deals as a total package.

Balantien deal, Hairston deal, Rolen deal equals...


Alright I will make a comment on this purely cause I still believe in the Reds, and something had to be done, so here goes:

Balentien deal--We need offense, especially in the OF, we have tons of middle relief talent in the minors, and FA has shown you can acquire guys for little or nothing who can nail down the middle innings effectively. So Manual IMO was/is at his peak, with Wlad, we get a 25 yr old corner OF who has power, but needs to put the package together, and maybe a new league, team will do that so I give this trade a B.

Hairston deal-he's what he is, average! He simply dosn't play any position well enough to deserve a full time job, and his bat is best used off the bench, this team cannot afford a guy like that starting every night so his moving on is a blessing. Also Walt flipped him for a 20yr old LH catcher who was drafted 6th round 2 years ago, and is now in A ball. We need catching in the system and also we saved some cash to boot, which I bet is used to sign the draft picks. So I give Walt an A.

Rolen deal-Rolen is a solid MLB player who plays a premium position. He excels at defense is solid at the plate and is a middle of the order hitter. Yeah he's 34, had some injuries, but Remember Toronto plays on turf!!! Rolen will provide leadership and gives us a solid infield and will allow us to focus on LF/C/SP in the offseason. Now the guy I hated giving up was Roenicke, he's young, great fastball, solid reliever, but he's still a ?. Stewart is a prospect but he's got back of the rotation talent at best, MR at worst. EE, I've seen enough...his defense is terrible, his bat is average at BEST, and he simply was going to make 5million next year!!! With this deal I give Walt a C+.

RedsManRick
07-31-2009, 06:52 PM
We lost assets while failing to address any of our primary needs. I give him a D because at least he tried....

M2
07-31-2009, 06:57 PM
I'd give the Rolen a B, but the other two lack oomph and more needs to be done, so C overall from me.

BTW, GOYA welcome to the party.

OnBaseMachine
07-31-2009, 06:58 PM
He gets a F from me.

hippie07
07-31-2009, 07:05 PM
I like the Rolen deal ... it's a wing and a prayer that he stays healthy ... but it breathes immediate life into a dead team....

I was so sorry to have paid $160 to watch the reds (MLB ticket), but now i might get a little enjoyment from this season if the team can scrape together even a few wins.

Plus.. a healthy Rolen is a great addition for the team's hot corner - plus defense and plus offense. If he gets hurt... what the heck... we'll plug in Frazier .. I'll still think the trade was worth the shot.

the others trade are fluff .... I'll be mad if Wlad makes WJ comfortable w/ the outfield situation even if Wlad stinks it up.

jojo
07-31-2009, 07:06 PM
I'd give him a B...

Rolen is a clear upgrade over EE and one that will help the pitching staff though he can't be expected to play a full season. He got Rolen's remaining salary for '09 and all he had to do was give up EE (whose days were seemingly numbered in Cincy) and two relievers. It was probably a roughly even trade value wise. Roenicke looks cool on paper but his trade value isn't that impressive. The Reds are better for the trade assuming Rolen can play.

He got Wlad's potential for a bag of balls. It's minor trade but there is a chance Wlad can be a regular outfielder.

The Hairston deal? Well, meh.

SirFelixCat
07-31-2009, 07:12 PM
Impossible to grade. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING hinges on what moves are or aren't made in the off-season. If there are corresponding moves that improves the 2010 team, then he did well. We'll see.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2009, 07:22 PM
C.

Hard to argue with Rolen deal. Addresses a need and understands the current limitations of the minor league development system.

Balentien and Hairston deals are essentially zilcho deals.

C because I think there were other deals to be made.

GOYA
07-31-2009, 07:25 PM
I'd give the Rolen a B, but the other two lack oomph and more needs to be done, so C overall from me.

BTW, GOYA welcome to the party.

Thanks.

I guess I should say what I voted. I gave Walt a D.

Manuel is a serviceable MLB pitcher and we got a guy only with potential and no current production. Hairston is an average guy and not a big deal. But Chase Weems looks like the bag the balls came in. I don't care where he was drafted, I don't see him getting anything done. I like Rolen a lot. EE and Roenicke I have no problem with. Zach Stewart I have a big problem with. Our SP is failing fast and we need all the chances we can get to have a solid rotation guy move up. Now it looks like Wood or nothing for a while. (Maybe Leake, but probably not soon).

So the only really good thing Walt did was marred by acheiving it by trading something we need. That's a D.

Stormy
07-31-2009, 07:29 PM
C.

Hard to argue with Rolen deal. Addresses a need and understands the current limitations of the minor league development system.

Balentien and Hairston deals are essentially zilcho deals.

C because I think there were other deals to be made.

I agree with your take, but graded it more harshly (D). The reason being, I also believe there were other major deals to be made. If you're going to cave on Toronto's demands for a guy with Rolen's limited vale to this team, why not do it back when the Reds were still within striking distance of the NL Central leaders? To wait this long, and still pay the premium price smacks of desperation. There seems to be precious little bigger picture plan here, and there desperately needs to be, because otherwise acquiring Rolen is a single drop of water in an ocean of necessary moves (and a very costly drop at that).

Highlifeman21
07-31-2009, 07:44 PM
I gave it an A.

He got rid of JHJ, which automatically makes us better.

He gave up nothing to take a flyer on Wlad.

And he gave up a question mark pitching prospect, an easily replaced (although I wish we had seen more of him) reliever, and a 3B who was run out of town for a GG 3B with a stick that ain't too shabby.

So, in a vacuum, I give those 3 moves an A.

mth123
07-31-2009, 07:51 PM
F -

I want him fired immediately. When Zach Stewart and Josh Roenicke are succeeding at the major league level while we watch our pitchers come up short, Adam Rosales at 3B and Scott Rolen on the DL we'll wonder why he did this.

This is worse than signing Willy.

Red in Chicago
07-31-2009, 08:07 PM
Any deal that gets JHJ off the team, is a plus for me;)

I gave it a C.

I'm fine with Rolen deal, but 3rd base wasn't our main concern. At least he did something.

M2
07-31-2009, 08:16 PM
The Reds are better for the trade assuming Rolen can play.

That's my take too. Amidst all the what ifs and maybes, the Reds are, at this moment, a better team. He's no panacea, but he actually will add the things Jocketty talked about - pro hitter, quality defender, veteran know-how.

This isn't a line of B.S. like Gary Majewski will fix the bullpen and Royce Clayton will upgrade the defense.

IowaRed
07-31-2009, 08:34 PM
Actually it's quite simple to argue with the Rolen deal. Yeah the Reds are likely a slightly better team with Rolen, if/when he's healthy in the very short term. So they might maintain their lead over the Pirates and stay out of last place but I wouldn't bet on it. It probably raises their payroll while unloading young players for a 34 year old with recent back and shoulder problems. Easy F for me based on that, the Reds should be making the exact opposite types of trades. Getting rid of bigger salaries for younger players, make that an F-

kpresidente
07-31-2009, 08:51 PM
F -

I want him fired immediately. When Zach Stewart and Josh Roenicke are succeeding at the major league level while we watch our pitchers come up short, Adam Rosales at 3B and Scott Rolen on the DL we'll wonder why he did this.

This is worse than signing Willy.

This. Jocketty's a joke. I could do better in my sleep.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2009, 08:53 PM
I could do better in my sleep.

:)

wally post
07-31-2009, 10:18 PM
This is very rough. What depresses me is that I can see dusty saying in a meeting "we need more leadership" and this being the response. I ahve never posted neg against Dusty, but it appears to me that this is the perfect storm. Walt gets "his guy" and Dusty gets to pass the blame and BC nods. IF we enter the playoffs in 2010 then this was good. If we don't then the entire bunch should be fired.

In all honesty, I would've preferred a blood-letting of coaches than this.

VR
07-31-2009, 10:47 PM
C+

Did not make deals to "cut payroll", perhaps that is in indication of the health of the organization.

Harang/ Arroyo/ Cordero can all be moved fairly easily in August.....
that could move it to a B or higher if 1 or 2 of those get moved for some value.

Weather/ Rhodes could be moved as well....but should be only if value can be returned.

wolfboy
07-31-2009, 11:29 PM
This is very rough. What depresses me is that I can see dusty saying in a meeting "we need more leadership" and this being the response. I ahve never posted neg against Dusty, but it appears to me that this is the perfect storm. Walt gets "his guy" and Dusty gets to pass the blame and BC nods. IF we enter the playoffs in 2010 then this was good. If we don't then the entire bunch should be fired.

In all honesty, I would've preferred a blood-letting of coaches than this.

You've summarized my view on these moves much better than I could have. All I can say is that it had better work out in '10.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-31-2009, 11:38 PM
Walt pooped down his pants on this one.

Good intentions, stupid execution.

Az Red
08-01-2009, 12:50 AM
These trades scream of treading water. They didn't sell off the high priced players to reload and they didn't sell off the farm to make a run this year. I'm personnaly glad they didn't sell off the farm 'cause there is no run in this year's Reds. It kind of strikes me as a ploy to sell a few more tickets in Rolen. Yes, he is in the clubhouse to lead the team. As long as he stays off the DL that should work out fine. But, the rest of the team, front office included, is still treading water.

Who falls next if the Pirates swim past the Reds?

corkedbat
08-01-2009, 01:16 AM
I think we should've given up a package for Rolen similar to what we received in the Harang and Arroyo deals today...er...uh...nevermind.

nate
08-01-2009, 09:27 AM
As with most trades, this one is "incomplete" until we see what Rolen does. Indirectly, it's incomplete until we see if the players we traded become pieces we could've used.

mth123
08-01-2009, 09:40 AM
I don't think we need to wait Nate. If Rolen is healthy and plays like a stud it will be nice, but his dollars still put this team in a situation where the only road to success is Bruce and Bailey fulfilling their potential. If that happens, it won't be this trade that made the team a contender.

As for the players given up, we don't need to see how they perform to see if the Reds could have used them. They could be used right now in trade for something else that isn't an established injury risk, addresses a bigger need and doesn't cost 8 figures.

nate
08-01-2009, 09:55 AM
I don't think we need to wait Nate. If Rolen is healthy and plays like a stud it will be nice, but his dollars still put this team in a situation where the only road to success is Bruce and Bailey fulfilling their potential. If that happens, it won't be this trade that made the team a contender.

Well, the "ifs" are why I'm waiting. I said in another post that I think this means any other roster moves will come via trade rather than FA.


As for the players given up, we don't need to see how they perform to see if the Reds could have used them. They could be used right now in trade for something else that isn't an established injury risk, addresses a bigger need and doesn't cost 8 figures.

Maybe. Although any one of them could have a mysterious garden accident/spontaneously human combustion or somesuch.

:cool:

Marty and Joe
08-01-2009, 10:16 AM
Voted C.

I like the Balentien deal the best. Low risk, potential upside reward.

Hairston - that appears to be a salary dump.

Rolen - don't like it on the surface given what we gave up in the young arms, but, if he stays healthy and other things are coming, this could work out just fine - but, I don't like that # of 'if's' when taking on salary. I think a lot more weight was placed on intangibles with this one than we may know.

oneupper
08-01-2009, 10:47 AM
This one is bad. Its bad because of $$$$.

And the money aspect is bad because of Zach Stewart.

Aside from Stewart, the Reds will pay $6 mm more for a better third baseman in 2010. It's a lot...but you pay to get better. OK.

The tough part comes on putting a $ amount on the prospects. That's the hard part.

So I think of the farm system as a venture capital fund, where you make a lot of bets early on, and you only expect a few to pay out big. You make big bets (high picks) and small bets (lower picks).

Where's the payoff? The payoff is in the control years, mainly pre-arb, and only if you can get above replacement performance in those years. When you bring up a player, its like taking one of those venture capital projects public.

So what are Zach Stewart's pre-arb years worth? The best way is with a scenario/probablity matrix. Assign a probability to each level of expected perfomance and look up the market value of that performance. Weighted average...and you have it.

I'm not going to do that, because I do have a life. But let's just say as a central scenario, Zach is an average reliever in 2010-2012. (I think its very conservative...he's shown to be better). What does that cost in the open market? $2 mm, $3 mm?. (How much does weathers make). You'll pay Stewart $400-$500k for those years, so he's worth roughly $1.5 mm per year or a total of $4.5 mm.
If he's a starter...its more. If he hurts his arm and never pitches again..its less.

I'm not the minor league expert here, but everything looks like the kid had an excellent chance to be an average to above average player in those pre-arb years.

Walt just threw away a ton of money, IMO.

RedLegSuperStar
08-01-2009, 10:51 AM
We lost assets while failing to address any of our primary needs. I give him a D because at least he tried....

I agree. Balentien was my favorite move and Rolen was my least. If we are going after Rolen you had better address SS and LF in August or during the Winter.

princeton
08-01-2009, 11:03 AM
seems like a bizarre use of resources to me, and more Reds fence-straddling. I still say that we're on target for the year 2015, but only if Castellini goes before then.

Rolen's too old to be the Reds' Terry Pendleton. but with all of the nice words being said about him, maybe he can become player-manager in 2010? ;)

traderumor
08-01-2009, 11:06 AM
Hard to argue with Rolen deal. 800 + posts and counting say otherwise ;)

traderumor
08-01-2009, 11:07 AM
I don't think we need to wait Nate. If Rolen is healthy and plays like a stud it will be nice, but his dollars still put this team in a situation where the only road to success is Bruce and Bailey fulfilling their potential. If that happens, it won't be this trade that made the team a contender.

As for the players given up, we don't need to see how they perform to see if the Reds could have used them. They could be used right now in trade for something else that isn't an established injury risk, addresses a bigger need and doesn't cost 8 figures.Rolen only costs 7 figures. The net between he and EE's salary is $6M. That is worth the production that would be expected.

lollipopcurve
08-01-2009, 11:13 AM
B for me.

Balentien has upside and can probably fit well into a platoon. In 2010 or 2011.

Rolen was a necessary move, and not an easy one to pull off, given the money involved and the thorny question of what to do about EdE's 4-5 million contract for 2010. I like both Roenicke (who looked good this year, in my opinion) and Stewart (though I think he's a BP guy long term), so this deal is not an A for me. But the team clearly needs some leadership and ballast for the guys who score runs, and I think Rolen is a great choice for that. The defensive upgrade is real nice, too. (Now go get Tejada or Scutaro in the offseason.)

Moving Hairston to save a little cash is a small positive, but a positive nonetheless.

The trade market is not easy, but the team was relatively active at a time they needed to be. I hope August will bring more.

Spring~Fields
08-01-2009, 11:32 AM
F -

I want him fired immediately. When Zach Stewart and Josh Roenicke are succeeding at the major league level while we watch our pitchers come up short, Adam Rosales at 3B and Scott Rolen on the DL we'll wonder why he did this.

This is worse than signing Willy.

:thumbup: :(

redsfandan
08-01-2009, 11:38 PM
Hairston - that appears to be a salary dump.


Moving Hairston to save a little cash is a small positive, but a positive nonetheless.
I don't think it can be called a salary dump when Hairston had less than $1m left on his contract. Yeah, the Reds saved a little cash, VERY little in baseball terms. The yankees got a decent, cheap bench player and we got..... :dunno:

Ron Madden
08-02-2009, 02:34 AM
F -

I want him fired immediately. When Zach Stewart and Josh Roenicke are succeeding at the major league level while we watch our pitchers come up short, Adam Rosales at 3B and Scott Rolen on the DL we'll wonder why he did this.

This is worse than signing Willy.

Nothin' could be worse than signing Willy. ;)

Walt gets a D from me.

bucksfan2
08-02-2009, 11:43 AM
This. Jocketty's a joke. I could do better in my sleep.

I fell asleep last night and traded Willy Taveras for Albert Pujols. Can you beat that trade?

I gave it a B. I liked the Rolen deal. He makes the Reds better in 2010, which I think was the plan all along, for an extra $6M. He traded JHJ and didn't have to pay anything, that is a plus. Wlad was had for next to nothing. If he pans out, great, if not oh well.

It was pretty well documented that Harang, Arroyo, and Cordero would probably be moved in the waiver wire process. Their contracts will pass thorugh waivers and that extended their trading period. BTW I think Harang right now is untradeable. Guy hasn't won a game in forever.

mth123
08-02-2009, 11:58 AM
I fell asleep last night and traded Willy Taveras for Albert Pujols. Can you beat that trade?

I gave it a B. I liked the Rolen deal. He makes the Reds better in 2010, which I think was the plan all along, for an extra $6M. He traded JHJ and didn't have to pay anything, that is a plus. Wlad was had for next to nothing. If he pans out, great, if not oh well.

It was pretty well documented that Harang, Arroyo, and Cordero would probably be moved in the waiver wire process. Their contracts will pass thorugh waivers and that extended their trading period. BTW I think Harang right now is untradeable. Guy hasn't won a game in forever.

So who will pass through the waiver process that will be coming back to cincy in those deals?

I think the Reds are going to have to ride the Harang and Arroyo horse until the end. I don't see anyone who has any potential to be any better signing in Cincy for any less money. Its just that a new signee would likely take another 3 to 5 year deal instead of the current Harang and Arroyo deals which come to an end sooner. The Reds could probably peddle them for next to nothing, but the only replacements would be guys from within (one of whom was just dealt in the Rolen trade) or scrap heap vets of the Fogg variety. Anyone else would require an overpayment similar to the Harang and Arroyo deals everyone loathes now IMO. Maybe they could hit the lotto with an incentive laden deal for a guy coming off of injury. Beyond that, Stewart was the best hope for improvement IMO.

Harang and Arroyo combine to throw 450 or so innings. Even 450 poor innings won't be as easy to replace as many are expecting. Homer Bailey needs to step forward and fulfill his 2006 projections by the end of the year for this team to have any chance in 2010 IMO.

indy_dave00
08-02-2009, 12:15 PM
My problem with Balentien deal is why acquire him if you are going to start a utility infielder in lf instead of him?? Balentine needs to play, the Reds are going nowhere put him in the outfield and see what he can do.

nate
08-02-2009, 12:44 PM
I fell asleep last night and traded Willy Taveras for Albert Pujols. Can you beat that trade?

Willy for Albert and cash.

M2
08-02-2009, 12:56 PM
Balentine needs to play

http://www.beershowcase.com/saleitems/flats/bally19510708.jpg

(P.S. I know it was a type, but I couldn't resist)

Marc D
08-02-2009, 12:56 PM
I gave it a B. I liked the Rolen deal. He makes the Reds better in 2010, which I think was the plan all along, for an extra $6M.

Don't forget the prospects, we gave up 2 prospects and 6M. Forget the straw man arguments about prospects not panning out, the business reality is that this trade decreased current assets(prospects) and increased future liabilities(cash).


He traded JHJ and didn't have to pay anything, that is a plus.


He didn't have to eat salary to get rid of a bad FA signing that he made. That's what passes for success now? If so then lets make sure we give equal weight to the unmitigated, and completely avoidable, disaster that is WT.


Wlad was had for next to nothing.If he pans out, great, if not oh well.

I agree its a no lose situation but we've seen how far dumpster diving alone can get us in the past. I'm not real excited about yet another GM that can generally only point to that as the positive side of his ledger.

VR
08-02-2009, 01:11 PM
My problem with Balentien deal is why acquire him if you are going to start a utility infielder in lf instead of him?? Balentine needs to play, the Reds are going nowhere put him in the outfield and see what he can do.

I believe they said they wanted to 'ease' him into things after not playing much and then having a week + off after being let go.

Homer Bailey
08-02-2009, 02:57 PM
Walt got had by the worst gm in baseball. F.

bucksfan2
08-02-2009, 04:12 PM
Don't forget the prospects, we gave up 2 prospects and 6M. Forget the straw man arguments about prospects not panning out, the business reality is that this trade decreased current assets(prospects) and increased future liabilities(cash).

He also got back on of the best 3b in the history of baseball. Albiet not a srping chicken anymore, but then again not a 40 year old. Roenike was a nice pitcher, but nothing spectacular. He had control problems and tended to nibble. It doesn't matter how fast you throw the ball, good hitters can turn a 95 mph fastball around in a hurry if not located well. In the end this is all about Stewart and what kind of pitcher he will become. I would be awful warry of putting all my eggs in the basket of Stewart who until this year hadn't been a starting pitcher. I have a feeling that if Walt and Co. thought Stewart was an impact player and soon he wouldn't have pulled the trigger.




He didn't have to eat salary to get rid of a bad FA signing that he made. That's what passes for success now? If so then lets make sure we give equal weight to the unmitigated, and completely avoidable, disaster that is WT.

I didn't mind the JHJ contract at the time. He had a good year last year and having a player who can play all over the field is an important piece on any NL team. I didn't think he would be as bad as he was this season, but Walt was still able to flip him at the deadline.


I agree its a no lose situation but we've seen how far dumpster diving alone can get us in the past. I'm not real excited about yet another GM that can generally only point to that as the positive side of his ledger.

Dumpster diving can turn up gems from time to time. Some of the better players in today's game were acquired from teams who had let them go. Guys like Johan Santana, Brandon Phillips, Shane Victorino, Josh Hamilton, etc. were all acquired after they were released or left off the teams 40 man roster. Whenever you can add talent you do that.

dougdirt
08-02-2009, 04:42 PM
I gave him a D. He overpaid for Rolen who he likely could have gotten in December for EE and Roenicke while keeping the only starting pitching prospect who projects to have the stuff to be better than a #4 starter above Low A, still improved the team for 2010. That move gets an F from me because it also means the Reds 2010 salary obligations at already near $70,000,000 without a starting SS or a bench at all (outside of Balentien), meaning we aren't going to do much of anything in free agency.

I liked the Balentien pick up a lot, a solid B on that one to get a lackluster performer with a very high ceiling for a 6th inning reliever with less than 10 major league innings under his belt.

Hairston was basically a non move. We saved what, $150,000 and got a no hit, no defense catcher in Low A? That does nothing for me at all. No bearing on 2010 and on.

Overall thats a D if I want to be friendly. I was wanting to be friendly today.

edabbs44
08-02-2009, 05:25 PM
Voted C, but reserve the right to change the grade on Aug 31.

SirFelixCat
08-02-2009, 05:33 PM
Hey Bob, maybe we still in it? :lol:

Always Red
08-02-2009, 08:49 PM
http://www.beershowcase.com/saleitems/flats/bally19510708.jpg



you will need this:

http://zenstoves.net/Supplies/Holes/ChurchKeys.jpg

to do this:

http://www.bcca.com/history/images/flats.jpg

:beerme:

Stormy
08-02-2009, 09:44 PM
Hey Bob, maybe we still in it? :lol:

We're the only team I know whose ownership/FO are on public record saying they are still n contention mode, even as the odds makers are putting markers on their outside chances to catch the worst team in the league for a top draft pick.

Maybe if we tank our way into a top 3 pick, Walt can trade Strasburg as a PTBNL for Jim Edmonds.

chicoruiz
08-02-2009, 11:26 PM
I'm fine with getting Rolen, but I have to believe that Riccardi would have settled for less.

Being bested in a trade by J.P. freaking Riccardi is like losing a home run derby to Norris Hopper.

And I'm not sure what the Hairston deal was all about. Was Jerry a clubhouse cancer or something? We could actually use him right now, which is a pretty sad commentary on the current state of affairs.

redsfandan
08-03-2009, 06:37 AM
I gave him a D. He overpaid for Rolen who he likely could have gotten in December for EE and Roenicke while keeping the only starting pitching prospect who projects to have the stuff to be better than a #4 starter above Low A, still improved the team for 2010. That move gets an F from me because it also means the Reds 2010 salary obligations at already near $70,000,000 without a starting SS or a bench at all (outside of Balentien), meaning we aren't going to do much of anything in free agency.

False.

Ltlabner
08-03-2009, 08:49 AM
We're the only team I know whose ownership/FO are on public record saying they are still n contention mode, even as the odds makers are putting markers on their outside chances to catch the worst team in the league for a top draft pick.

Besides giving up too much for a 34 year old declining player with back issues, that's the part about this deal I find most vexing. They really do think they are "still in it" and that Rolen will somehow make a difference this year. Bizarre.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 09:18 AM
Besides giving up too much for a 34 year old declining player with back issues, that's the part about this deal I find most vexing. They really do think they are "still in it" and that Rolen will somehow make a difference this year. Bizarre.

Rolen's OPS over the last 3 years:

2007: .729
2008: .780
2009: .834

I know he isn't the guy that he was in the early 00s, but I wouldn't say that he is "declining" either. And, as we have already seen on a few occasions, he can still pick it at 3rd.

Ltlabner
08-03-2009, 09:21 AM
Rolen's OPS over the last 3 years:

2007: .729
2008: .780
2009: .834

I know he isn't the guy that he was in the early 00s, but I wouldn't say that he is "declining" either. And, as we have already seen on a few occasions, he can still pick it at 3rd.

Walt was fooled by a hot 1/2 season. Maybe Rolen even carries it the rest of the year. But betting on him to continue at that level of production considering his skills are declining is a suckers bet.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 09:37 AM
Walt was fooled by a hot 1/2 season. Maybe Rolen even carries it the rest of the year. But betting on him to continue at that level of production considering his skills are declining is a suckers bet.

I assume that the Reds staff disagrees on the "declining skills" part of the discussion.

princeton
08-03-2009, 10:17 AM
I assume that the Reds staff disagrees on the "declining skills" part of the discussion.

as well as with Rolen's birth certificate.

redsfandan
08-03-2009, 10:18 AM
Walt was fooled by a hot 1/2 season. Maybe Rolen even carries it the rest of the year. But betting on him to continue at that level of production considering his skills are declining is a suckers bet.
edabbs44 showed that his skills aren't declining. But you keep saying they are. How about proving your point? I don't see any reason why he can't be an .800+ OPS player next season. His health is a much bigger concern.

princeton
08-03-2009, 10:24 AM
I don't see any reason why he can't be an .800+ OPS player next season.

age

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 10:26 AM
age

He is 34, not 44.

redsfandan
08-03-2009, 10:28 AM
So a 35 year old 3rd baseman can't have an .800 OPS?

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 10:30 AM
So a 35 year old 3rd baseman can't have an .800 OPS?

Not if Jocketty acquired him.

redsfandan
08-03-2009, 10:31 AM
Ah that's right. Everything Walt touches turns to turd. Sorry guys, I forgot about that.

nate
08-03-2009, 10:35 AM
Not if Jocketty acquired him.


Ah that's right. Everything Walt touches turns to turd. Sorry guys, I forgot about that.

Silly arguments.

I think it's obvious Rolen, like nearly all players, will experience a decline. However, looking at his stats, he's been pretty solid over the last three years. His LD rate is up, he gets on base and he has a nice glove. Yes, he will decline, the question is how much during his Reds tenure.

I like having him on the team. I'm just not sure it was worth the treasure.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 10:40 AM
Silly arguments.

I think it's obvious Rolen, like nearly all players, will experience a decline. However, looking at his stats, he's been pretty solid over the last three years. His LD rate is up, he gets on base and he has a nice glove. Yes, he will decline, the question is how much during his Reds tenure.

I like having him on the team. I'm just not sure it was worth the treasure.

That is obvious, however the argument is that his stats are in decline.

TRF
08-03-2009, 10:43 AM
I posted this in the minor league forum, but it applies here too.

I watched and read all weekend. I avoided the firestorm of comments, tried to distance myself a bit, and form some rational thoughts.

This was without a doubt the dumbest trade deadline deal I have ever seen the Reds make. It trumps "The Trade".

Thing is, it's totally in character for Walt Jocketty. One can look no further than his past trades. he almost never trades for a young player, and almost always targets veterans. Mark Mulder won 22 games as a Cardinal. Dan Haren has won 69 games and counting. Kiko Calero has turned into a solid reliever, stellar in fact this year. Daric Barton may never be more than a bench player, but that's still quite a haul.

Edmonds, Rolen, McGwire, Eckstein, Sanders, Walker, Juan Encarnacion, Kennedy.

Walt Jocketty prefers a veteran team. Plain and simple. You have to an other worldly talent like a Pujols or Rick Ankiel as a pitcher to crack his 25 man roster.

2008 may not have been Dusty's team, but it most certainly wasn't Walt's. I doubt we see anyone other than WT in CF next year, Bruce will be in right, But I think Walt would prefer someone else. I predict Gomes gets a two year deal in the off-season and is the starting LF. Rolen will be extended at least two years, maybe 3. We could see BP shift to SS, but I bet we'll see another vet SS brought in.

Your 2010 Reds... well just look at tonight's lineup and add Bruce in RF. Meanwhile the Reds best prospects will either be traded for more veteran goodness or rot on the vine.

As for the JHJ and Manuel trades. meh. Getting rid of JHJ is fine, but I'd rather have him patrolling CF than WT. Wladimir Balentien has potential, but honestly, that's all I have ever read about him... He has potential. He has to play however. Everyday. Nix needs to be the 4th OF the rest of the season, or just put him in CF.

2009 is done. 2010 needs to be addressed NOW.

If the Reds see Frazier as a 2B, then move BP to SS now. Sutton can handle 2B, at least for the remainder of the season.

And none of these moves addressed the pitching. In fact, it weakened the teams strength without significantly addressing the offense.

He get s a D from me, though I didn't vote. Dusty gets an F because he won't play Balentien, and because he continues to play WT.

FAIL all the way around. This organization is just as dumb as when DanO was around.

redsfandan
08-03-2009, 10:45 AM
Yeah nate, it's silly. But so is saying he can't manage an .800 OPS when he's doing it this season. I'm not saying that I think he'll be the same player he was 5 years ago cuz he isn't that player now. Just that the decline has already happened. I think his OPS should be right around .800 next year. Abs are the bigger question. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the next decline to not happen until he's close to 40.

princeton
08-03-2009, 10:47 AM
looking at his stats, he's been pretty solid over the last three years.

I see a guy getting nicked a lot, like older players often do. like Jr did, like Larkin did. secondary numbers are one thing, but counting stats DO MATTER. if a top player is not on the field, it hurts the team.

Terry Pendleton and Brooks Robinson had their big declines going from 34 to 35. David Ortiz is supposedly 32 but probably more like 35. with Larkin, I think that he really dropped as he turned 36. maybe Rolen will be like Barry. but time will catch up. c'est la vie.

BRM
08-03-2009, 10:47 AM
This was without a doubt the dumbest trade deadline deal I have ever seen the Reds make. It trumps "The Trade".

Of course the biggest difference between this deal and The Trade is that the Reds received actual major league talent in return this time around.

dfs
08-03-2009, 10:50 AM
F is too high.
The Hairston deal is a decent move and Manuel to Seattle is understandable if unfortunate.

The Rolen deal is putrid beyond belief. I can't reconcile that trade with the reds succeeding any time soon.

redsfandan
08-03-2009, 10:59 AM
F is too high.
The Hairston deal is a decent move and Manuel to Seattle is understandable if unfortunate.

The Rolen deal is putrid beyond belief. I can't reconcile that trade with the reds succeeding any time soon.
How was that a decent move? If we had actually saved some money it would be different but he wasn't getting that much money anyway.

nate
08-03-2009, 11:02 AM
Yeah nate, it's silly. But so is saying he can't manage an .800 OPS when he's doing it this season.

No, I don't think that's silly in any way, shape or form. It's a legit question to ask and have a discussion about. Yes, Rolen is an excellent player but he is older and a decline would be natural. Throw in his injury history and we _could_ have an OPS of .800, but in how many games? 120? 100?

It's not a silly proposition.


I'm not saying that I think he'll be the same player he was 5 years ago cuz he isn't that player now. Just that the decline has already happened. I think his OPS should be right around .800 next year. Abs are the bigger question. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the next decline to not happen until he's close to 40.

Again, I say it's a reasonable concern.

redsfandan
08-03-2009, 11:03 AM
I see a guy getting nicked a lot, like older players often do. like Jr did, like Larkin did. secondary numbers are one thing, but counting stats DO MATTER. if a top player is not on the field, it hurts the team.

Terry Pendleton and Brooks Robinson had their big declines going from 34 to 35. David Ortiz is supposedly 32 but probably more like 35. with Larkin, I think that he really dropped as he turned 36. maybe Rolen will be like Barry. but time will catch up. c'est la vie.
Of course you could also look at players like Chipper Jones and Mike Lowell who are still productive and are both older than Rolen.

nate
08-03-2009, 11:04 AM
That is obvious, however the argument is that his stats are in decline.

I think it's a little hard to say with the stats due to how many games he's missed. Certainly, they look a bit resurgent but he's missed a lot of playing time. I just don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about him declining.

redsfandan
08-03-2009, 11:06 AM
No, I don't think that's silly in any way, shape or form. It's a legit question to ask and have a discussion about. Yes, Rolen is an excellent player but he is older and a decline would be natural. Throw in his injury history and we _could_ have an OPS of .800, but in how many games? 120? 100?
It's not a silly proposition.



Again, I say it's a reasonable concern.
And you're pointing towards how many games he plays as the bigger concern. Just like I did.

nate
08-03-2009, 11:07 AM
Of course you could also look at players like Chipper Jones and Mike Lowell who are still productive and are both older than Rolen.

But haven't they both spent quite a bit of time on the DL?

princeton
08-03-2009, 11:10 AM
Of course you could also look at players like Chipper Jones and Mike Lowell who are still productive and are both older than Rolen.

you argued that you can't see "any reason" that Rolen can't OPS .800 next year.

but now you do, correct? older players sometimes fall right off a cliff-- following up a good season at 34 with several poor seasons thereafter. age'll do that. and even if they OPS .800, it doesn't much help if they can't get on the field, and older players have more injuries as Larkin/Jr surely showed. so there are a couple of reasons right there.


personally, I hope that Rolen plays every day and wins the 2010 NL MVP. but I do see that we're not getting a 27 year old player. matter of fact, we gave one up

nate
08-03-2009, 11:17 AM
And you're pointing towards how many games he plays as the bigger concern. Just like I did.

So this one reason why he perhaps wouldn't OPS .800. Or, if he does, it could be in less than a full season.

Like I said, these concerns aren't silly.

I like having him on the team and am concerned about these very things.

redsfandan
08-03-2009, 11:27 AM
you argued that you can't see "any reason" that Rolen can't OPS .800 next year.

but now you do, correct? older players sometimes fall right off a cliff-- following up a good season at 34 with several poor seasons thereafter. age'll do that. and even if they OPS .800, it doesn't much help if they can't get on the field, and older players have more injuries as Larkin/Jr surely showed. so there are a couple of reasons right there.


personally, I hope that Rolen plays every day and wins the 2010 NL MVP. but I do see that we're not getting a 27 year old player. matter of fact, we gave one up
Not really. I don't think anyone, including me, is expecting Rolen to have a mvp type season. Similar offense to EE with MUCH better defense. That's all. Like I've said, repeatedly, how much he plays is the MUCH bigger concern.

LincolnparkRed
08-03-2009, 12:46 PM
Well Buster Olney chimed in to say Walt confused him as well


The Reds have a $74 million payroll this season, and if they stay at that level next year, Scott Rolen's $11 million salary will account for about 15 percent of that total. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever given his age, injury history and decline in power. Rolen, who will turn 35 years old in April, mashed 34 homers in 2004 but has hit 54 homers in the four-plus seasons since.

BRM
08-03-2009, 12:48 PM
Bob Miller said in his most recent chat that the Reds are not on the hook for his entire 2010 salary.

EDIT: I may have misread that. His answer doesn't specifically say next year.


ethanator9:
11:29 am How are the Reds going to have money to pay for Rolen next year?

bob_miller:
11:31 am The reports on the amount owed Rolen floating around is incorrect. While I'm not at liberty to say what the amount is, we are not responsible for some of it.

dfs
08-03-2009, 12:53 PM
How was that a decent move? If we had actually saved some money it would be different but he wasn't getting that much money anyway.
They gave away a couple months of Hairston for minor league talent that they don't have to pay a bonus.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 12:56 PM
Bob Miller said in his most recent chat that the Reds are not on the hook for his entire 2010 salary.

EDIT: I may have misread that. His answer doesn't specifically say next year.

The question says next year.

Interesting if the $$$ estimate is incorrect.

Ltlabner
08-03-2009, 12:58 PM
edabbs44 showed that his skills aren't declining. But you keep saying they are. How about proving your point? I don't see any reason why he can't be an .800+ OPS player next season. His health is a much bigger concern.

His production isn't declining (as shown by his hot 2009) but that doesn't mean his raw skills aren't.

People generally slow down, lose a step, suffer more injuries and take longer to recover as they get older. I'm not sure why anybody would want to argue that point.

Ltlabner
08-03-2009, 12:59 PM
I assume that the Reds staff disagrees on the "declining skills" part of the discussion.

They also thought they could "fix" Taveras.

princeton
08-03-2009, 01:00 PM
Miller: "I know that it seems like a totally idiotic trade but trust me, it's not. I just can't tell you why though."

Ltlabner
08-03-2009, 01:01 PM
That is obvious, however the argument is that his stats are in decline.

No, I said skills. Big difference.

And as Nate correctly pointed out, the big question is at what rate do the decline and how far do they drop during the next 1.5 years. Maybe they don't drop at all, maybe his injury history goes away and maybe we'll all look back and say "Edwin who?".

But those are big maybes, and it's not out of bounds to suggest they exist.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 01:05 PM
They also thought they could "fix" Taveras.

I think everyone is entitled to a screwup every so often. Especially one that is fairly cheap.

BRM
08-03-2009, 01:06 PM
The question says next year.

Interesting if the $$$ estimate is incorrect.

Yeah, the question says next year but Miller's answer was a little vague.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 01:07 PM
No, I said skills. Big difference.

Actually you said "declining player", which I guess could mean either.

nate
08-03-2009, 01:08 PM
The question says next year.

Interesting if the $$$ estimate is incorrect.

I wonder why the $$$ are such a mystery? It would be a nice thing to know.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 01:08 PM
But those are big maybes, and it's not out of bounds to suggest they exist.

They definitely exist. But Rolen isn't at the age where we can really flag that as a huge concern.

Now, if he gives him 3 more years...

BRM
08-03-2009, 01:09 PM
I think everyone is entitled to a screwup every so often. Especially one that is fairly cheap.

And honestly, the screwup wouldn't be such a big deal if Dusty would just relegate him to a bench role.

Ltlabner
08-03-2009, 01:11 PM
Actually you said "declining player", which I guess could mean either.

In my first response I said "declining player" which I then further clarified in subsequent posts...



Walt was fooled by a hot 1/2 season. Maybe Rolen even carries it the rest of the year. But betting on him to continue at that level of production considering his skills are declining is a suckers bet.

You can get hinkie about not understanding my concept if you must, but you've yet to offer a reasonable defense to the idea that people slow as they age or that it's perfectly reasonable to wonder if/how much of that decline takes place while in a Reds uni.

BRM
08-03-2009, 01:11 PM
I wonder why the $$$ are such a mystery? It would be a nice thing to know.

Agreed. It may slow down some of the criticism if the financials are released. Of course, it could also cause the criticism to increase even more. It all depends on how much the Reds actually owe next year.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 01:12 PM
And honestly, the screwup wouldn't be such a big deal if Dusty would just relegate him to a bench role.

That I agree with.

I can't understand why both Wayne and Walt have had such an issue with walking into his office and telling him that Patterson and Taveras need to take a seat and he is getting fired if it doesn't happen.

Ltlabner
08-03-2009, 01:14 PM
And honestly, the screwup wouldn't be such a big deal if Dusty would just relegate him to a bench role.

Don't worry BRM, I was assured that if Willy flopped he wouldn't receive undue playing time because Teh Dusty would surely sit him down.

princeton
08-03-2009, 01:16 PM
I can't understand why both Wayne and Walt have had such an issue with walking into his office and telling him that Patterson and Taveras need to take a seat and he is getting fired if it doesn't happen.


same owner

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 01:19 PM
You can get hinkie about not understanding my concept if you must, but you've yet to offer a reasonable defense to the idea that people slow as they age or that it's perfectly reasonable to wonder if/how much of that decline takes place while in a Reds uni.

I'm not defending anything. I only took issue with the "declining player" quote since he has actually been the opposite over the past few years.

Obviously players slow as they age. No disagreement there. But he is currently playing well both at the plate and with the glove, so I think it is safe to assume that we will not see a complete collapse in the near future.

We can wonder all we want, but I'm not sure that the concerns of an age related decline of a material manner are warranted based upon what we are seeing. At least for 2010.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 01:19 PM
same owner

It's weird.

princeton
08-03-2009, 01:20 PM
Obviously players slow as they age. No disagreement there. But he is currently playing well both at the plate and with the glove, so I think it is safe to assume that we will not see a complete collapse in the near future.


old guys collapse

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/06/29/james.33/index.html

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 01:26 PM
old guys collapse

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/06/29/james.33/index.html

Rolen bucked the trend, since he improved from 32 to 33 and again from 33 to 34.

He is a freak of nature.

:)

BRM
08-03-2009, 01:49 PM
From Fox Sports Deadline Winners and Losers.


Winner: Reds

Just getting rid of Edwin Encarnacion makes the Reds a winner, but getting Scott Rolen in return amounts to a low-profile coup. Encarnacion's lackluster play and demeanor had become a disaster for the organization. He was horrible in the field and almost annually needed trips to the minors to wake up his bat. Adding Rolen puts a veteran presence on a team whose best players are still quite young.

jojo
08-03-2009, 01:50 PM
Miller: "I know that it seems like a totally idiotic trade but trust me, it's not. I just can't tell you why though."

I don't know if Miller is privy to important information that those outside of the Reds FO aren't privy to, but here is Zach Stewart's bio pic from his minor league baseball stats page:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/clown-sewer-untouchable.jpg

BRM
08-03-2009, 01:52 PM
Just for good measure, from the same Fox Sports article:


Loser: Blue Jays

The Blue Jays asked the world for ace Roy Halladay and never moved him. As if that wasn't bad enough, they acquired a known head case in the Reds' Edwin Encarnacion for Scott Rolen. J.P. Ricciardi played a dangerous game with Halladay, asking top dollar for him. Now he's Toronto's to keep for another season. If Halladay is traded for considerably less next season, this will look even worse.

nate
08-03-2009, 02:17 PM
I don't know if Miller is privy to important information that those outside of the Reds FO aren't privy to, but here is Zach Stewart's bio pic from his minor league baseball stats page:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/clown-sewer-untouchable.jpg

I hear they all float down there.

Homer Bailey
08-03-2009, 05:23 PM
In the last year, our GM has signed the 4th least valuable player in baseball (based on VORP) to a 2 year contract, and traded our best pitching prospect for a 35 year old 3B with an injury history. How did Walt do? HA!

Oh, and somehow he hasn't fired Dusty Baker. Walt gets an F from me.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 05:29 PM
In the last year, our GM has signed the 4th least valuable player in baseball (based on VORP) to a 2 year contract, and traded our best pitching prospect for a 35 year old 3B with an injury history. How did Walt do? HA!

Oh, and somehow he hasn't fired Dusty Baker. Walt gets an F from me.

That's a really skewed way of looking at things. We could also say that he traded an unproven minor league pitcher who some project as a reliever for a pretty nice upgrade at 3B.

BRM
08-03-2009, 05:36 PM
Is it the consensus opinion that Zach Stewart was the Reds best pitching prospect? Is Zach Stewart the reliever a better prospect than Travis Wood the starter? I can see where Stewart would be the top guy if he was clearly projected to be a starter but there seems to be some doubt. Just curious what the thoughts are.

Homer Bailey
08-03-2009, 05:41 PM
That's a really skewed way of looking at things. We could also say that he traded an unproven minor league pitcher who some project as a reliever for a pretty nice upgrade at 3B.

No it's not a skewed way. It's my opinion. The team is nowhere close to being good, and he mortgaged a great asset of the future for a 3B that might play 100 games next year. Because of this move, there won't be any payroll increases, meaning no Holliday for sure.


Is it the consensus opinion that Zach Stewart was the Reds best pitching prospect? Is Zach Stewart the reliever a better prospect than Travis Wood the starter? I can see where Stewart would be the top guy if he was clearly projected to be a starter but there seems to be some doubt. Just curious what the thoughts are.

Stewart was being groomed to be a starter for the Reds. He was moved to the pen in AAA to cut down on innings. I think he is the best pitching prospect in the organization. Or at least he was.

nate
08-03-2009, 05:42 PM
That's a really skewed way of looking at things.

You better sit down before reading this:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I agree.

BRM
08-03-2009, 05:45 PM
I agree.

:eek:

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 05:50 PM
No it's not a skewed way. It's my opinion. The team is nowhere close to being good, and he mortgaged a great asset of the future for a 3B that might play 100 games next year. Because of this move, there won't be any payroll increases, meaning no Holliday for sure.

It's also the opinion of some to say that he sold high on a guy who may have pitched over his head this year for a known commodity who has (KNOCK ON WOOD!!!!!!) stayed away from the injury bug this season and who we know will provide value to the major league product next year.

Homer Bailey
08-03-2009, 05:57 PM
It's also the opinion of some to say that he sold high on a guy who may have pitched over his head this year for a known commodity who has (KNOCK ON WOOD!!!!!!) stayed away from the injury bug this season and who we know will provide value to the major league product next year.

Yet the move made the team even more expensive, thus basically eliminating any splash the Reds were going to make in the FA pool next year (which was probably going to be none anyway). The Reds needed to sign Holliday, and now they certainly will not. The trading chips could have been used to fill other holes (SS, CF).

Now the Reds will probably do their annual terrible signings of a couple cheap players that sign for not so cheap money and don't serve any purpose (see Hairston, Taveras, Gonzalez, Lincoln, etc.).

jojo
08-03-2009, 05:58 PM
Zach Stewart is an interesting arm. That said, he's more likely to be a relief pitcher than a starter on someone's 25 man roster.

I think some have him penned into a major league rotation with the expectation he'll be there really soon.

Bumstead
08-03-2009, 06:03 PM
Maybe, but how improved are the Reds going to be if they are saddled by Rolen's $11M salary? How are the Reds going to replace the pitching that they have lost (ie: Volquez) if they trade away potential candidates and don't have the payroll flexibility to sign a quality starter? Why give up players like Stewart for a guy that makes $11M? Encarnacion was enough by himself. Who's going to play in the OF???

You can't rebuild from the middle and they are trying it again...it won't work without having the ability (payroll wise) to sign good free agents. The Reds don't have that kind of Payroll flexibility regardless of how that parameter is set. Terrible baseball trade in my opinion.

Bum

nate
08-03-2009, 06:23 PM
Yet the move made the team even more expensive, thus basically eliminating any splash the Reds were going to make in the FA pool next year (which was probably going to be none anyway).

But we really don't know how much money above and beyond Rolen adds to next year's payroll.


The Reds needed to sign Holliday, and now they certainly will not. I don't think they need to sign Holliday as it would take an enormous chunk of payroll (I read an article today speculating he'll likely get 5 years/$75mm) and get us right back into the team's biggest problem: below average performance at too many positions. The same money that could put Holliday in LF might be able to net average performance at SS and a starting pitcher. I think that makes the overall team better than just signing Holliday.

Of course, if Uncle Bob wants to go to the ATM and get Holliday, I'm down.


The trading chips could have been used to fill other holes (SS, CF). Yes, perhaps.


Now the Reds will probably do their annual terrible signings of a couple cheap players that sign for not so cheap money and don't serve any purpose (see Hairston, Taveras, Gonzalez, Lincoln, etc.).Perhaps. Walt's got a lot to do between now and next opening day. Especially with the news of Volquez' injury.

nate
08-03-2009, 06:26 PM
Maybe, but how improved are the Reds going to be if they are saddled by Rolen's $11M salary? How are the Reds going to replace the pitching that they have lost (ie: Volquez) if they trade away potential candidates and don't have the payroll flexibility to sign a quality starter? Why give up players like Stewart for a guy that makes $11M? Encarnacion was enough by himself. Who's going to play in the OF???

You can't rebuild from the middle and they are trying it again...it won't work without having the ability (payroll wise) to sign good free agents. The Reds don't have that kind of Payroll flexibility regardless of how that parameter is set. Terrible baseball trade in my opinion.

Bum

They're making it out to be a mystery Angela Lansbury and Madlock couldn't solve but I don't think the Reds are on the hook for the entire $11mm.

Homer Bailey
08-03-2009, 06:26 PM
But we really don't know how much money above and beyond Rolen adds to next year's payroll.

I don't think they need to sign Holliday as it would take an enormous chunk of payroll (I read an article today speculating he'll likely get 5 years/$75mm) and get us right back into the team's biggest problem: below average performance at too many positions. The same money that could put Holliday in LF might be able to net average performance at SS and a starting pitcher. I think that makes the overall team better than just signing Holliday.

Of course, if Uncle Bob wants to go to the ATM and get Holliday, I'm down.

Yes, perhaps.

Perhaps. Walt's got a lot to do between now and next opening day. Especially with the news of Volquez' injury.

I agree with pretty much everything there. The thing I am/was most upset about is the fact that this move makes me fear the other moves that are to follow (or the moves that will now not occur).

nate
08-03-2009, 06:41 PM
I agree with pretty much everything there. The thing I am/was most upset about is the fact that this move makes me fear the other moves that are to follow (or the moves that will now not occur).

Well, someone's going to have to adapt, improvise and overcome!

:cool:

Ron Madden
08-04-2009, 03:20 AM
Well, someone's going to have to adapt, improvise and overcome!

:cool:


It hasn't happened yet and I see no promise of it happening anytime soon.

:(

TheNext44
08-04-2009, 04:20 AM
His production isn't declining (as shown by his hot 2009) but that doesn't mean his raw skills aren't.

People generally slow down, lose a step, suffer more injuries and take longer to recover as they get older. I'm not sure why anybody would want to argue that point.

You are absolutely right about this. Rolen's skills are declining, at least according to his stats.

His SLG is down 32 points from his career avg, and his defense is down too according to Fangraph's UZR/150. His power may go back up from switching from the AL East to the NL Central, but I think it's safe to say his power skills have gone down, as have his fielding skills. This might be the residue of his injury, but it definitely is there.

I still like this trade (especially since learning the Reds will be getting more that the $4M reported), but I agree. For anyone to argue that a 34 year old's skills are not on the decline is fooling themselves. That's not to say that his production will decline, but if it doesn't, it will be in spite of his declining skills.

Personally, I'm more worried about how many games he plays, than his skills. That's the big risk Jocketty took.

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 06:58 AM
They gave away a couple months of Hairston for minor league talent that they don't have to pay a bonus.
Except the minor league talent acquired in the trade doesn't seem to have much talent. Also that talent was drafted by the yankees in the 6th round of the '07 draft. Maybe he had a bonus but even if he did it probably wasn't that much.

His production isn't declining (as shown by his hot 2009) but that doesn't mean his raw skills aren't.

People generally slow down, lose a step, suffer more injuries and take longer to recover as they get older. I'm not sure why anybody would want to argue that point.
Ok, newsflash: that's not news! Really! Pretty much any, and every, player, starts a decline once they hit 30. That only means they're human! My problem is I don't see people saying that he'll be a mvp but it does seem like some people are literally expecting Rolen to fall off of a cliff!!

In my first response I said "declining player" which I then further clarified in subsequent posts...



You can get hinkie about not understanding my concept if you must, but you've yet to offer a reasonable defense to the idea that people slow as they age or that it's perfectly reasonable to wonder if/how much of that decline takes place while in a Reds uni.
Ltlabner? PLEASE send me a message explaining what that word means. I've just never heard it before. Kinda funny though.

Redhook
08-04-2009, 08:30 AM
Jocketty gets an F- from me.

And I was actually excited when he was named GM of the Reds. In my wildest dreams, I couldn't have fathomed how poorly of a job he has done. Yes, Castellini is to blame as well, but Jocketty has been an epic failure.

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 08:32 AM
No it's not a skewed way. It's my opinion. The team is nowhere close to being good, and he mortgaged a great asset of the future for a 3B that might play 100 games next year. Because of this move, there won't be any payroll increases, meaning no Holliday for sure.



Stewart was being groomed to be a starter for the Reds. He was moved to the pen in AAA to cut down on innings. I think he is the best pitching prospect in the organization. Or at least he was.
1st: Agree to disagree? We need a ss, leftfielder, and to figure out the rotation. Other than that we mostly need MUCH better health except for Willy (sorry Willy).
2nd: He overpaid. I get that. I agree. But to say that those two will pan out ... well is your name Nostradamus?
3rd: Again, speculation.
4th: Did you really think we'd be a player for Holliday??

Yet the move made the team even more expensive, thus basically eliminating any splash the Reds were going to make in the FA pool next year (which was probably going to be none anyway). The Reds needed to sign Holliday, and now they certainly will not. The trading chips could have been used to fill other holes (SS, CF).
A more expensive team yes but let's wait and see on the rest. But to say that we NEEDED Holliday is something I don't agree with. Holliday would've required a long-term deal at ALOT per year. That just doesn't make sense for the Reds. 1-2 years on a similar player, or even a slightly lesser player, but less per year? Now you're talking. Pure speculation on the other points (the Reds not being buyers this offseason and that we don't still have some trading chips).

Maybe, but how improved are the Reds going to be if they are saddled by Rolen's $11M salary? How are the Reds going to replace the pitching that they have lost if they trade away potential candidates and don't have the payroll flexibility to sign a quality starter? Why give up players like Stewart for a guy that makes $11M? Encarnacion was enough by himself. Who's going to play in the OF???
You can't rebuild from the middle and they are trying it again...it won't work without having the ability (payroll wise) to sign good free agents. The Reds don't have that kind of Payroll flexibility regardless of how that parameter is set. Terrible baseball trade in my opinion.

Bum
Charge it.

But we really don't know how much money above and beyond Rolen adds to next year's payroll.

I don't think they need to sign Holliday as it would take an enormous chunk of payroll (I read an article today speculating he'll likely get 5 years/$75mm) and get us right back into the team's biggest problem: below average performance at too many positions. The same money that could put Holliday in LF might be able to net average performance at SS and a starting pitcher. I think that makes the overall team better than just signing Holliday.
Just to take that one step further it's possible that the headcase that is Manny will be a FA this offseason. Now, hypothetically, if you have $25m to work with for 2010 would it make more sense to hand Manny a 2 year deal for $45m and find a ss for the remaining $2.5m for 2010? Or would it make more sense to find a leftfielder and a ss for $10m/yr for each and leave the rest for possible upgrades at the trade deadline or extensions? Of course, the Reds won't have that much to spend (we wish) but my point is that spending all the $ on one position, or too much on one position, would be a big mistake.

You are absolutely rigIht about this. Rolen's skills are declining, at least according to his stats.

His SLG is down 32 points from his career avg, and his defense is down too according to Fangraph's UZR/150. His power may go back up from switching from the AL East to the NL Central, but I think it's safe to say his power skills have gone down, as have his fielding skills. This might be the residue of his injury, but it definitely is there. ...
His "skills" have been declining for (roughly) 5 years already. That's called life. That doesn't mean he'll fall off a cliff next year! If Walt does give him an extension HOPE that he's smart about it (less per yr/no more than 2 years).

... I still like this trade (especially since learning the Reds will be getting more that the $4M reported), but I agree. For anyone to argue that a 34 year old's skills are not on the decline is fooling themselves. That's not to say that his production will decline, but if it doesn't, it will be in spite of his declining skills.

Personally, I'm more worried about how many games he plays, than his skills. That's the big risk Jocketty took.He's an upgrade. Take it or leave it and unfortunately for some you have to take it whether you like it or not. But he WILL be an upgrade.
For him to have any kind of a decline is one thing, for him to fall off of a cliff is completely different.
Yes, games played, total abs... how are people not thinking of that as, BY FAR, the bigger concern?

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 08:34 AM
My problem is I don't see people saying that he'll be a mvp but it does seem like some people are literally expecting Rolen to fall off of a cliff!!

You have noticed that in addition to his age he has an injury history right?

When he's on the DL it's really, really, really hard to get on base and score runs.

It's not out-of-bounds to say that the probability that he rides the pine because of injury is pretty good.

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 08:43 AM
You have noticed that in addition to his age he has an injury history right?

When he's on the DL it's really, really, really hard to get on base and score runs.

It's not out-of-bounds to say that the probability that he rides the pine because of injury is pretty good.
I'm sorry, wasn't your focus on his declining skill's? Or are you trying to combine that with the injury risk now?
Walt overpaid.
Rolen is an injury risk.
BUT Rolen falling off a cliff (in regard to skills) almost sounds like wishful thinking by some. (It really, REALLY does)
No Ltlabner, it's not out of bounds to say that he'll miss some time. I think that's to be expected. Count Rolen for 120+ games and EE for 150+ games and I think we still upgraded. Don't you?

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 08:51 AM
I'm sorry, wasn't your focus on his declining skill's? Or are you trying to combine that with the injury risk now?

You mentioned the concept of falling off a cliff. I assumed you meant that your perception is that some of us think he won't produce.

Part of producing is what you do at the plate. He's having a hot year at the plate but the years prior to that were not significantly better than EE's. Add to that that his base physiological skills are declining and it's not beyond the pale to suggest that he's not going to give you better production offensively than EE. Defense is a whole different story and there he'll likely make us forget Edwin pretty quickly.

But the other part of producing involves actually being there to produce. If you're on the DL you ain't producing. Rolen's gotten pretty comfortable on the DL over the past few years.


Count Rolen for 120+ games and EE for 150+ games and I think we still upgraded. Don't you?

I'll have to go check but IIRC correctly he's not played much over 100 to 110ish games the past few years. I wouldn't count on him for 120.

So if you get 110 games of Rolen and 50 games of Adam Rosales, is that still a lock to be better than Edwin for 150 games and ARo for 10? Based on Rolen's 3 year performance, aging body and injury history I don't think it's the lock to be an upgrade many here think it will be.

And no, I don't hope that I'm right and to suggest that I'd rather the team tank than be wrong is silly.

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 09:02 AM
So if you get 110 games of Rolen and 50 games of Adam Rosales, is that still a lock to be better than Edwin for 150 games and ARo for 10? Based on Rolen's 3 year performance, aging body and injury history I don't think it's the lock to be an upgrade many here think it will be.


Offensively, it's even. Defensively, we win. Does anyone really dispute that?
EE hasn't had ANY seasons with 150+ games played. He's had only one season with 140 games played, and one other season with over 120 games played. People want to make Rolen out to be a cripple but EE hasn't proven to be a guy you can't get out of the lineup either. Has he?

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 09:08 AM
You mentioned the concept of falling off a cliff. I assumed you meant that your perception is that some of us think he won't produce.
Yeah, cuz it at least seems like some people don't think he CAN produce anymore.

And no, I don't hope that I'm right and to suggest that I'd rather the team tank than be wrong is silly.
When did I suggest that you wanted the team to tank? PLEASE show me.

TRF
08-04-2009, 09:08 AM
Offensively, it's even. Defensively, we win. Does anyone really dispute that?
EE hasn't had ANY seasons with 150+ games played. And only one season with 140 games played, and one other season with over 120 games played. People want to make Rolen out to be a cripple but EE hasn't proven to be a guy you can't get out of the lineup either. Has he?

It's not a win if Roenicke gets 20-30 something holds, or becomes their closer.

It's not a win if they decide Stewart is their closer and he saves 30+ games, or they decide he's a starter and wins 12+ his rookie year with a sub 4.50 ERA.

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 09:10 AM
EE hasn't had ANY seasons with 150+ games played. And only one season with 140 games played, and one other season with over 120 games played. People want to make Rolen out to be a cripple but EE hasn't proven to be a guy you can't get out of the lineup either. Has he?

You were first to suggest the idea of Edwin for 150 games.

But to answer your question, I think there's a world of difference between a broken wrist from getting hit by the baseball and back issues of a 34 year old.

And some of the reason Edwin hasn't reach high games-played numbers is that he was sent to AAA to get his head on straight. That's not a health issue, although it does takes him out of the lineup just the same.

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 09:12 AM
When did I suggest that you wanted the team to tank? PLEASE show me.


BUT Rolen falling off a cliff (in regard to skills) almost sounds like wishful thinking by some. (It really, REALLY does)


Ok, I said "team tank" and you said "Rolen" but my point remains. Your notion that I'd rather Rolen tank so I can be right is just plain silly.

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 09:16 AM
It's not a win if Roenicke gets 20-30 something holds, or becomes their closer.

It's not a win if they decide Stewart is their closer and he saves 30+ games, or they decide he's a starter and wins 12+ his rookie year with a sub 4.50 ERA.
We've already established that Walt overpaid.

EE likely won't be a 3rd baseman in a year or two. He was for the Reds ONLY due to default.
Ya know, I can understand people not being happy cuz the Reds overpaid. But to say that you'd actually want EE at 3rd over Rolen? What ARE you smokin'? Seriously.

bucksfan2
08-04-2009, 09:17 AM
You were first to suggest the idea of Edwin for 150 games.

But to answer your question, I think there's a world of difference between a broken wrist from getting hit by the baseball and back issues of a 34 year old.

And some of the reason Edwin hasn't reach high games-played numbers is that he was sent to AAA to get his head on straight. That's not a health issue, although it does takes him out of the lineup just the same.

No matter what way you spin it a missed game is a missed game. I would even go as far to say I think Edwin will miss more time with wrist problems because of his swing.

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 09:19 AM
No matter what way you spin it a missed game is a missed game.

There was no spin.

I said that being in AAA takes you out of the lineup just the same.

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 09:21 AM
Ok, I said "team tank" and you said "Rolen" but my point remains. Your notion that I'd rather Rolen tank so I can be right is just plain silly.
No that's not even a stretch, that's BEYOND a stretch to imply that I meant that. How else will you twist my words? And yes I really do think you want to be proven right. Right that Walt really should be fired right now. Right that the Reds are in really bad shape. etc etc etc

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 09:22 AM
But to say that you'd actually want EE at 3rd over Rolen? What ARE you smokin'? Seriously.

Who's saying that?

While I don't think Rolen is a lock to give us a massive upgrade over Edwin, I've posted several times in different threads that I'm not as torn up over who we traded as I am the idea that we seriously overpaid for a gimpy 34 year old.

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 09:24 AM
Well, we can agree, as will probably everyone else, that the Reds overpaid. I guess that's at least something.

edit: "hinkie": seriously, what DOES that mean?

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 09:26 AM
No that's even a stretch, that's BEYOND a stretch to imply that I meant that. How else will you twist my words?

:confused:


BUT Rolen falling off a cliff (in regard to skills) almost sounds like wishful thinking by some. (It really, REALLY does)

This is your exact post. How I am twisting it is beyond me. You are clearly saying it seems like "wishful thinking" by some that Rolen falls off a cliff.

You obviously don't want to have a legit discussion so I wish you a wonderful and fantastic day.

Bumstead
08-04-2009, 09:34 AM
Charging it won't work in baseball...the Reds just won't spend any more money, but we'll have Rolen...woohoo...If the Reds are only paying $2-4M of Rolen's salary next year then maybe the trade is ok, but if they are paying more then it's a horrible baseball trade (unless the Reds suddenly open the purse strings...right).

Bum

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 09:52 AM
This is your exact post. How I am twisting it is beyond me. You are clearly saying it seems like "wishful thinking" by some that Rolen falls off a cliff.

You obviously don't want to have a legit discussion so I wish you a wonderful and fantastic day.
Yeah, cuz that's what it sounds like. It really, really does sound like people think that. What you were twisting was when you implied that I thought you wanted the team to tank. Which I never said. Ever. I asked you to show me where I said that and you haven't. I actually DO want a legit discussion and have asked you to send me a message just to explain what a simple word means. Have I received one? Nope. How can I take it seriously when you say "I wish you a wonderful and fantastic day" when you can't even do that?

Seriously, if ya ever want to talk feel free but I'm not getting my hopes up.

TRF
08-04-2009, 09:57 AM
We've already established that Walt overpaid.

EE likely won't be a 3rd baseman in a year or two. He was for the Reds ONLY due to default.
Ya know, I can understand people not being happy cuz the Reds overpaid. But to say that you'd actually want EE at 3rd over Rolen? What ARE you smokin'? Seriously.

I'm saying I prefer EE to Rolen at 3rd precisely because of the cost of acquiring Rolen. Rolen < EE + Roenicke + Stewart.

And no amount of spin on EE's vs Rolen's defense changes that. The Reds have likely lost Volquez for all of 2010, if Liriano's numbers this year are any indication. His control won't be back until 2011. Stewart might have been ready mid 2010, or even out of ST. And now Rolen has a KGJ sized % of the Reds payroll. That might work in STL, but it doesn't work in Cincinnati.

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 10:00 AM
Yeah, cuz that's what it sounds like. It really, really does sound like people think that. What you were twisting was when you implied that I thought you wanted the team to tank. Which I never said. Ever. I asked you to show me where I said that and you haven't.

Because I already replied recognizing my mistake saying "team tanks" when you said "Rolen tanks". In other words, I've already said I was mistaken in saying "team tanks". Apparently you missed post 134.

And since it's apparently very important for you to know...

hinky: The right way to spell hinkie.
Something that is out of whack, just a bit off, wrong, confused, suspect.
Example: His directions were a bit hinky, no? That milk taste hinky to you?

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 10:03 AM
Again TRF(I respect your opinion was really hoping you'd reply to the pm I sent about EE), but I was strictly talking about ONLY EE vs Rolen.

westofyou
08-04-2009, 10:03 AM
I prefer EE anywhere but on the Reds, he was playing baseball like George Jetson walking his dog, going nowhere fast.

Raisor
08-04-2009, 10:05 AM
Again TRF(I respect your opinion was really hoping you'd reply to the pm I sent about EE), but I was strictly talking about ONLY EE vs Rolen.


and that's the point. If it was EE for Rolen straight up, there wouldn't be anywhere near the gnashing of teeth.

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 10:06 AM
Because I already replied recognizing my mistake saying "team tanks" when you said "Rolen tanks". In other words, I've already said I was mistaken in saying "team tanks". Apparently you missed post 134.

Yeah I saw that. And then you said in post 141

:confused:



This is your exact post. How I am twisting it is beyond me. You are clearly saying it seems like "wishful thinking" by some that Rolen falls off a cliff.
You obviously don't want to have a legit discussion so I wish you a wonderful and fantastic day.
Now I'm the confused one. (btw, thanks for the fyi on 'hinkie')

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 10:08 AM
and that's the point. If it was EE for Rolen straight up, there wouldn't be anywhere near the gnashing of teeth.
Exactly, even EE + Roenicke for Rolen wouldn't cause this much of a reaction.

TRF
08-04-2009, 10:08 AM
Again TRF(I respect your opinion was really hoping you'd reply to the pm I sent about EE), but I was strictly talking about ONLY EE vs Rolen.

I think he's the 3B in Toronto for the rest of this year. If they have a 3B prospect that's ready, I can see a move to 1B like the Tigers did with Cabrera. Lyle Overbay is replaceable.

nate
08-04-2009, 10:15 AM
So if you get 110 games of Rolen and 50 games of Adam Rosales, is that still a lock to be better than Edwin for 150 games and ARo for 10? Based on Rolen's 3 year performance, aging body and injury history I don't think it's the lock to be an upgrade many here think it will be.

That's an interesting question. Defensively, it would be a big upgrade as both Rolen and Rosales can pick it. Offensively...hard to say. Rosales is pretty bad with the bat, Rolen is above average. EE is average...I dunno.

However, I wonder if Sutton wouldn't get some time at 3b. Or is he strictly a middle infielder? His bat might be better than Rosales. His defense is probably on par with EE's so if he can play, it might give some "depth" if Rolen is gimpy.

redsfandan
08-04-2009, 10:17 AM
I think he's the 3B in Toronto for the rest of this year. If they have a 3B prospect that's ready, I can see a move to 1B like the Tigers did with Cabrera. Lyle Overbay is replaceable.
I was thinking maybe a poor mans Aubrey Huff, or something similar. Can play 3rd if he has to but will also see time at 1st and in the outfield.

OnBaseMachine
08-04-2009, 11:31 AM
The only way the Rolen trade makes any sense at all is if the Reds go for it next season. That means acquiring another starting pitcher or two, upgrading shortstop, releasing Willy Taveras and replacing him with Dickerson/Heisey/Stubbs, and signing a big bat for left field (Dye is potentially a FA). That's what it will take for the Reds to contend in 2010.

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 11:33 AM
The only way the Rolen trade makes any sense at all is if the Reds go for it next season. That means acquiring another starting pitcher or two, upgrading shortstop, releasing Willy Taveras and replacing him with Dickerson/Heisey/Stubbs, and signing a big bat for left field (Dye is potentially a FA).

I agree and said something similar at the time. If the team is made over between now and OD 2010, this will look a lot better.

Homer Bailey
08-04-2009, 11:44 AM
The only way the Rolen trade makes any sense at all is if the Reds go for it next season. That means acquiring another starting pitcher or two, upgrading shortstop, releasing Willy Taveras and replacing him with Dickerson/Heisey/Stubbs, and signing a big bat for left field (Dye is potentially a FA). That's what it will take for the Reds to contend in 2010.


I agree and said something similar at the time. If the team is made over between now and OD 2010, this will look a lot better.

It's just way too big of an if. Way too many things have to go right. This team is on pace to win 69 freakin games. Too many things have to be done to make this team competetive, and given the salary restrictions, I have no faith that any of them will actually be done.

Is Walt going to pay WT $4M to sit at home? I doubt it. He'll be the CF'er next year on opening day.

Who is going to play shortstop? I wouldn't mind signing Miguel Tejada to a one year deal, but who is going to pay for that? Doesn't look like any farmhands are going to be ready. I bet they either pick up Gonzo's option, or resign him for less. That's how little my faith is in Walt. I believe that he is going to pay millions for the 3rd least valuable player (based on VORP) in the major leagues. (Heck, he spent $6.25M on the 4th worst).

The rotation is in shambles. No Volquez, and will Harang and Arroyo be there? If they are there, are they going to be any good? Is Cueto the pitcher he was in the first half, or the last month? Is Bailey going to be consistent? Is Owings's shoulder done?

Will Bruce finally start to hit?

Who is going to play Left field? If it's Gomes/Nix, this team is going nowhere.


To properly address all of these problems, it is going to take at least $20M, and there is no way I see that happening.

Chip R
08-04-2009, 11:47 AM
The only way the Rolen trade makes any sense at all is if the Reds go for it next season. That means acquiring another starting pitcher or two, upgrading shortstop, releasing Willy Taveras and replacing him with Dickerson/Heisey/Stubbs, and signing a big bat for left field (Dye is potentially a FA). That's what it will take for the Reds to contend in 2010.


There is no way they will "go for it" counting on one or all of those 3 in CF. And, if they are "going for it" that is going to constitute a veteran presence at SS who is strong defensively. That means retaining Gonzo. Oh, they won't pick up his option but they will negotiate a modest deal for next year. And they aren't going to get a starting pitcher because Volquez' surgery has opened up a spot for Homer.

OnBaseMachine
08-04-2009, 11:50 AM
There is no way they will "go for it" counting on one or all of those 3 in CF. And, if they are "going for it" that is going to constitute a veteran presence at SS who is strong defensively. That means retaining Gonzo. Oh, they won't pick up his option but they will negotiate a modest deal for next year. And they aren't going to get a starting pitcher because Volquez' surgery has opened up a spot for Homer.

You're probably right, sadly.

BRM
08-04-2009, 11:51 AM
There is no way they will "go for it" counting on one or all of those 3 in CF. And, if they are "going for it" that is going to constitute a veteran presence at SS who is strong defensively. That means retaining Gonzo. Oh, they won't pick up his option but they will negotiate a modest deal for next year. And they aren't going to get a starting pitcher because Volquez' surgery has opened up a spot for Homer.

So the only change for next year will be Valentin replacing Hernandez?

Chip R
08-04-2009, 11:53 AM
So the only change for next year will be Valentin replacing Hernandez?


Stop teasing me!

BRM
08-04-2009, 11:57 AM
Javy makes a lot of sense because he can also backup at 1B and 3B. I've read he can even play some 2B if needed.

Chip R
08-04-2009, 12:03 PM
Javy makes a lot of sense because he can also backup at 1B and 3B. I've read he can even play some 2B if needed.


If that does happen, Rolen and Votto better look out.

princeton
08-04-2009, 12:06 PM
Javy makes a lot of sense because he can also backup at 1B and 3B. I've read he can even play some 2B if needed.


Reds' farm director's fondest wish is that Todd Frazier can become the next Javy

BRM
08-04-2009, 12:15 PM
Reds' farm director's fondest wish is that Todd Frazier can become the next Javy

Todd's gonna learn to play catcher?

Chip R
08-04-2009, 12:20 PM
Todd's gonna learn to play catcher?


No. He's gonna grow a sweet porn stache.

Patrick Bateman
08-04-2009, 12:20 PM
Todd's gonna learn to play catcher?

No, but did that stop Javy?

BRM
08-04-2009, 12:22 PM
No. He's gonna grow a sweet porn stache.

No one can top Javy's though.

Chip R
08-04-2009, 12:38 PM
No one can top Javy's though.


Goes without saying.

nate
08-04-2009, 12:40 PM
No one can top Javy's though.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/2601952111_bb428cfe60.jpg?v=0

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 12:44 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/2601952111_bb428cfe60.jpg?v=0

Whoa....Nate's throwing down.

Chip R
08-04-2009, 12:45 PM
Blasphemy!!

princeton
08-04-2009, 12:48 PM
Todd's gonna learn to play catcher?

we can dream.

HokieRed
08-04-2009, 01:33 PM
we can dream.

It's probably too late but I can see it as still being worth an experiment. Why not?

TheNext44
08-04-2009, 03:26 PM
That's an interesting question. Defensively, it would be a big upgrade as both Rolen and Rosales can pick it. Offensively...hard to say. Rosales is pretty bad with the bat, Rolen is above average. EE is average...I dunno.

However, I wonder if Sutton wouldn't get some time at 3b. Or is he strictly a middle infielder? His bat might be better than Rosales. His defense is probably on par with EE's so if he can play, it might give some "depth" if Rolen is gimpy.

Here is how Jojo answered it in another thread. I think this is the most accurate analysis of the comparison between EE and Rolen.


I really do think ORGsters have jumped the shark with their characterization of Rolen as over the hill.

He is exceeding projections for his bat this season but not so dramatically that one should be surprised or shocked (projected wOBA=.343; actual wOBA= .362). His defense has been exceptional once again. Looking at his offensive peripherals, there really aren't ominous signs of decline being masked by a lucky BABIP.

This "over the hill" thirdsacker is on pace to be a 3.6 win player assuming he only logs 500 PAs this season.

Next season he should reasonably be expected to be a 3 win player assuming only 450 PAs. He might be even more-it wouldn't be outlandish. This is especially so given he's moved to a better hitter's environment, an easier league/division and essentially is about as close to home as he'll get in a uni.

People can ask, "But what about the other 150-200 PAs?" when arguing against Rolen. Well, it's important to remember that Rolen may actually get some of those and that EE projects to only be a 2.5 win player at best and that is if he played the whole season. In other words, "part-time" Rolen + warm body is a significant upgrade at third over EE.

Yes, the Reds gave up a couple of relief pitchers for the right to pay Rolen something akin to what he'd be worth on the open market. But they bought wins with the money. It looks like Rolen will cost roughly $5M more than what the Reds would've paid EE.

The Reds had precious little payroll wiggle room before Rolen. Free agency probably wasn't going to be the route they were going to take to improve the club before Rolen.

The Reds were going to have to shed payroll to spend big in December regardless. Nothing really has changed other than they have likely locked in a significant improvement already.

The key point is that Rolen at 110 games is actually worth more than EE at 150 games. So anything that the other players produce during the other 50 games, is gravy.

princeton
08-04-2009, 05:12 PM
The key point is that Rolen at 110 games is actually worth more than EE at 150 games. So anything that the other players produce during the other 50 games, is gravy.


I think that's absurd.

if the Reds plan on replacing the injured Rolen with, oh I don't know-- Javy Pornstache comes to mind -- then that's on Rolen, just as it was on Larkin when he missed many games and his replacement was Juan the Magnificent. Juan's "production" may have been gravy on toast to you, but to me he was s+@# on a shingle.

a hole in the lineup is disastrous, especially in the NL where there's already a pitcher in the lineup.

jojo
08-04-2009, 05:14 PM
I think that's absurd.

if the Reds plan on replacing the injured Rolen with, oh I don't know-- Javy Pornstache comes to mind -- then that's on Rolen, just as it was on Larkin when he missed many games and his replacement was Juan the Magnificent.

I don't see how that's on Rolen.

princeton
08-04-2009, 05:17 PM
I don't see how that's on Rolen.



counting stats really do count. you can have great percentages, but it doesn't much help if you're not actually out there.

a lot of baseball is just showing up.

jojo
08-04-2009, 05:27 PM
counting stats really do count. you can have great percentages, but it doesn't much help if you're not actually out there.

a lot of baseball is just showing up.

It's not appropriate to discount what was done when a player showed up because one doesn't think the player showed up enough.

For instance, Ben Sheets averaged 3.7 WAR/season (that's significantly above average production) as a Brewer between 2005-2008 despite only averaging 150 IP during that span.

That's not less valuable because he didn't pitch 200+ per season.

princeton
08-04-2009, 05:32 PM
That's not less valuable because he didn't pitch 200+ per season.



of course it is

jojo
08-04-2009, 05:43 PM
of course it is

That's an artificial construct.

M2
08-04-2009, 05:56 PM
That's an artificial construct.

No, it's the way game works. The team plays 162 games a season. That's 162 games that need a starting lineup and 162 games that need a starting pitching.

Really valuable 2/3 of the time leaves a gaping hole.

WAR is an artificial construct.

jojo
08-04-2009, 06:08 PM
No, it's the way game works. The team plays 162 games a season. That's 162 games that need a starting lineup and 162 games that need a starting pitching.

Really valuable 2/3 of the time leaving a gaping hole.

WAR is an artificial construct.

Dominating 150 innings is valuable no matter how it's sliced.

Being significantly above average is a plus for your team even if it's for "only" 450-500 PA's and 900-1000 defensive innings.

Showing up is only part of baseball.

M2
08-04-2009, 06:16 PM
Dominating 150 innings is valuable no matter how it's sliced.

Being significantly above average is a plus for your team even if it's for "only" 450-500 PA's and 900-1000 defensive innings.

Showing up is only part of baseball.

It's valuable, but the missed time is also injurious to the team, sometimes severely so.

TheNext44
08-04-2009, 07:45 PM
I think that's absurd.

if the Reds plan on replacing the injured Rolen with, oh I don't know-- Javy Pornstache comes to mind -- then that's on Rolen, just as it was on Larkin when he missed many games and his replacement was Juan the Magnificent. Juan's "production" may have been gravy on toast to you, but to me he was s+@# on a shingle.

a hole in the lineup is disastrous, especially in the NL where there's already a pitcher in the lineup.

That the fault in your logic. A hole in your lineup only has a small effect on your ability to win games.

One batter represents 11% of the offense, say 12% if you don't count the pitcher. Let's give a worst case scenario, and have Rolen's replacement be half as productive as he would be. That's basically having a guy worse than Taveras's bat replace him.

Rolen, at best, would be productive around 40% of the time he bats. So he would be responsible for around 5% of the teams offense in each game. A player half as good, would be productive 20% of the time he bats, or be responsible for around 2.5% of the team's offense in each game.

So putting in a bat that is worse than Taveras' in to replace Rolen would result in around a 2.5% decrease in offense per game.

Not something that you want, but not devastating either.

princeton
08-04-2009, 08:35 PM
That the fault in your logic.


I think that it's the part that you least understand. you only get 27 outs to score, and if you just give enough of those away, then your scoring drops precipitously. similarly, if you consistently give the opposition 28 or 29 outs, they blast you. Reds give so many lineup spots away these days, and look at them. they can't score even while playing in a bandbox.

three outs per inning. somebody designed this game perfectly.

M2
08-04-2009, 09:37 PM
That the fault in your logic. A hole in your lineup only has a small effect on your ability to win games.

One batter represents 11% of the offense, say 12% if you don't count the pitcher. Let's give a worst case scenario, and have Rolen's replacement be half as productive as he would be. That's basically having a guy worse than Taveras's bat replace him.

Rolen, at best, would be productive around 40% of the time he bats. So he would be responsible for around 5% of the teams offense in each game. A player half as good, would be productive 20% of the time he bats, or be responsible for around 2.5% of the team's offense in each game.

So putting in a bat that is worse than Taveras' in to replace Rolen would result in around a 2.5% decrease in offense per game.

Not something that you want, but not devastating either.

And yet the guiding principle behind the Boston Red Sox's offense is that black holes in the lineup are to be abhorred and eliminated.

Cyclone792
08-04-2009, 09:41 PM
And yet the guiding principle behind the Boston Red Sox's offense is that black holes in the lineup are to be abhorred and eliminated.

Yep, and typically the guiding principles behind good and better teams is that black holes anywhere are to be abhorred and eliminated. Star players are nice, but the teams that really excel are the teams that just don't have any weaknesses to speak of.

And yet, the guiding principle of the Cincinnati Reds these last few seasons is to give as much playing time as possible to players who represent black holes.

Stormy
08-04-2009, 09:43 PM
And yet the guiding principle behind the Boston Red Sox's offense is that black holes in the lineup are to be abhorred and eliminated.

Dusty and Walt must have read that principle to state "adored and elevated."

TheNext44
08-04-2009, 10:35 PM
And yet the guiding principle behind the Boston Red Sox's offense is that black holes in the lineup are to be abhorred and eliminated.


Yep, and typically the guiding principles behind good and better teams is that black holes anywhere are to be abhorred and eliminated. Star players are nice, but the teams that really excel are the teams that just don't have any weaknesses to speak of.

And yet, the guiding principle of the Cincinnati Reds these last few seasons is to give as much playing time as possible to players who represent black holes.


First, that problem is solved in this case with a decent back up at 3B, which should cost the league minimum. If you really think that a back up 3B for Rolen is that important, then go and get one. Not hard to find a league average backup 3B at or near league minimum.

Second, the Red Sox have had plenty of black holes lately and have done quite well. Julio Lugo, Nick Green, Jason Varitek, CoCo Crisp, Julian Taveras, Alex Gonzalez, Mark Loretta, Pokey Reece. They are able to overcome them because they do have the big stars that every team needs.

This is true of every winning organization. They might have a few black holes, but they also have the stars.

Look at the winning organizations, teams that always seem to be in contention. The Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Mets, Cardinals, Dodgers, White Sox, Angels, Cubs, Brewers, even the Twins have their stars to overcome their black holes. Heck, the A's, which really started this theory, were at their best when they had Giambi, Tejada, Mulder, Zito, Hudson and Harden. Since they lost their stars, it's been near the basement for them.

I agree with that theory, but in reality, teams that win consistently, do so as much because they have the stars, then because they don't have the suck.

TheNext44
08-04-2009, 10:48 PM
I think that it's the part that you least understand. you only get 27 outs to score, and if you just give enough of those away, then your scoring drops precipitously. similarly, if you consistently give the opposition 28 or 29 outs, they blast you. Reds give so many lineup spots away these days, and look at them. they can't score even while playing in a bandbox.

three outs per inning. somebody designed this game perfectly.

I agree that the game is designed brilliantly, one of the reason why I love it.

But lets do the math using this concept of 27 outs.

Again, using the worst case scenario, where Rolen's replacement is half as good as he is offensively. And Rolen is productive in a whopping 40% of his PA's, and his replacement, 20%.

A player averages around 4.2 PA's per game played. That means that Rolen does something productive in 1.6 of his PA's per game, and his replacement in .8 of his PA's per game.

So with a player playing worse than Taveras in place of Rolen, he makes an out, or doesn't do something productive, .8 times more times per game than Rolen would. I just don't see how .8 of an out a game is so destructive.

And in reality, the difference between Rolen and his replacement would be something like 35% to 30%, which is .21 outs or non productive PA's a game. That leads to around 3-4 runs a season, less than half a win's worth.

Again, it's not something good, but something that a team can easily overcome, and definitely, not something to worry to much about.

Ltlabner
08-05-2009, 05:52 AM
Again, it's not something good, but something that a team can easily overcome, and definitely, not something to worry to much about.

So you're arguing that giving away outs is not something to worry about?

First, it's early and I don't have tons of time but I really need to wrap my head around your numbers. Mathematically they may be true, but I'm not sure the numbers you've show us relate to...well...anything. You are talking percentages of total PA's when percentages of total outs is far more important.

If you avoid the outs, the number of PA's a player gets per game increases (theoretically to infinity). So worry about the outs. Number of PA/game is flexible, number of outs is not.

Focusing on the outs, if you give up one you've just trashed 33% of the outs you have that inning. Also, avoiding outs has a cascading effect not unlike compound interest (which increases the statistical relevance of the individual at bat).

Ultimately, if you are arguing that giving away outs is no big deal, I don't think you're going to get very far.

jojo
08-05-2009, 08:13 AM
So you're arguing that giving away outs is not something to worry about?

First, it's early and I don't have tons of time but I really need to wrap my head around your numbers. Mathematically they may be true, but I'm not sure the numbers you've show us relate to...well...anything. You are talking percentages of total PA's when percentages of total outs is far more important.

If you avoid the outs, the number of PA's a player gets per game increases (theoretically to infinity). So worry about the outs. Number of PA/game is flexible, number of outs is not.

Focusing on the outs, if you give up one you've just trashed 33% of the outs you have that inning. Also, avoiding outs has a cascading effect not unlike compound interest (which increases the statistical relevance of the individual at bat).

Ultimately, if you are arguing that giving away outs is no big deal, I don't think you're going to get very far.

I think the argument is that focusing upon the 30% of patchwork production can lead to undervaluing the 70% of superior production.

Obviously the 30% is a problem if it's logged by a guy who can't hit or field and thus completely drags the position down but a talented FO shouldn't have a hard time finding a player that may not be average but certainly is better than replacement.

In 450 PAs worth of playing time, Rolen is projected to be a win better than EE's production over 600 PAs worth of playing time. A replacement level player would have 0 value (ie. neither add nor subtract a marginal win). Thus Rolen + replacement level player is still a win better than EE.

The Ms picked up Jack Hannahan for nothing and he gave them positive production over 65 PAs at third while Beltre was out. He's not a good hitter but his elite defense allowed him to make an impact and allowed the Ms to keep their head above water while waiting for Beltre. The Ms found a way to get better than replacement level out of their compromise and all it took was a quick phone call.

TheNext44
08-05-2009, 02:09 PM
So you're arguing that giving away outs is not something to worry about?

First, it's early and I don't have tons of time but I really need to wrap my head around your numbers. Mathematically they may be true, but I'm not sure the numbers you've show us relate to...well...anything. You are talking percentages of total PA's when percentages of total outs is far more important.

If you avoid the outs, the number of PA's a player gets per game increases (theoretically to infinity). So worry about the outs. Number of PA/game is flexible, number of outs is not.

Focusing on the outs, if you give up one you've just trashed 33% of the outs you have that inning. Also, avoiding outs has a cascading effect not unlike compound interest (which increases the statistical relevance of the individual at bat).

Ultimately, if you are arguing that giving away outs is no big deal, I don't think you're going to get very far.

First... what Jojo said.

Second, giving up outs it always worrisome. My point is about how worrisome.

If you replace Rolen with a true replacement level player, say Jerry Hairston, then you are giving up .2 outs a game. A league average player even less.

So in those 50 games you are giving up an out once every 5 games on average. That's 10 games where you are giving up on extra out. That's worth about 4 runs over those 50 games.

Again, not something you want, but not something that destroys the offense. That's my main point with these numbers.

And has Jojo pointed out, Rolen more than makes up for that during the other 110 games. In fact, on offense alone, Rolen should be worth around 20 more runs than a replacement player just during those 150 games. Throw in his defense, and it's closer to 30 runs.

princeton
08-05-2009, 02:19 PM
So in those 50 games you are giving up an out once every 5 games on average. That's 10 games where you are giving up on extra out. That's worth about 4 runs over those 50 games.

I think that it's a lot worse. I think that you're making things a lot easier on a particular pitcher; he basically gets to go easy for three more atbats, which is huge. pitching to an easy lineup makes an easy day for a pitcher.

I also suspect that scoring becomes much more variable from game to game when a lineup has a lot of easy outs. to win games at a reasonable rate, I think that you want dependable scoring, not variable scoring.