PDA

View Full Version : Okay to start worrying about Rolen's head injury?



Falls City Beer
08-08-2009, 06:15 PM
Wonder how the exquisite medical staff of this team will handle this--ehem--nagging issue?

Spring~Fields
08-08-2009, 06:22 PM
Wonder how the exquisite medical staff of this team will handle this--ehem--nagging issue?

I have lost confidence in that medical staff or the source of the medical reports. Seems like we get a watered down type report as if there is nothing serious to be concerned about with some players and then with a bit of time going by it comes out that it is a serious issue. Where's the credibility in the reporting?

HeatherC1212
08-08-2009, 06:31 PM
I'd rather them be extra cautious with Scott right now more than anything else because of how serious head injuries can be. I really hope he's all right. :(

Tom Servo
08-08-2009, 06:32 PM
This sucks. Stupid Jason Marquis.

wheels
08-08-2009, 06:33 PM
I'd rather them be extra cautious with Scott right now more than anything else because of how serious head injuries can be. I really hope he's all right. :(

That's for sure.

I smashed my head on the ice last winter and was even more off and goofy than I normally am for a month, at least.

They should shut him down.

mth123
08-08-2009, 07:05 PM
This is a perfect example of how the Reds took all the risk in this deal.

Its not Rolen's fault, but he may be out for an extended period for the rest of 2009 and the Reds needlessly gave up prospects to cover his salary for the rest of the year.

Could've waited until the offseason when much less contract money was needed and lesser prospects could have been involved.

Not saying that the Reds could have predicted this, but the risk giving up prospects to recoup money that really wasn't necessary was always there. Especially true when you consider that even if Rolen played at All Star level in August and Sept of 2009 that it would have made little difference.

The Reds could have acquired Rolen over the winter without giving up nearly as much as they gave.

Falls City Beer
08-08-2009, 07:17 PM
The Reds could have acquired Rolen over the winter without giving up nearly as much as they gave.

You have no way of knowing this.

mth123
08-08-2009, 07:20 PM
You have no way of knowing this.

You are right, but the money coming back to cover this year's salary was a big part of the package. With less money involved the return to Toronto should have been less. If not, then walk away. The whole problem with this deal is that Walt was not willing to walk away if the price got too high. He "gave in."

I(heart)Freel
08-08-2009, 08:37 PM
Don't under estimate how much the FO values Rolen's role as a clubhouse leader. The only way he's comfortable enough to lead (and have the other players look up to him) is with time.

If the rest of this pathetic season does nothing else, it should allow Rolen to get his "leadership" feet under him as a Red, so on day one of spring training next year he can just do it. Maybe that's why the Reds got him in here at this deadline instead of in the off season.

Having said that, he can totally sit during this injury and still lead and still gain the respect of his teammates. Again, it will be more needed next year. But by then he'll be primed for the role.

mth123
08-08-2009, 08:44 PM
Don't under estimate how much the FO values Rolen's role as a clubhouse leader. The only way he's comfortable enough to lead (and have the other players look up to him) is with time.

If the rest of this pathetic season does nothing else, it should allow Rolen to get his "leadership" feet under him as a Red, so on day one of spring training next year he can just do it. Maybe that's why the Reds got him in here at this deadline instead of in the off season.

Having said that, he can totally sit during this injury and still lead and still gain the respect of his teammates. Again, it will be more needed next year. But by then he'll be primed for the role.

I keep hearing this about leadership and maybe its true. I just don't know, but I have to wonder if its overstated. Why was he run out of Philly and why did Larussa banish him from St. Louis? The guy and his Hall of Fame manager openly held each other in contempt. Doesn't sound like a leader, but I really don't know the circumstances. Anybody have the scoop on Rolen's history in the area?

traderumor
08-08-2009, 08:52 PM
This is a perfect example of how the Reds took all the risk in this deal.

Its not Rolen's fault, but he may be out for an extended period for the rest of 2009 and the Reds needlessly gave up prospects to cover his salary for the rest of the year.

Could've waited until the offseason when much less contract money was needed and lesser prospects could have been involved.

Not saying that the Reds could have predicted this, but the risk giving up prospects to recoup money that really wasn't necessary was always there. Especially true when you consider that even if Rolen played at All Star level in August and Sept of 2009 that it would have made little difference.

The Reds could have acquired Rolen over the winter without giving up nearly as much as they gave.Well then, they better not sign anybody ever again because the opposing pitcher might bean him. :rolleyes: But then, I guess I see your point, since he wouldn't have been in Cincinnati on that day. Therefore, it is really WJ's and JP's fault that he got beaned.

mth123
08-08-2009, 09:03 PM
Well then, they better not sign anybody ever again because the opposing pitcher might bean him. :rolleyes:

Not the point at all and you know it.

The Reds gave up prospects to cover this year's salary. Now, there seems to be a call to be really cautious with him (and I agree BTW) because this year is toast. So if this year doesn't matter, why trade for him now when the Salary would need to be covered by throwing in more prospects to get him. There was no upside to acquiring Rolen in 2009. If the Reds wanted to upgrade from EdE in 2010 I would have been all for it, but by doing it now, they took on a salary differential that required the Reds give up talent to cover it. The Reds took all the risk. The Jays were going to pay Rolen anyway, but now they have the team's top pitching prospect for doing so while the Reds have a guy who really makes no difference to 2009. Not worth it.

Go get him in the winter when the 2009 salary differential is no longer an issue and added talent wouldn't have been required to get him. He wanted to come here. I have no way to know, but I'd bet he'd still be there for the Reds in the winter had WJ passed for now. If not, there are other guys that could have upgraded the spot without giving up Stewart. Like the Willy T signining before it, this was a move that gave up resources unnecessarily.

Kc61
08-08-2009, 11:06 PM
Not the point at all and you know it.

The Reds gave up prospects to cover this year's salary. Now, there seems to be a call to be really cautious with him (and I agree BTW) because this year is toast. So if this year doesn't matter, why trade for him now when the Salary would need to be covered by throwing in more prospects to get him. There was no upside to acquiring Rolen in 2009. If the Reds wanted to upgrade from EdE in 2010 I would have been all for it, but by doing it now, they took on a salary differential that required the Reds give up talent to cover it. The Reds took all the risk. The Jays were going to pay Rolen anyway, but now they have the team's top pitching prospect for doing so while the Reds have a guy who really makes no difference to 2009. Not worth it.

Go get him in the winter when the 2009 salary differential is no longer an issue and added talent wouldn't have been required to get him. He wanted to come here. I have no way to know, but I'd bet he'd still be there for the Reds in the winter had WJ passed for now. If not, there are other guys that could have upgraded the spot without giving up Stewart. Like the Willy T signining before it, this was a move that gave up resources unnecessarily.

Complete speculation. We don't know whether the Reds could have acquired Rolen next winter, whether Stewart would have been required, it's all speculative. Situations change. The Reds saw an available player they wanted and seized the moment.

And to say that the Reds took all the risk in the deal -- the Jays got two unproven pitchers and a third baseman who made 26 errors last year. I'd say the Reds return was pretty predictable, it's the Jays who took lots of risk, and paid millions to the Reds for the privilege.

Rolen got hit in the head in the line of duty. He'll probably be out for a week or ten days and back. He should be fine for next year.

And while I wasn't a huge advocate for this deal, I will say that Zach Stewart is being treated like Sandy Koufax on this board. Last off-season, BA didn't rate him in the Reds top ten. He a very good ground ball pitching prospect, which has value, but let's not exaggerate it. If the Reds sign their two top draft choices, he should be replaced.

mth123
08-08-2009, 11:27 PM
The Reds recieved Scott Rolen and Cash to cover his 2009 Salary. As a result, the Jays received back talent. Had cash for 09 not been involved, I have to think the talent required would have been less. So the Reds give up talent to acquire a guy and the money to pay him in a year that was already lost. Makes no sense.

As for Stewart, He's not Sandy Koufax. But for a team like the Reds to have a decent rotation, they have to fill spots from within. The team needs more guys like Stewart in order to increase the chance of having one actually make it. After this deal they have none. No one is of his caliber. Keep him or deal him for pitching. Dealing him for "salary relief" is about as unwise as signing Willy T for two years and handing him a job. In essence the team sold off its only real hope for upper rotation help in the upper minors for cash.

Will M
08-08-2009, 11:30 PM
what happened?

did he just have to sit out another game or is he going on the DL?

WVRedsFan
08-08-2009, 11:41 PM
what happened?

did he just have to sit out another game or is he going on the DL?

No news, at least that I know of. The folks opposed to what we gave up for Rolen will overreact. It somewaht reminds of when Junior would get injured. And that's not good.

WMR
08-08-2009, 11:45 PM
At least when we got Junior he was entering what should have been the prime of his career.

Rolen is in the twilight of his, more than likely

KoryMac5
08-08-2009, 11:47 PM
No news, at least that I know of. The folks opposed to what we gave up for Rolen will overreact. It somewaht reminds of when Junior would get injured. And that's not good.

Kinda calling the Kettle black aren't we Pot?

WVRedsFan
08-08-2009, 11:51 PM
Kinda calling the Kettle black aren't we Pot?

Of course it works both ways. I thought everyone knew that. It doesn't make it any more pleasant, though.

Kc61
08-09-2009, 12:50 AM
As for Stewart, He's not Sandy Koufax. But for a team like the Reds to have a decent rotation, they have to fill spots from within. The team needs more guys like Stewart in order to increase the chance of having one actually make it. After this deal they have none. No one is of his caliber. Keep him or deal him for pitching. Dealing him for "salary relief" is about as unwise as signing Willy T for two years and handing him a job. In essence the team sold off its only real hope for upper rotation help in the upper minors for cash.


The Reds have Cueto, Bailey, and Volquez after his recovery. They also have Travis Wood at AAA, who should be able to crack a major league rotation. That's four advanced young arms for the rotation. Mike Leake, a great college pitcher, will be joining them real soon. That's a number of advanced young starters who should be good.

I don't agree that young pitching is the complete answer. Veterans are important too. Guys who have experience and know how to play major league ball at all positions. The lesson of guys like Jay Bruce and Homer Bailey is that it can take years for even the best prospects to learn major league ball, experience is important. Some posters around here value and emphasize minor leaguers almost to the exclusion of experienced players.

And it's unclear that Stewart will even be a starter. In AA this year as a starter he did very well, but his strikeout rate as a starter was nothing special. He's dependent on ground balls and may be best suited to the pen. Again, we can speculate but we just don't know yet.

Ron Madden
08-09-2009, 02:19 AM
No news, at least that I know of. The folks opposed to what we gave up for Rolen will overreact. It somewaht reminds of when Junior would get injured. And that's not good.

I was opposed to the trade. Not only because of what we gave up to obtain Rolen but also because it could lead to guys like Adam Rosales getting too much playing time at 3B.

mth123
08-09-2009, 06:09 AM
The Reds have Cueto, Bailey, and Volquez after his recovery. They also have Travis Wood at AAA, who should be able to crack a major league rotation. That's four advanced young arms for the rotation. Mike Leake, a great college pitcher, will be joining them real soon. That's a number of advanced young starters who should be good.

I don't agree that young pitching is the complete answer. Veterans are important too. Guys who have experience and know how to play major league ball at all positions. The lesson of guys like Jay Bruce and Homer Bailey is that it can take years for even the best prospects to learn major league ball, experience is important. Some posters around here value and emphasize minor leaguers almost to the exclusion of experienced players.

And it's unclear that Stewart will even be a starter. In AA this year as a starter he did very well, but his strikeout rate as a starter was nothing special. He's dependent on ground balls and may be best suited to the pen. Again, we can speculate but we just don't know yet.

By 2011, when Stewart really should arrive as a starter, Cueto and Volquez would be the veterans. The Reds probably aren't getting any vets from outside the organization beyond the Fogg variety scrapheap arm any time soon unless they deal for them and they just dealt their best trading chip for a deal like that. The vets they have now are pricey and everyone wants to dump them. Some one has to pitch those innings. Wood is not of Stewart's caliber IMO and I don't know enough about Leake yet (hope he's the real deal). I still think you need all three of those guys and more to have enough depth to hope that one makes it. With Lotzkar, Thompson and Buck all becoming big question marks due to injury, the minor league rotation depth took a big hit in 2009. Dealing Stewart leaves the cupboard pretty bare when talking about guys who can be more than the shakey number 4 or typical number 5 guy. Those back end types are they types of vets this team can get on the market. They need to hoard the guys who have a possibility of being more than that. Its why I've always been against dealing Bailey. The Reds can always replace arms for the back end by spending a couple of million on free agents that aren't in high demand. To get the top of the rotation (or even a 2 or 3 type), the Reds don't have the bucks or the status to bring some one in, so they need to fill the pipeline with guys who could possibly be that. This organization emptied the pipeline instead.

As for Stewart's role, that's what's so valuable about him IMO. Stewart and Roenicke were the guys to take over in the pen for the pricey vets that are out there now. Another option available to the Reds was to call Stewart up in the pen in 2009 and let him get his feet wet. Let he and Roenicke take on roles of increasingly high pressure and go into the off-season with a plan to replace Cordero and Weathers with a back end committee of Masset, Stewart and Roenicke. Rhodes would still be around and Burton and Bray coming back would make the pen deep and cheap.

Not sure which way the Reds were leaning, but it seems that if the Reds were going to replace a pricey vet with a young cheap arm, Stewart was the top choice. That doesn't make him "Sandy Koufax," but he was easily the best choice to replace Harang or Arroyo if not in 2010 by 2011 and he, along with Roenicke, were the best bets to replace Cordero. If this team is going to improve, it needs to reallocate the cost of at least one (and probably 2) of those three contracts to other areas. It seems to me that the job is much harder without Stewart and Roenicke in the organization. Adding Rolen's money in the process just exacerbates the situation IMO.

GAC
08-09-2009, 07:16 AM
This sucks. Stupid Jason Marquis.

I bet you no one feels as bad right now then Marquis. Did you see his reaction on the mound after the incident? He was shaken. And their families are very close.

GAC
08-09-2009, 08:08 AM
This is a perfect example of how the Reds took all the risk in this deal.

Every player takes that risk when they step into the batter's box or out onto that field. So it really has nothing to do with the Reds taking all the risk in this deal. Nothing at all.

The guy suffered a concussion. That usually happens when one gets hit in the head with a pitch. He'll be OK. Just needs the time to recover from it, not rushed back like he was, and also be monitored by the med staff.

It's not like this team is going anywhere this year anyway.


Could've waited until the offseason when much less contract money was needed and lesser prospects could have been involved.....

The Reds could have acquired Rolen over the winter without giving up nearly as much as they gave.

I'm going to assume you were vehemently opposed to this trade? ;)

And that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I wasn't that keen on it either. But you're speaking more from assumption then fact.

Someone can correct me on this; but didn't we receive around 7M from the BJs in this deal? And when one also factors in EE and Hairston's salaries, the Reds didn't add payroll this year, and next year we're going to be paying Rolen around 7M?

And we can offset that by further getting rid of some of the other dregs on this roster at season's end. So is it as big a payroll "burden" as some of us have stated?

And you don't know if we could have gotten Rolen in the off-season without giving up as much as we have.

I'm glad EE is gone. And prospects are just that....prospects. Roenicke COULD become a closer, and Stewart COULD make it at some point in the rotation. Nothing certain there. There are no guarantees. I don't care what some may PROJECT.

It's like my Dad use to tell me..."Yeah, and IF a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt every time he hopped!"

Those two young arms -maybe not from a financial perspective - are just as much a risk and gamble.

Highlifeman21
08-09-2009, 08:16 AM
The Reds have Cueto, Bailey, and Volquez after his recovery. They also have Travis Wood at AAA, who should be able to crack a major league rotation. That's four advanced young arms for the rotation. Mike Leake, a great college pitcher, will be joining them real soon. That's a number of advanced young starters who should be good.

I don't agree that young pitching is the complete answer. Veterans are important too. Guys who have experience and know how to play major league ball at all positions. The lesson of guys like Jay Bruce and Homer Bailey is that it can take years for even the best prospects to learn major league ball, experience is important. Some posters around here value and emphasize minor leaguers almost to the exclusion of experienced players.

And it's unclear that Stewart will even be a starter. In AA this year as a starter he did very well, but his strikeout rate as a starter was nothing special. He's dependent on ground balls and may be best suited to the pen. Again, we can speculate but we just don't know yet.

What is clear, however, is that Stewart's going to win a Cy Young.

ochre
08-09-2009, 08:29 AM
.

I smashed my head on the ice last winter and was even more off and goofy than I normally am for a month, at least.


unpossible.



:)

mth123
08-09-2009, 09:00 AM
Every player takes that risk when they step into the batter's box or out onto that field. So it really has nothing to do with the Reds taking all the risk in this deal. Nothing at all.

The guy suffered a concussion. That usually happens when one gets hit in the head with a pitch. He'll be OK. Just needs the time to recover from it, not rushed back like he was, and also be monitored by the med staff.

It's not like this team is going anywhere this year anyway.



I'm going to assume you were vehemently opposed to this trade? ;)

And that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I wasn't that keen on it either. But you're speaking more from assumption then fact.

Someone can correct me on this; but didn't we receive around 7M from the BJs in this deal? And when one also factors in EE and Hairston's salaries, the Reds didn't add payroll this year, and next year we're going to be paying Rolen around 7M?

And we can offset that by further getting rid of some of the other dregs on this roster at season's end. So is it as big a payroll "burden" as some of us have stated?

And you don't know if we could have gotten Rolen in the off-season without giving up as much as we have.

I'm glad EE is gone. And prospects are just that....prospects. Roenicke COULD become a closer, and Stewart COULD make it at some point in the rotation. Nothing certain there. There are no guarantees. I don't care what some may PROJECT.

It's like my Dad use to tell me..."Yeah, and IF a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt every time he hopped!"

Those two young arms -maybe not from a financial perspective - are just as much a risk and gamble.

I think the $7 Million reports were unconfirmed. Other reports say that the Reds got Rolen's money for this year and are on the hook for 2010. I haven't seen anything definitive so who really knows?

I hated the trade and still hate the trade. As much as I'm bashing, I like Rolen very much and there is no doubt that he's a big upgrade from EdE (as long as he stays on the field). Just doing it now made the cost excessive IMO. Stewart and Roenicke with some other option at 3B (Adrian Beltre??) in 2010 would have made for a better 2010 than Rolen alone IMO. That assumes if the Reds didn't get Rolen now that they couldn't after the season. Again, he requested a a deal to Cincy. I think he could have been had after the season. If I were Walt, I'd have called JP's bluff rather than "giving in" with my best pitching prospect.

In your post you say "its not like this team is going anywhere this year anyway" and that is entirely my point. If the Reds just got money for 2009, it simply means the Reds dealt prospects to get the money to upgrade from EdE to Rolen for the rest of 2009. That seems to be something that will make no difference to this team, but they sold off a prospect or two to make it happen. Why do that? That is taking on all the risk. He could have stayed on the Jays through the end of the year and the Reds could have still finished 5th or 6th. The Jays are out the same money that they would have been anyway and likely to finish in the same spot in the standings as they would have, but now they have the Reds top pitching prospect to show for it. The Reds gave the Jays a gift IMO. The Jays weren't going to have Rolen in 2010 anyway. He asked out. St. Louis isn't an option, the Cubs have Ramirez and the White Sox have Beckham. He wanted in an area near his southern Indiana stomping ground and it was Cincy or nowhere IMO.

HokieRed
08-09-2009, 09:46 AM
It continues to amaze me that people believe the "giving in" remark. Second, Rolen wanted to come to Cinti; there's no evidence that a free agent Beltre would. Third, we got something besides Rolen in this trade; we moved a player without a position and a reasonably heavy contract of his own. Fourth, while I like Stewart, too, the projections about him as a starter are based on the smallest of sample sizes. They are, IMO, about as close to meaningless as it's possible to be. Fifth, having Scott Rolen rather than EE at 3b makes it, again IMHO, significantly more likely that we could bring a decent free agent starter to Cinti, especially one specializing in ground outs. So if you want to build cases based on what the FO should have known if it could know the unknowable, we might just as well say that the potential starter we lost will be compensated for by one that we will now be able to bring in b/c we have Scott Rolen and not the worst third baseman in the game.

Marc D
08-09-2009, 10:36 AM
I agree with mth123 100%, Walt over paid.

Pointing out prospects failure rates is a straw man argument. They are already factored into the market price for prospects which happens to be at an all time high. Its about the current market value of the assets that changed hands in a deal. MLB ready bullpen arms and top 50 pitching prospects have high value right now with the possibility of a complete flame out by both already factored in.

The Reds did indeed take on more risk (aging, injury prone players salary) and lowered the rate of return they were demanding for incurring the risk by giving away prospects. Taking higher risks for lower returns is never a good thing.

Toronto did not take on more risk for a lower return. They lowered their exposure from a payroll point of view and add two prospects to the asset side of the balance sheet. They can now be held on to or repackaged in a trade for something else the Jays see value in. Having trading chips is always a good thing.

Bottom line is they trimmed payroll and added assets. The Reds increased payroll and decreased assets. Before anyone says it, no I don't consider Rolen at this stage in his career added to this particular team much of an asset. Not a knock on Rolen but just a commentary on how far away this team is form being a legit contender.

lollipopcurve
08-09-2009, 10:44 AM
So long as Rolen is healthy, he is most definitely an asset.

kpresidente
08-09-2009, 10:57 AM
Look at the potential payroll flex that's lost by acquiring Rolen and giving up the two pitchers.

In the a best-case scenario, Stewart replaces one of Harang/Arroyo, saving roughly $11 mil/year. Roenicke replaces Cordero, saving $12 mil/year. $23 mil/year total. Say we're paying $7 mil for Rolen next year, saving $3 mil over EE. That's freaking $26 million in payroll flex we lost just to upgrade the defense at 3B!

In the worst-case scenario, Stewart never materializes as a starter and is relegated to the pen, and Roenicke bombs (highly unlikely, IMO). Still then, Stewart could replace Cordero and save the $12 mil/year. Tack on the extra $3 mil from Rolen and the defensive upgrade costs $15 mil.

The bottom line ends up being we paid somewhere between $15 and $26 million to upgrade the defense at 3B for one year. What does that defense gain you, one win?

Now, somebody might argue that both Stewart and Roenicke could bomb, even in the pen, but thats a stretch just to justify the trade. Besides, I could argue that Stewart ends up being a better starter than either Harang or Arroyo, making the best-case even better and the trade even worse.

Marc D
08-09-2009, 11:05 AM
So long as Rolen is healthy, he is most definitely an asset.

He's a high risk low return investment.

Best case is he adds 2-3 wins next year to a team that is a lot more than 2-3 wins away from contending for anything.

Worst case is he is frequently injured and delivers no extra wins. That means he cost them cash and prospects for nothing.

High risk, low return investment.

TheNext44
08-09-2009, 11:12 AM
Look at the potential payroll flex that's lost by acquiring Rolen and giving up the two pitchers.

In the a best-case scenario, Stewart replaces one of Harang/Arroyo, saving roughly $11 mil/year. Roenicke replaces Cordero, saving $12 mil/year. $23 mil/year total. Say we're paying $7 mil for Rolen next year, saving $3 mil over EE. That's freaking $26 million in payroll flex we lost just to upgrade the defense at 3B!

In the worst-case scenario, Stewart never materializes as a starter and is relegated to the pen, and Roenicke bombs (highly unlikely, IMO). Still then, Stewart could replace Cordero and save the $12 mil/year. Tack on the extra $3 mil from Rolen and the defensive upgrade costs $15 mil.

The bottom line ends up being we paid somewhere between $15 and $26 million to upgrade the defense at 3B for one year. What does that defense gain you, one win?

Now, somebody might argue that both Stewart and Roenicke could bomb, even in the pen, but thats a stretch just to justify the trade. Besides, I could argue that Stewart ends up being a better starter than either Harang or Arroyo, making the best-case even better and the trade even worse.

One problem with that thinking is that Stewart would not be a starter until 2011 at the earliest. He needs a full year of extending his innings and building up arm strength. By that time, Arroyo and Harang most likely will be gone anyway.

Another problem is that it assumes that the Reds could trade Arroyo, Harang and Cordero without having to pick up any of their salaries. That is highly doubtful.
The biggest problem is that it assumes that Stewart and Roenicke were the only Reds prospects, and they have no other options to replace Arroyo, Harang, and Cordero. Even if Stewart and Roenicke were the best options, they clearly were not the only options. The Reds can still replace any of the big three and save the money.

lollipopcurve
08-09-2009, 11:44 AM
High risk, low return investment.

The production he offers at 3B, offensively and defensively, is most definitely not low return. You're talking .280-.300, .350+ OBP, 20+ HR, 80-100 RBI in a decent lineup, plus very good defense. Not low return.

The injury risk is important, for sure. But he's only signed for 1 more year, so the risk is not particularly high.

Roenicke and Stewart are good arms -- tough to lose. But they're bullpenners (that's how I see Stewart long-term), not middle-of-the-order infielders. Big difference.

jojo
08-09-2009, 11:44 AM
Look at the potential payroll flex that's lost by acquiring Rolen and giving up the two pitchers.

In the a best-case scenario, Stewart replaces one of Harang/Arroyo, saving roughly $11 mil/year. Roenicke replaces Cordero, saving $12 mil/year. $23 mil/year total. Say we're paying $7 mil for Rolen next year, saving $3 mil over EE. That's freaking $26 million in payroll flex we lost just to upgrade the defense at 3B!

In the worst-case scenario, Stewart never materializes as a starter and is relegated to the pen, and Roenicke bombs (highly unlikely, IMO). Still then, Stewart could replace Cordero and save the $12 mil/year. Tack on the extra $3 mil from Rolen and the defensive upgrade costs $15 mil.

The bottom line ends up being we paid somewhere between $15 and $26 million to upgrade the defense at 3B for one year. What does that defense gain you, one win?

Now, somebody might argue that both Stewart and Roenicke could bomb, even in the pen, but thats a stretch just to justify the trade. Besides, I could argue that Stewart ends up being a better starter than either Harang or Arroyo, making the best-case even better and the trade even worse.

I think it's a stretch to morph best case scenarios into a firm $23M

Stewart is an interesting arm. That said, it's hyperbole to suggest he's an extremely hard arm to replace.

The Ms turned a mediocre minor league Putz into an elite closer and then replaced him with Aardsma giving up basically not alot for that muffler.

The Reds braintrust isn't de facto bad at the job for giving up Roenicke/Stewart. They're bad at the job if they can't figure out a cost effective way to replace them....

Marc D
08-09-2009, 12:29 PM
The production he offers at 3B, offensively and defensively, is most definitely not low return. You're talking .280-.300, .350+ OBP, 20+ HR, 80-100 RBI in a decent lineup, plus very good defense. Not low return.

The injury risk is important, for sure. But he's only signed for 1 more year, so the risk is not particularly high.

Roenicke and Stewart are good arms -- tough to lose. But they're bullpenners (that's how I see Stewart long-term), not middle-of-the-order infielders. Big difference.


You are better with the more advanced stats than I am but from the projections I have seen on the board so far Rolen is a 20-30 run improvement over EE (offense and defense combined) which I believed to equate to 2-3 wins for the team.

If I am off on that then I apologize and look forward to learning more about it but if that's pretty accurate then the potential downside far outweighs the potential benefit of 2-3 wins.

kaldaniels
08-09-2009, 01:23 PM
While I respect the opinons of those against the Rolen deal, using this incident to somehow build your case is a bit of a stretch.

RANDY IN INDY
08-09-2009, 03:53 PM
Stewart is an interesting arm. That said, it's hyperbole to suggest he's an extremely hard arm to replace.

Totally agree with that one.

dougdirt
08-09-2009, 03:59 PM
Stewart is an interesting arm. That said, it's hyperbole to suggest he's an extremely hard arm to replace.


I don't know jojo, where are the Reds going to find a replacement for a 92-96 MPH sinker, a plus slider and an average change up? It certainly isn't coming from their system. It didn't come from the 2009 draft unless Boxberger adds some velocity to his fastball and dramatically increases his groundball rate. And they still have to sign him too.

I think its a bit of a stretch to suggest its not difficult to replace a Top 75 prospect pitcher that was in AAA at the time of the trade.

Brutus
08-09-2009, 04:19 PM
I don't know jojo, where are the Reds going to find a replacement for a 92-96 MPH sinker, a plus slider and an average change up? It certainly isn't coming from their system. It didn't come from the 2009 draft unless Boxberger adds some velocity to his fastball and dramatically increases his groundball rate. And they still have to sign him too.

I think its a bit of a stretch to suggest its not difficult to replace a Top 75 prospect pitcher that was in AAA at the time of the trade.

Considering the success rate for prospects ranked 25-75 is probably 33% at best, I would say actually the odds are in any team's favor to replace such a prospect. Maybe not the tools that Stewart has, but clearly there's something replaceable about him or he'd not be widely thought of as a great, but not elite prospect.

dougdirt
08-09-2009, 04:24 PM
Considering the success rate for prospects ranked 25-75 is probably 33% at best, I would say actually the odds are in any team's favor to replace such a prospect. Maybe not the tools that Stewart has, but clearly there's something replaceable about him or he'd not be widely thought of as a great, but not elite prospect.
Sure, they will eventually replace him, but it won't be now and the value of whoever it is won't be as high as that of Stewart for at least another year, if they can indeed replace his value that quickly. Toss in the fact that he likely could have helped the Reds for just about all of 2010 in some fashion (Joba like scenario or straight from the bullpen) and its even tougher to replace that.

Brutus
08-09-2009, 04:33 PM
Sure, they will eventually replace him, but it won't be now and the value of whoever it is won't be as high as that of Stewart for at least another year, if they can indeed replace his value that quickly. Toss in the fact that he likely could have helped the Reds for just about all of 2010 in some fashion (Joba like scenario or straight from the bullpen) and its even tougher to replace that.

But the thing is, there's no value to even replace right now. He's not pitched a single inning in the major leagues, and while his numbers were incredible this season, we don't know if that would have even carried over. That he might have helped the Reds in 2010 is not much of a consideration. Heck, there are a lot of prospects that have incredible numbers in AAA from year to year that could theoretically help a team, but the minute they're called on to do so, they don't.

I like Stewart as a prospect. But even as early as April, no one was saying much good of anything about this kid. There were still many disappointed the Reds used such a high pick on him, ala Ryan Wagner. He has great stuff. But unless he goes out next season and is a top-2 or 3 starter for Toronto, or takes over the closer's job as one of the league's dominating relievers, I'm not going to lose sleep over what he might or might not have done.

I don't disagree with you on Stewart's stuff or his talent. But the odds are too low that he would have actually helped the Reds, given the history of guys ranked as he is, for me to worry about it.

mth123
08-09-2009, 04:58 PM
But the thing is, there's no value to even replace right now. He's not pitched a single inning in the major leagues, and while his numbers were incredible this season, we don't know if that would have even carried over. That he might have helped the Reds in 2010 is not much of a consideration. Heck, there are a lot of prospects that have incredible numbers in AAA from year to year that could theoretically help a team, but the minute they're called on to do so, they don't.

I like Stewart as a prospect. But even as early as April, no one was saying much good of anything about this kid. There were still many disappointed the Reds used such a high pick on him, ala Ryan Wagner. He has great stuff. But unless he goes out next season and is a top-2 or 3 starter for Toronto, or takes over the closer's job as one of the league's dominating relievers, I'm not going to lose sleep over what he might or might not have done.

I don't disagree with you on Stewart's stuff or his talent. But the odds are too low that he would have actually helped the Reds, given the history of guys ranked as he is, for me to worry about it.


No value to replace?! How many people are telling us that Rolen is a Hall of Famer? The Jays just traded said HOF for Stewart. That's value isn't it?

Maybe that value should have been used in a deal for Cliff Lee instead. The Reds need pitching for the major league team. They won't sign any free agent that is an improvement on what they already have. They either need to get it from the minors or deal for it. Stewart seemed to be the most likely guy to make either of those things happen.

The position players could have been upgraded without trading the team's top pitching prospect, but the team won't get a good starter in a deal without a top 100 pitching prospect to send back IMO. A package of Stubbs, Valaika and Maloney won't do that. It would allow them to get a contract that adds money and talent for a position player though. I don't even think Alonso could be the centerpiece in a deal for a good major league starter. That takes a top pitching prospect in the package to pull off. Now the Reds don't have one.

Brutus
08-09-2009, 05:14 PM
No value to replace?! How many people are telling us that Rolen is a Hall of Famer? The Jays just traded said HOF for Stewart. That's value isn't it?

Maybe that value should have been used in a deal for Cliff Lee instead. The Reds need pitching for the major league team. They won't sign any free agent that is an improvement on what they already have. They either need to get it from the minors or deal for it. Stewart seemed to be the most likely guy to make either of those things happen.

The position players could have been upgraded without trading the team's top pitching prospect, but the team won't get a good starter in a deal without a top 100 pitching prospect to send back IMO. A package of Stubbs, Valaika and Maloney won't do that. It would allow them to get a contract that adds money and talent for a position player though. I don't even think Alonso could be the centerpiece in a deal for a good major league starter. That takes a top pitching prospect in the package to pull off. Now the Reds don't have one.

Actually, they traded a HOF for a capable replacement for cheaper at the same position, a middle reliever and Stewart. Take out any one of the three and it doesn't get done. So therefore, it's not like Stewart's "value" was enough to get the deal done by himself. It took three players to equal the Jays' version of equitable value.

Prospects come and they go. It's certainly nice to have them, especially if you're a small market club who has to home-grow talent to stay competitive, but the Reds are no longer without prospects, at least relative to what we've seen in the past. And if Leake gets signed, that's another step in the right direction.

It is a fact that prospects flame out a lot more than they succeed. You run a 66 percent chance at doing OK by trading a prospect for a proven commodity. You run a 66 percent chance of failure if you hold on to that prospect and find out that not only did it not help you, but you also lost out on whatever opportunity you had to immediately improve your club. Financial considerations aside, Rolen has proven he can help the Reds immediately. Stewart has done no such thing. For a organization that has made so many poor decisions the past several years, I would rather start minimizing my risk and acquire players with a proven track record than hold onto guys that have none.

Rolen's age, injury proneness, salary, etc. are all legitimate issues for expectations of return. But even knowing Stewart has pretty good credentials for a prospect, I sleep at night knowing that he is just that - a prospect.

mth123
08-09-2009, 05:29 PM
Actually, they traded a HOF for a capable replacement for cheaper at the same position, a middle reliever and Stewart. Take out any one of the three and it doesn't get done. So therefore, it's not like Stewart's "value" was enough to get the deal done by himself. It took three players to equal the Jays' version of equitable value.

Prospects come and they go. It's certainly nice to have them, especially if you're a small market club who has to home-grow talent to stay competitive, but the Reds are no longer without prospects, at least relative to what we've seen in the past. And if Leake gets signed, that's another step in the right direction.

It is a fact that prospects flame out a lot more than they succeed. You run a 66 percent chance at doing OK by trading a prospect for a proven commodity. You run a 66 percent chance of failure if you hold on to that prospect and find out that not only did it not help you, but you also lost out on whatever opportunity you had to immediately improve your club. Financial considerations aside, Rolen has proven he can help the Reds immediately. Stewart has done no such thing. For a organization that has made so many poor decisions the past several years, I would rather start minimizing my risk and acquire players with a proven track record than hold onto guys that have none.

Rolen's age, injury proneness, salary, etc. are all legitimate issues for expectations of return. But even knowing Stewart has pretty good credentials for a prospect, I sleep at night knowing that he is just that - a prospect.

OK. I'd love to have proven guys too. Now the 5 they have account for the entire budget so the other 20 guys will be retreads and non-prospects because the prospects are traded for the few good players.

Maybe if the Reds owned the park, the network and had a 30 Million people metro area for advertisers to line-up for they could get all proven guys, until then, they need some cheap ones. Dealing the top prospects for a few proven players could work, but that leaves the cheap ones as more second rate guys like Lincoln, Taveras and Hairston who really aren't so cheap.

Brutus
08-09-2009, 05:42 PM
OK. I'd love to have proven guys too. Now the 5 they have account for the entire budget so the other 20 guys will be retreads and non-prospects because the prospects are traded for the few good players.

Maybe if the Reds owned the park, the network and had a 30 Million people metro area for advertisers to line-up for they could get all proven guys, until then, they need some cheap ones. Dealing the top prospects for a few proven players could work, but that leaves the cheap ones as more second rate guys like Lincoln, Taveras and Hairston who really aren't so cheap.

They just shed a few million today. If they can unload Arroyo or Harang or Cordero (or a mix), there's double-digit savings. The reason they have been stuck with retreads at so many positions is because the payroll they do have has been so lopsided in favor of a few players (as you mentioned). But it would look a lot less dire if they could shed a few of those contracts and distribute talent and value around the roster more evenly. It's too early to say that's not possible.

mth123
08-09-2009, 06:00 PM
They just shed a few million today. If they can unload Arroyo or Harang or Cordero (or a mix), there's double-digit savings. The reason they have been stuck with retreads at so many positions is because the payroll they do have has been so lopsided in favor of a few players (as you mentioned). But it would look a lot less dire if they could shed a few of those contracts and distribute talent and value around the roster more evenly. It's too early to say that's not possible.

I agree with everything you just said. Where we disagree:

1. Rolen adds another of those double digit contracts.
2. The most logical cheap replacements for Harang, Arroyo and Cordero were dealt away in the trade to get him.

Makes it hard to trim when your adding $ and removing the depth that could backfill.

TheNext44
08-09-2009, 06:09 PM
Sure, they will eventually replace him, but it won't be now and the value of whoever it is won't be as high as that of Stewart for at least another year, if they can indeed replace his value that quickly. Toss in the fact that he likely could have helped the Reds for just about all of 2010 in some fashion (Joba like scenario or straight from the bullpen) and its even tougher to replace that.

I liked the trade, but I agree with you on this.

I have stated before that if the Reds wanted to fill any holes, they would have to create another. There simply is not enough depth in the organization right now to do anything else.

Stewart, a top pitching prospect at least one full season away from helping, can be replaced. Stewart, a pitcher with his stuff and makeup, can not be replaced.

But something like Stewart was needed to be lost in order to fill a hole, and Rolen definitely filled a hole, both as a major league 3B, and as a veteran RH power bat for the middle of the lineup. Still, it hurt to lose Stewart.

Brutus
08-09-2009, 06:12 PM
I agree with everything you just said. Where we disagree:

1. Rolen adds another of those double digit contracts.
2. The most logical cheap replacements for Harang, Arroyo and Cordero were dealt away in the trade to get him.

Makes it hard to trim when your adding $ and removing the depth that could backfill.

And I understand that frustration.

As far as No. 1 is concerned, I don't consider Rolen a double-digit contract if it's true the Reds received $7 mil in salary. That brings Rolen to within $2-3 mil what they would have already been paying Edwin next season. So from that standpoint, they didn't create too much inflexibility but still upgraded the position.

No. 2 is, I think, I definite concern. However, I'm just not convinced Stewart was going to be in the Reds plans next season. He's only had, what, 14 games started in his minor league career? It's way too premature to pencil in a guy as a replacement with all of 14 starts. Even if we assume that the Reds did indeed see him as a starter, and his move to the bullpen was not for some unnamed ulterior reasons, if he's still only 14 starts deep and is not ready to have a full season of innings, then he's hardly a guy I would want being in the 2010 rotation. Sounds to me like he needs another full year of seasoning to build up his stamina.

Roenicke is a nice option, but I actually think the Reds' pen will be fine. I like Fisher a lot. I like Masset. I still think Pedro Viola could be a decent option out of Louisville. Danny Herrera has pitched pretty well this year as a whole. And there's still the outside chance Jared Burton could resurrect himself and be a solid reliever. So it seems to me like the Reds didn't really handicap themselves too much for next year.

Beyond? Obviously we won't know the answer to that question for a while.

Kc61
08-09-2009, 06:13 PM
I find these threads maddening. I know much of it is truth and I respect the posters. But so many posts operate on the assumption that the Cincinnati Reds cannot afford to have good veteran players. They can't afford them and obtaining veterans is always considered the wrong plan.

Ownership has successfully convinced the fan base that the team just can't compete for good major league players. It seems like it's always good to go young, always good to keep prospects. All prospects are hopeful and great, all veterans are a waste. The team is always three or four years away.

Castellini now has a chance to show that this is wrong. He acquired Rolen who still should be a very productive player next year. Let's see if he goes out and gets another very good veteran position player and another very good veteran pitcher. And maybe promote or deal for a good kid at a key position. And see what happens.

I'm just a little tired of reading about the franchise's limitations and the need for them to rebuild with youth perpetually.

HokieRed
08-09-2009, 06:53 PM
One thing about prospects, KC, is that they're always good. When your ML team's really bad, they give you something to focus on--and they're always good, because they haven't played yet. So it's hard to give them up for the possibility of being actually good now or in the near future. It takes a lot of guts for a GM to turn the certainty of greatness in prospects (certain because not tested) into the actual greatness of players now, like Scott Rolen. I find the threads maddening, too, but primarily because, on the trade in question, Rolen is undervalued. He's not just a good third baseman; he's one of the 20 best who have ever played and we got him for a guy who can't play the position. It's a realist's trade and even if it turns out badly I'm glad WJ made it.

Marc D
08-09-2009, 07:33 PM
I find these threads maddening. I know much of it is truth and I respect the posters. But so many posts operate on the assumption that the Cincinnati Reds cannot afford to have good veteran players. They can't afford them and obtaining veterans is always considered the wrong plan.

Ownership has successfully convinced the fan base that the team just can't compete for good major league players. It seems like it's always good to go young, always good to keep prospects. All prospects are hopeful and great, all veterans are a waste. The team is always three or four years away.

Castellini now has a chance to show that this is wrong. He acquired Rolen who still should be a very productive player next year. Let's see if he goes out and gets another very good veteran position player and another very good veteran pitcher. And maybe promote or deal for a good kid at a key position. And see what happens.

I'm just a little tired of reading about the franchise's limitations and the need for them to rebuild with youth perpetually.

Do you think it could possibly be because the Reds have gone out and signed plenty of veterans over the years and we've seen exactly where that gets us?

You pay more for vets because you are paying for past performance that you get to reap no benefit from. I keep seeing Rolen's spot in history brought up but how does that help us? Do we get extra runs or wins for what he's done up to this point in his career?

That feeling of always being 4-5 years away isn't brainwashing, its truth brought on by years upon years of poor decisions by poor management. A lot of those poor decisions involving nonsensical trades/signing of veteran players.

If the newer rumors of the money essentially being a wash are true then I feel less bad about this trade but I still think Walt overpaid considering the going price of prospects, Rolens age/injury history and the Reds current chances of being decent anytime soon.

If this is the first move of many that remakes the franchise then great but right now taken on its own account I don't see what good it does.

Spring~Fields
08-09-2009, 07:35 PM
by JohnFay at 8/9/2009 7:00 PM EDT on Cincinnati.com

Scott Rolen was re-evaluated by Dr. John Brannan in Cincinnati.

"Brannan said that as long as Scott has the symptoms -- headaches, lack of focus -- that he be kept out of any physical activitiy," Reds trainer Mark Mann said.

Rolen will meet the team in St. Louis. The Reds will put him through tests with "IMPACT" software that measures concussion symptoms.

"He'll be retested again tomorrow," Mann said. "We'll go forward as far as the test results. But we're still looking at a few days without physical acitivity."

Rolen will be re-evaluated again on Thursday by Brannan when the Reds return from St. Louis.

jojo
08-09-2009, 07:42 PM
I don't know jojo, where are the Reds going to find a replacement for a 92-96 MPH sinker, a plus slider and an average change up? It certainly isn't coming from their system. It didn't come from the 2009 draft unless Boxberger adds some velocity to his fastball and dramatically increases his groundball rate. And they still have to sign him too.

I think its a bit of a stretch to suggest its not difficult to replace a Top 75 prospect pitcher that was in AAA at the time of the trade.

The Ms traded Fabian Williamson for a high leverage reliever making league minimum.

It's easy to fall in love with a set of tools-especially when they're wearing our colors- but its also important to keep one's eyes on the prize (i.e. the ultimate likely role, how hard it is to fill that role, and the actual chance of making it out of the egg, down the hill, across the beach, past the sharks in the water and into the East Australian Current).

Ron Madden
08-09-2009, 07:49 PM
While I respect the opinons of those against the Rolen deal, using this incident to somehow build your case is a bit of a stretch.

I don't think anyone is using this incident to support their argument against the trade. Just going by his age and history of injuries.

Brutus
08-09-2009, 08:28 PM
I don't think anyone is using this incident to support their argument against the trade. Just going by his age and history of injuries.

That's understandable. But I don't care who you are, you get hit in the head by a baseball coming at you 90+ MPH and you have a real chance to sustain injury regardless of your history. If this were a back injury, or a cramp or some other injury not relating to his history, I could understand it. But this has nothing to do with one's proneness to injury. This is something that could hurt even the most durable of players.

Ron Madden
08-09-2009, 08:32 PM
That's understandable. But I don't care who you are, you get hit in the head by a baseball coming at you 90+ MPH and you have a real chance to sustain injury regardless of your history. If this were a back injury, or a cramp or some other injury not relating to his history, I could understand it. But this has nothing to do with one's proneness to injury. This is something that could hurt even the most durable of players.

I'm not talkin about this incident.

Brutus
08-09-2009, 08:34 PM
I'm not talkin about this incident.

I know you aren't. But kal was responding to a few that brought it up. His point was that it's not fair to use this particular injury in the discussion, as it's one of a freak variety and would debilitate many, many people.

Will M
08-09-2009, 10:13 PM
by JohnFay at 8/9/2009 7:00 PM EDT on Cincinnati.com

Scott Rolen was re-evaluated by Dr. John Brannan in Cincinnati.

"Brannan said that as long as Scott has the symptoms -- headaches, lack of focus -- that he be kept out of any physical activitiy," Reds trainer Mark Mann said.

Rolen will meet the team in St. Louis. The Reds will put him through tests with "IMPACT" software that measures concussion symptoms.

"He'll be retested again tomorrow," Mann said. "We'll go forward as far as the test results. But we're still looking at a few days without physical acitivity."

Rolen will be re-evaluated again on Thursday by Brannan when the Reds return from St. Louis.

sounds like Rolen has classic post concussion symptoms. the treatment for this is rest, rest, rest followed by more rest. the IMPACT software is an objective tool to help doctors determine when athletes can play again. you can't trust athletes because they all say they are ok and want to rush back into playing too soon.

I know Dr John Brannan professionally. Scott is in excellent hands.

Spring~Fields
08-09-2009, 10:20 PM
sounds like Rolen has classic post concussion symptoms. the treatment for this is rest, rest, rest followed by more rest. the IMPACT software is an objective tool to help doctors determine when athletes can play again. you can't trust athletes because they all say they are ok and want to rush back into playing too soon.

I know Dr John Brannan professionally. Scott is in excellent hands.

You're more informative than they are. Thank You. I should say more than Fay, I don't want anyone reading into that, that I meant that they were not informative in this thread.

again thank you.

flyer85
08-09-2009, 10:28 PM
they ought to just put him on the DL. The season is toast, this is serious stuff

Spring~Fields
08-09-2009, 10:31 PM
they ought to just put him on the DL. The season is toast, this is serious stuff

I was wondering about that myself. Why do they want to risk 1. A human being, 2. 10-11 million dollars. over a game. I wouldn't do it.

corkedbat
08-09-2009, 10:32 PM
they ought to just put him on the DL. The season is toast, this is serious stuff

If they'd have waited until the offseason, this wouldn't be our problem.

Brutus
08-09-2009, 11:01 PM
they ought to just put him on the DL. The season is toast, this is serious stuff

Technically, they first have to have a diagnosis from a doctor to suggest this is something to put him on the DL over. Since the original diagnosis said there was no concussion, they would not have had the grounds to submit the medical paperwork that would have been necessary. Now I'm sure there are all sorts of ways around that, but although I'm sure there would be no such worry of it in this case, the MLBPA has won grievances over disabling a player without technical medical cause.

I agree that they should put him on the DL. But there probably is a procedure they have to follow before they can (or should). I surmise the results of this next step will dictate that.

Brutus
08-09-2009, 11:03 PM
If they'd have waited until the offseason, this wouldn't be our problem.

It's a freak accident. It happens.

Actually, had he not been traded, Jason Marquis would not have been playing against him and he would not have been anyone's "problem." But such is life.

corkedbat
08-09-2009, 11:58 PM
Oh, I agree that this incident isn't one that you can blame the Reds for not foreseeing, unlike back going out (I'm definitely screaming when that happens). My point was, there was no good reason to rush this deal, it would have been there in the offseason (when we could have gotten a better deal) and not taken on the extra two months or salary and injury risk.

Chances are Rolen sees his fair share of time on the DL over his next three or four years as a Red, this was just a "bonus" stint.