PDA

View Full Version : Fay: "We're about to see the Rolen Effect"



TheNext44
08-22-2009, 04:05 PM
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=blog07&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae57bcc87-152a-4f72-96fb-cc08b1f396efPost%3acbbd9aa8-e3d1-47c7-b999-d2b73f6c7395&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com


This is a preview of Sunday Insider for the paper:

PITTSBURGH – Today we will start to see if Bob Castellini’s latest bold stroke to try to turn the Reds around works.


Scott Rolen will likely return from the disabled list. We’ll get 40 games to see what kind of effect has on the team around him.


The Rolen trade is Castellini's latest attempt to change things with one move. It's along the lines of the hiring of Dusty Baker, the signing of Francisco Cordero, the hiring of Walt Jocketty, the firing of Wayne Krivisky and the trading of Ken Griffey Jr. and Adam Dunn.


Castellini was behind all those moves, or at least had the final word.


None of them has righted the listing ship that is the Reds franchise.


The difference with the Rolen trade is it wasn’t popular with a lot of people in the front office and some of the other owners.


There's no question Rolen is a big upgrade over Edwin Encarnacion. But the Reds gave up young pitching in the deal, and Rolen’s salary really hamstrings the club are far as payroll flexibility.


With the way this season has gone so far, season-ticket renewals are bound to be off, so the player payroll will probably be less in 2010 than it this year when it was $73.5 million on Opening Day.


Say it's $70 million next year. Aaron Harang ($12.5 million), Cordero ($12 million), Bronson Arroyo ($11 million), Rolen ($11 million), Brandon Phillips ($6.75 million) and Willy Taveras ($4 million) are due $57.25 million.


If the other 19 players all made the minimum of $400,000, you’re already at $65 million. With the standard raises the Reds are probably already at close to $70 million.


The point of all this? Rolen is going to be surrounded by a similar cast on Opening Day 2010 as he is today against the Pirates.


For example, since Baker rejected the idea of moving to Brandon Phillips to shortstop, someone like Paul Janish is going to be playing there.


The left fielder is likely to come from the current mix as well.


Other holes will likely be filled with minor league free agents like they were this year.


If Drew Stubbs doesn’t work out as the center field, where do the Reds turn? Back to Willy Taveras?


It’s not a real bright picture.


I don’t think Rolen – or any player not named Pujols – can have that big of an effect on a team.


The Reds bet a lot of money and two pretty good pitching prospects that Rolen can.


We’ll start to see today if they’re right.

TheNext44
08-22-2009, 04:08 PM
Fay missed the fact that between the money that the Jays sent with Rolen, EE's huge raise for next year, and the money saved by trading Weathers, Hairston and Gonzalez, Rolen adds zero to the payroll this year and next.
And you need to include all that money saved in next years payroll, so really, the Reds would either have a higher payroll by around $10M, or they would have $10M less in obligations, depending on how you work the books.

Regardless, Fay is off when he says that the Reds don't have any money to spend next year. They have around $12M, if payroll is kept the same as this year ($72M).

TheNext44
08-22-2009, 04:11 PM
And one effect that won't be noticed right away, but might be the biggest reason why they got Rolen, is how well he protects Bruce and Votto.

Right now, they have less than zero protection. A solid, above league average RH bat behind or between them could make a huge difference, especially for Bruce. Might not have any effect, but it will be worth watching.

dougdirt
08-22-2009, 04:13 PM
Regardless, Fay is off when he says that the Reds don't have any money to spend next year. They have around $12M, if payroll is kept the same as this year ($72M).

I did some money analysis about a month ago and I didn't have the payroll for 2010 set at anywhere near $60M. Care to break it down for me where I can see where we missed something at?

nate
08-22-2009, 04:13 PM
Fay missed the fact that between the money that the Jays sent with Rolen, EE's huge raise for next year, and the money saved by trading Weathers, Hairston and Gonzalez, Rolen adds zero to the payroll this year and next.
And you need to include all that money saved in next years payroll, so really, the Reds would either have a higher payroll by around $10M, or they would have $10M less in obligations, depending on how you work the books.

Regardless, Fay is off when he says that the Reds don't have any money to spend next year. They have around $12M, if payroll is kept the same as this year ($72M).

You should post a comment to that effect in his blog.

redsmetz
08-22-2009, 04:39 PM
Fay also assumes that the rights will sit tight and not go out this offseason and get another shortstop, for example. I think Castellini's got to figure out how to add payroll if we're standing pat on our pitchers. We'll see how the Rolen move plays out, but I don't think this club stands pat. It will take some effort, but Paul Janish is not likely to be the starting shortstop for the Reds next season.

membengal
08-22-2009, 04:43 PM
You go on with your bad self, John Fay.

And, while several of you are once again quick to attack Fay and defend this franchise's incomprehensible moves, you are ignoring the relevant piece of information in Fay's latest missive.

The CURRENT FRONT OFFICE, in some respects, DID NOT LIKE THIS MOVE.

That is VERY interesting, as far as tidbits go.

Very interesting.

If Walt was not down with this move, then I feel better about Walt.

As for Bob Castellini, well, meddlesome owners absent a huge pledge of cash to go with the meddling are among the worst things for a franchise ever...

Kc61
08-22-2009, 04:43 PM
Can't be too critical of Fay since he was right last off-season that the Reds wouldn't add a major player.

But it seems like his current viewpoint is pretty speculative.

It assumes that the Reds won't increase payroll, won't deal current salaries, won't trade for a different player mix, won't promote guys who can make a difference (Alonso, Frazier, Francisco, Wood). To say nothing of Next 44's disagreement with Fay's arithmetic.

I just think Fay's article is very premature. Before next April there could be significant changes in the team.

Raisor
08-22-2009, 04:56 PM
Before next April there could be significant changes in the team.


1996: Wait until next year.
1997: Wait until next year.
1998: Wait until next year.
1999: Wait until next year.
2000: Wait until next year.
2001: Wait until next year.
2002: Wait until next year.
2003: Wait until next year.
2004: Wait until next year.
2005: Wait until next year.
2006: Wait until next year.
2007: Wait until next year.
2008: Wait until next year.
2009: Wait until next year.

Ltlabner
08-22-2009, 05:17 PM
1996: Wait until next year.
1997: Wait until next year.
1998: Wait until next year.
1999: Wait until next year.
2000: Wait until next year.
2001: Wait until next year.
2002: Wait until next year.
2003: Wait until next year.
2004: Wait until next year.
2005: Wait until next year.
2006: Wait until next year.
2007: Wait until next year.
2008: Wait until next year.
2009: Wait until next year.

So it's change you don't believe in?

mth123
08-22-2009, 05:53 PM
Fay missed the fact that between the money that the Jays sent with Rolen, EE's huge raise for next year, and the money saved by trading Weathers, Hairston and Gonzalez, Rolen adds zero to the payroll this year and next.
And you need to include all that money saved in next years payroll, so really, the Reds would either have a higher payroll by around $10M, or they would have $10M less in obligations, depending on how you work the books.

Regardless, Fay is off when he says that the Reds don't have any money to spend next year. They have around $12M, if payroll is kept the same as this year ($72M).

How do you figure?????

Arroyo, Cordero, Harang, Rolen, Taveras, Phillips. Rhodes, Lincoln, and Alonso are signed for $61.25 Million in 2010. Hernandez buy-out is another million. That is $62.25 Million. Lincoln and Volquez start on the DL, Taveras is probably DFA, Alonso in the minors so the reds will have 6 roster spots (Arroyo, Harang, Cordero, Rhodes, Phillips and Rolen) filled for that money. That means 19 more guys to fill out the team plus Volquez on the DL. If all 20 make the minimum that is another $8 Million. That would put the payroll at $70.5 Million. The Reds will also need to pay the remaining guys on the 40 man roster. That will be another $2 to $3 Million with injuries getting guys up for major league money at least part of the time. Your back to the $73 Million or so from this year's payroll. Assume that the Jays are paying $3 Million of Rolen's deal for 2010 (which I don't believe BTW), that still puts the Reds at $70 Million. Now add the fact that Votto, Volquez, Cueto, Masset, and if they are still around Gomes, Owings, Burton, Nix and Bray will all make more than the minimum, there is really no room without a decent sized increase. If the Reds keep Gomes, they'll be over last year's number without doing anything else.

Rolen better be good. He is the big move for 2010.

hebroncougar
08-22-2009, 05:55 PM
Fay missed the fact that between the money that the Jays sent with Rolen, EE's huge raise for next year, and the money saved by trading Weathers, Hairston and Gonzalez, Rolen adds zero to the payroll this year and next.
And you need to include all that money saved in next years payroll, so really, the Reds would either have a higher payroll by around $10M, or they would have $10M less in obligations, depending on how you work the books.

Regardless, Fay is off when he says that the Reds don't have any money to spend next year. They have around $12M, if payroll is kept the same as this year ($72M).

Unless they never add Rolen and cut Encarnacion loose. Then they save a boatload. Of course, spending it wiser than adding Rolen probably would not have happened, so it's all moot.

mth123
08-22-2009, 05:55 PM
I did some money analysis about a month ago and I didn't have the payroll for 2010 set at anywhere near $60M. Care to break it down for me where I can see where we missed something at?

Your right Doug. They are way over that number.

TheNext44
08-22-2009, 06:25 PM
I did some money analysis about a month ago and I didn't have the payroll for 2010 set at anywhere near $60M. Care to break it down for me where I can see where we missed something at?


How do you figure?????

Arroyo, Cordero, Harang, Rolen, Taveras, Phillips. Rhodes, Lincoln, and Alonso are signed for $61.25 Million in 2010. Hernandez buy-out is another million. That is $62.25 Million. Lincoln and Volquez start on the DL, Taveras is probably DFA, Alonso in the minors so the reds will have 6 roster spots (Arroyo, Harang, Cordero, Rhodes, Phillips and Rolen) filled for that money. That means 19 more guys to fill out the team plus Volquez on the DL. If all 20 make the minimum that is another $8 Million. That would put the payroll at $70.5 Million. The Reds will also need to pay the remaining guys on the 40 man roster. That will be another $2 to $3 Million with injuries getting guys up for major league money at least part of the time. Your back to the $73 Million or so from this year's payroll. Assume that the Jays are paying $3 Million of Rolen's deal for 2010 (which I don't believe BTW), that still puts the Reds at $70 Million. Now add the fact that Votto, Volquez, Cueto, Masset, and if they are still around Gomes, Owings, Burton, Nix and Bray will all make more than the minimum, there is really no room without a decent sized increase. If the Reds keep Gomes, they'll be over last year's number without doing anything else.

Rolen better be good. He is the big move for 2010.


between the money that the Jays sent with Rolen, EE's huge raise for next year, and the money saved by trading Weathers, Hairston and Gonzalez, Rolen adds zero to the payroll this year and next.

Reds got $7M from Jays. They saved around $3M getting rid of Weathers, Gonzalez and Hairston this year. That is $10M of real money.

It makes no difference how it is added to the books, it all can be added to this years books, but that would mean that the Red's profit/loss for this year would be $10M more/less, and therefore they would have $10M more to spend next year. Or it could be added to next years payroll, which would reduce it by $10M. Or they can split it between the two seasons. No matter how they put it in the books, that is $10M more for the Reds to spend next year.

Now they can pocket it, but that is a totally different issue, since they can pocket any amount, and set the payroll at any amount that the want. But assuming that they are spending next year as much available cash that they have, they have $10M more than what Fay mentions.

BTW, here is the payroll for next year from Cots:


Harang 12.5
Cordero 12
Rolen 11
Arroyo 11
Philips 6.75
Taveras 4
Lincoln 2.5
Rhodes 2
(Volquez) 0.4
Fisher 0.4
Balentien 0.4
Hanigan 0.4
Frazier 0.4
Dickerson 0.4
Masset 0.4
Burton 0.4
Gomes 0.4
Tatum 0.4
Herrera 0.4
Owings 0.4
Bailey 0.4
Cueto 0.4
Janish 0.4
Votto 0.4
Bruce 0.4
Stubbs 0.4
Alonso 0.9
RHern(buyout) 0.5

70.35

And just for clarification, I don't think that this $10M is enough to fill all the holes. Which is way I think the Reds should look at moving Phillips to SS and hope Stubbs/Heisey can be the CF next year. Even with that, they still are short.

Homer Bailey
08-22-2009, 06:29 PM
If there aren't major changes this team it will be no different in 2010 than 2009. Won't even be worth following. The Scott Rolen effect? Are you serious???? Albert Pujols couldn't have a big enough effect to make this team be competetive. Rolen isn't even a top 50 player in baseball. This is just ridiculous.

mth123
08-22-2009, 06:39 PM
Reds got $7M from Jays. They saved around $3M getting rid of Weathers, Gonzalez and Hairston this year. That is $10M of real money.

It makes no difference how it is added to the books, it all can be added to this years books, but that would mean that the Red's profit/loss for this year would be $10M more/less, and therefore they would have $10M more to spend next year. Or it could be added to next years payroll, which would reduce it by $10M. Or they can split it between the two seasons. No matter how they put it in the books, that is $10M more for the Reds to spend next year.

Now they can pocket it, but that is a totally different issue, since they can pocket any amount, and set the payroll at any amount that the want. But assuming that they are spending next year as much available cash that they have, they have $10M more than what Fay mentions.

BTW, here is the payroll for next year from Cots:


Harang 12.5
Cordero 12
Rolen 11
Arroyo 11
Philips 6.75
Taveras 4
Lincoln 2.5
Rhodes 2
(Volquez) 0.4
Fisher 0.4
Balentien 0.4
Hanigan 0.4
Frazier 0.4
Dickerson 0.4
Masset 0.4
Burton 0.4
Gomes 0.4
Tatum 0.4
Herrera 0.4
Owings 0.4
Bailey 0.4
Cueto 0.4
Janish 0.4
Votto 0.4
Bruce 0.4
Stubbs 0.4
Alonso 0.9
RHern(buyout) 0.5

70.35

And just for clarification, I don't think that this $10M is enough to fill all the holes. Which is way I think the Reds should look at moving Phillips to SS and hope Stubbs/Heisey can be the CF next year. Even with that, they still are short.

I think your playing games with the numbers. The Reds got at least $4 Million of Rolen's Money to keep from increasing the Payroll this year. Its not a savings and it doesn't add to next year's available, it just keeps this year even. The Weathers, Hairston and Gonzlaez savings are real, but those are just to offset a huge drop in attendance and revenue in 2009. They won't be added to next year's budget. At most you got $3 Million for Rolen in 2010 (which I still don't believe but conceded to you in my post). You are also forgetting the rest of the 40 man roster - it costs money. Gomes, Volquez, Cueto, Masset, Burton, Owings and Votto will all make more than the $400K that Cots has them listed at. They all made more this year as did Nix and Bray though they aren't listed and Hernandez buy-out is $1 Million not $500K. There is no room and if they keep Gomes, he'll cost somewhere between $2 and $3 Million. If not, its another hole to fill and no money to fill it with.

WMR
08-22-2009, 06:42 PM
If there aren't major changes this team it will be no different in 2010 than 2009. Won't even be worth following. The Scott Rolen effect? Are you serious???? Albert Pujols couldn't have a big enough effect to make this team be competetive. Rolen isn't even a top 50 player in baseball. This is just ridiculous.

Scott Rolen Effect: Spells RELIEF.

Dude, you have no idea how MUCH better this team is going to perform when they see a true pro like Rolen going about his business every day. The pitchers will pitch better and the hitters will hit better. Adding Scott Rolen to your squad is equivalent to loading your entire roster up on HGH. LEGAL HGH. :party:

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 06:48 PM
The Rolen trade is Castellini's latest attempt to change things with one move. It's along the lines of the hiring of Dusty Baker, the signing of Francisco Cordero, the hiring of Walt Jocketty, the firing of Wayne Krivisky and the trading of Ken Griffey Jr. and Adam Dunn.

Castellini was behind all those moves, or at least had the final word.

None of them has righted the listing ship that is the Reds franchise.

The difference with the Rolen trade is it wasn’t popular with a lot of people in the front office and some of the other owners.

Time will out, too bad Fay doesn't give more supporting evidence. The money trail and "the final word" will always lead back to Castellini anyway.

nate
08-22-2009, 06:56 PM
At best, I still like the Rolen move. At worst, I'm neutral on it.

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 06:57 PM
How do you figure?????

Arroyo, Cordero, Harang, Rolen, Taveras, Phillips. Rhodes, Lincoln, and Alonso are signed for $61.25 Million in 2010. Hernandez buy-out is another million. That is $62.25 Million. Lincoln and Volquez start on the DL, Taveras is probably DFA, Alonso in the minors so the reds will have 6 roster spots (Arroyo, Harang, Cordero, Rhodes, Phillips and Rolen) filled for that money. That means 19 more guys to fill out the team plus Volquez on the DL. If all 20 make the minimum that is another $8 Million. That would put the payroll at $70.5 Million. The Reds will also need to pay the remaining guys on the 40 man roster. That will be another $2 to $3 Million with injuries getting guys up for major league money at least part of the time. Your back to the $73 Million or so from this year's payroll. Assume that the Jays are paying $3 Million of Rolen's deal for 2010 (which I don't believe BTW), that still puts the Reds at $70 Million. Now add the fact that Votto, Volquez, Cueto, Masset, and if they are still around Gomes, Owings, Burton, Nix and Bray will all make more than the minimum, there is really no room without a decent sized increase. If the Reds keep Gomes, they'll be over last year's number without doing anything else.

Rolen better be good. He is the big move for 2010.

Your's looks about right. The point is they will have to do the routine of filling the rest of the roster with under performing fodder as they have in the past.

If they don't unload Tevaras he will be playing along with the rest of the fodder. We have seen them bring in one player before to go along with the Larkins and Casey's, then with the Dunn and Griffey's totally inadequate. Of course Rolen has been known for spending time on the DL too. Where have we seen that before?

RED VAN HOT
08-22-2009, 07:00 PM
We won't see a Rolen effect this year. I think the rest of the season is about decisions regarding Janish, Rosales, Sutton, Nix, Gomes.

Did anyone ever claim that each of the moves Fay describes would fix the Reds?

Regardless of how much salary room the Reds have, it can not be enough to fix the team through FA signings.

If the Reds were to shed the highest salaries, could they really find much better replacements at the same level? I suspect that interest has been shown in Harang and Arroyo, but not on terms that would help the Reds. After all, someone's got to start next year.

Yes, I suspect that the Reds will shop in the bargain basement for roster insurance, but not to the extent that they did in the past. Next year could be painful, but I think the Reds will give Stubbs, Balentien, and perhaps Heisey the chance to play. They won't let low budget FA signings of marginal major league players keep these guys out of the lineup.

I don't believe things are as a bleak as they seem. I think we are all feeling the disappointment of a once promising season and the realization that there are no sure fire saviors in the minors to give carry us through the winter.

mth123
08-22-2009, 07:09 PM
We won't see a Rolen effect this year. I think the rest of the season is about decisions regarding Janish, Rosales, Sutton, Nix, Gomes.

Did anyone ever claim that each of the moves Fay describes would fix the Reds?

Regardless of how much salary room the Reds have, it can not be enough to fix the team through FA signings.

If the Reds were to shed the highest salaries, could they really find much better replacements at the same level? I suspect that interest has been shown in Harang and Arroyo, but not on terms that would help the Reds. After all, someone's got to start next year.

Yes, I suspect that the Reds will shop in the bargain basement for roster insurance, but not to the extent that they did in the past. Next year could be painful, but I think the Reds will give Stubbs, Balentien, and perhaps Heisey the chance to play. They won't let low budget FA signings of marginal major league players keep these guys out of the lineup.

I don't believe things are as a bleak as they seem. I think we are all feeling the disappointment of a once promising season and the realization that there are no sure fire saviors in the minors to give carry us through the winter.

I kind of agree with this. I don't think the Reds could replace Harang, Arroyo or Phillips for any cheaper. A little payflex may allow them to upgrade Owings spot in the rotation or to package a couple of kids for a vet or two (say JJ Hardy). I think the Reds could have upgraded 3B much less expensively and they have a parade of these internal types you are touting should EdE have been back and continued to fail (FRazier, Valaika, Francisco, etc.). The big thing about this deal was that it really stifles the team from trying to move and backfill for Cordero. If Roenicke and Stewart are around, I think Cordero could be shopped for a cheaper guy who fills one of the needs while the Pen is left in the Committee of Stewart, Roenicke, Masset, et al's hands. Now, even if dealing Cordero would be an option, some portion of that savings will need to be plowed right back into the pen still leaving little for other areas.

Benihana
08-22-2009, 09:43 PM
If there aren't major changes this team it will be no different in 2010 than 2009. Won't even be worth following. The Scott Rolen effect? Are you serious???? Albert Pujols couldn't have a big enough effect to make this team be competetive. Rolen isn't even a top 50 player in baseball. This is just ridiculous.

Yep. I'm not sure if I will pay them much attention next year if they go in with this squad intact. I've had just about enough of the incompetence.

Tony Cloninger
08-22-2009, 10:41 PM
I think things are pretty bleak. In 1989 you had injuries to HOF type players in larkin....Davis....Paul O'Niell....Jose Rijo. You had the Rose debacle.

You had Rosales playing 3B (Scott Madison) and Janish playing SS (Richardson) Rijo was out with a bulging disk in his back.

The same thing happened in 1993 with the injuries there but they were to key people and the only thing that got them back was healthy players and 2 big trades and especially in 1994...some good minor league FA pickups for the bench.

I see nothing coming next year to resemble any sort of turnaround.

I do not trust this manager at all. Not the way he has handled this team..this year.

RedEye
08-22-2009, 10:55 PM
Yes, I suspect that the Reds will shop in the bargain basement for roster insurance, but not to the extent that they did in the past. Next year could be painful, but I think the Reds will give Stubbs, Balentien, and perhaps Heisey the chance to play. They won't let low budget FA signings of marginal major league players keep these guys out of the lineup.


What gives you the assurance that this is going to happen? I'd love for the Reds to give these guys a chance to play, but Teh Dusty has shown nothing but the opposite inclination towards "proven vets" as a manager in the past. To make matters worse, Walt and Bob have shown me nothing to indicate that they will protest. Heck, they even seem to want to go the "proven vets" route lately.

HokieRed
08-22-2009, 11:03 PM
Agree with Tony C. Things are at their bleakest. Time for a complete overhaul. I'd consider trading everyone on the roster for a complete reconfiguration.

camisadelgolf
08-22-2009, 11:31 PM
Some of Scott Rolen's salary will be paid for next season, but I don't know how much because there are conflicting reports about that. Anyway, the Reds already have $70,000,000+ tied up in salaries for next season, so they really don't have much payroll flexibility for 2010 (nor 2011).


C Ryan Hanigan 0.40
1B Joey Votto 0.40
2B Brandon Phillips 6.75
3B Scott Rolen 11.00
SS Paul Janish 0.40
LF Wladimir Balentien 0.40
CF Drew Stubbs 0.40
RF Jay Bruce 0.40
C Craig Tatum 0.40
IF Adam Rosales 0.40
IF Drew Sutton 0.40
OF Willy Taveras 4.00
OF Chris Dickerson 0.40
SP Edinson Volquez 0.40
SP Aaron Harang 12.50
SP Johnny Cueto 0.40
SP Bronson Arroyo 11.00
SP Homer Bailey 0.40
CL Francisco Cordero 12.00
RP Daniel Ray Herrera 0.40
RP Arthur Rhodes 2.00
RP Jared Burton 2.00? arbitration
RP Micah Owings 2.00? arbitration
RP Mike Lincoln 2.50
RP Nick Masset 1.70? arbitration
TOTAL SALARY 73.05

BUYOUTS
Ramon Hernandez 1.00

OTHER
Yonder Alonso 0.50
74.55

TheNext44
08-22-2009, 11:36 PM
I think your playing games with the numbers. The Reds got at least $4 Million of Rolen's Money to keep from increasing the Payroll this year. Its not a savings and it doesn't add to next year's available, it just keeps this year even. The Weathers, Hairston and Gonzlaez savings are real, but those are just to offset a huge drop in attendance and revenue in 2009. They won't be added to next year's budget. At most you got $3 Million for Rolen in 2010 (which I still don't believe but conceded to you in my post). You are also forgetting the rest of the 40 man roster - it costs money. Gomes, Volquez, Cueto, Masset, Burton, Owings and Votto will all make more than the $400K that Cots has them listed at. They all made more this year as did Nix and Bray though they aren't listed and Hernandez buy-out is $1 Million not $500K. There is no room and if they keep Gomes, he'll cost somewhere between $2 and $3 Million. If not, its another hole to fill and no money to fill it with.

You are correct about about Rolen's contract for this year, I was figuring in EE's contract for next year, but that doesn't figure in next years payroll. and You are right about the buyout. I was using Gonzo's number. My bad.

But the difference between Rolen's salary and EE's this year is $3.3M.

And all the guys making league minimum this year will get raises of around $40K each, maybe. If a player is part of the future, and the team doesn't want to tick them off, they offer a 10% raise. If not, they renew the contract. This adds maybe $200K to the payroll. And guys on the 40 man roster, not in the majors, get paid minor league money, around $15K a year. Again, around $200K. Maybe all that adds $500K, maybe.

And Gomes and Burton, the two arb eligible players, will get non-tendered unless they agree to a cheap contract. Both players are 100% replaceable. Burton has been pretty bad since coming back from his injury last year, and platoon LF'ers who can't field can be picked up before spring training for league minimum.

So the Red's will have around $6M more than what Fay said. But the main point is that Fay is wrong when he says "Rolen’s salary really hamstrings the club are far as payroll flexibility." The Reds have paid for that increase with the money the got back, and the trades of Weathers, Hairston and Gonzo.

But I actually agree with you about the direction of the team. There is no way the Reds can fill the holes they have without spending around $25M for players either through free agency or trades. Their best bet is to play the young guys next year, hope everyone is healthy, and maybe they can be a .500 team and in contention around the trading deadline. And even then, they really don't have the depth to trade for anyone good, without doing what they did this year and lose a top prospect like Stewart.

I guess the difference between me and most on this board is that I am fine with that. I would rather the Reds take it slow, and take a year or two to rebuild depth, so that in the future, they can go get the players they need without creating any more holes at the major league level, their farm system, or their payflex. I like the core of Votto, Bruce, Phillips, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Rolen (he will be the Reds 3B after 2010, trust me), Masset, Fisher, Herrera, Stubbs, Frazier, Alonso, and Leake, all who should play important parts of seasons to come.

I'm sick and tired of the Reds pretending that they can compete if they can just add this piece, or just add that piece. They aren't there yet, but they will be with some patience.

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 11:48 PM
Agree with Tony C. Things are at their bleakest. Time for a complete overhaul. I'd consider trading everyone on the roster for a complete reconfiguration.

I vote for change.



August 22, 2003
W L PCT GB RS RA DIFF
Cincinnati 57 70 .449 9.5 568 693 -125

August 22, 2004
W L PCT GB RS RA DIFF
Cincinnati 59 64 .480 22.5 582 690 -108

August 22, 2005
W L PCT GB RS RA DIFF
Cincinnati 57 67 .460 21.5 646 690 -44

August 22, 2006
W L PCT GB RS RA DIFF
Cincinnati 66 60 .524 1 634 642 -8

August 22, 2007
W L PCT GB RS RA DIFF
Cincinnati 56 70 .444 9.5 603 675 -72
Pittsburgh 54 71 .432 11 566 641 -75

August 22, 2008
W L PCT GB RS RA DIFF
Pittsburgh 57 71 .445 21 593 693 -100
Cincinnati 57 72 .442 21.5 545 648 -103

August 22, 2009
W L PCT GB RS RA DIFF
Pittsburgh 51 70 .421 17.5 502 557 -55
Cincinnati 51 71 .418 18 476 581 -105

Kc61
08-23-2009, 12:19 AM
But I actually agree with you about the direction of the team. There is no way the Reds can fill the holes they have without spending around $25M for players either through free agency or trades. Their best bet is to play the young guys next year, hope everyone is healthy, and maybe they can be a .500 team and in contention around the trading deadline. And even then, they really don't have the depth to trade for anyone good, without doing what they did this year and lose a top prospect like Stewart.

I guess the difference between me and most on this board is that I am fine with that. I would rather the Reds take it slow, and take a year or two to rebuild depth, so that in the future, they can go get the players they need without creating any more holes at the major league level, their farm system, or their payflex. I like the core of Votto, Bruce, Phillips, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Rolen (he will be the Reds 3B after 2010, trust me), Masset, Fisher, Herrera, Stubbs, Frazier, Alonso, and Leake, all who should play important parts of seasons to come.

I'm sick and tired of the Reds pretending that they can compete if they can just add this piece, or just add that piece. They aren't there yet, but they will be with some patience.

If the Reds are to take it slow, and if 2010 is another building year, they should trade Harang and Arroyo this off-season. Perhaps Cordero too, but he has two years left. Harang/Arroyo are free agents after 2010 unless the Reds exercise a rich option.

The calculus with Harang and Arroyo really has nothing to do with their effectiveness as Reds pitchers. The key is that each has one year left. They won't be worth too much next trade deadline, as rentals. They would be worth more this off-season with a full year to give to some contending team.

If they finish strong and keep those ERA numbers relatively good, they should have some value this off-season -- they'll have a full year left but no long-term commitment.

I like both pitchers, and I realize the Reds are thin without them, but if they will be gone after 2010 anyway, might as well get something for them now.

If the Reds decide to keep these guys, my assumption is they will be adding a veteran middle-of-the-order hitter. Otherwise, they are wasting over $20 million on two pitchers who won't get any support on a losing ballclub again.

ochre
08-23-2009, 12:41 AM
1996: Wait until next year.
1997: Wait until next year.
1998: Wait until 2003.
1999: Wait until 2003. Whoops.
2000: Win now.
2001: Wait until 2003.
2002: Wait until 2003.
2003: Wait until 2003.
2004: Wait until 2003. Crap. Wait until next year.
2005: Wait until next year.
2006: Wait until next year.
2007: Wait until next year.
2008: Wait until next year.
2009: Wait until next year.
made some minor modifications from memory.

mth123
08-23-2009, 03:35 AM
You are correct about about Rolen's contract for this year, I was figuring in EE's contract for next year, but that doesn't figure in next years payroll. and You are right about the buyout. I was using Gonzo's number. My bad.

But the difference between Rolen's salary and EE's this year is $3.3M.

And all the guys making league minimum this year will get raises of around $40K each, maybe. If a player is part of the future, and the team doesn't want to tick them off, they offer a 10% raise. If not, they renew the contract. This adds maybe $200K to the payroll. And guys on the 40 man roster, not in the majors, get paid minor league money, around $15K a year. Again, around $200K. Maybe all that adds $500K, maybe.

And Gomes and Burton, the two arb eligible players, will get non-tendered unless they agree to a cheap contract. Both players are 100% replaceable. Burton has been pretty bad since coming back from his injury last year, and platoon LF'ers who can't field can be picked up before spring training for league minimum.

So the Red's will have around $6M more than what Fay said. But the main point is that Fay is wrong when he says "Rolen’s salary really hamstrings the club are far as payroll flexibility." The Reds have paid for that increase with the money the got back, and the trades of Weathers, Hairston and Gonzo.

But I actually agree with you about the direction of the team. There is no way the Reds can fill the holes they have without spending around $25M for players either through free agency or trades. Their best bet is to play the young guys next year, hope everyone is healthy, and maybe they can be a .500 team and in contention around the trading deadline. And even then, they really don't have the depth to trade for anyone good, without doing what they did this year and lose a top prospect like Stewart.

I guess the difference between me and most on this board is that I am fine with that. I would rather the Reds take it slow, and take a year or two to rebuild depth, so that in the future, they can go get the players they need without creating any more holes at the major league level, their farm system, or their payflex. I like the core of Votto, Bruce, Phillips, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Rolen (he will be the Reds 3B after 2010, trust me), Masset, Fisher, Herrera, Stubbs, Frazier, Alonso, and Leake, all who should play important parts of seasons to come.

I'm sick and tired of the Reds pretending that they can compete if they can just add this piece, or just add that piece. They aren't there yet, but they will be with some patience.

Votto Probably makes $600K to $750K in 2010 IMO. Masset and Owings over $500K. Cueto and Volquez probably the same as Votto. That probably adds a million or so that you aren't counting. And the guys on the 40 Man who aren't on the major league team will make more than $15K. Probably in the $100K range and some of those guys will spend time on the big league roster when guys are on the DL which will raise the figure significantly. Figure on at least $2 Million for that group.

This team totally is dependent on big years from Bruce, Bailey and Cueto for them to be anything more than a laughingstock. With no one for SS, C or clean-up hitter, they really have no chance to contend and the budget is set so that they have no chance to upgrade those spots or the rotation which really needs it with Volquez out and Owings looking like a failure. Trading Cordero and replacing him from within seems to be the only way IMO and dealing off Stewart and Roenicke makes that much less likely to be successful. They need to up the budget to $85 to $90 Million to be able to do much at all in the off-season and I don't see it happening in the face of growing fan apathy and waning attendance. Two things that will get much worse if the team continues in this direction. If Bruce, Bailey and Cueto perform like we've seen this year, 60 Wins may be out of reach in 2010. I know many don't care how many they win if they don't reach the play-offs, but given the state of the fanbase, a 100 loss season could be very damaging long-term.

redsmetz
08-23-2009, 06:34 AM
What gives you the assurance that this is going to happen? I'd love for the Reds to give these guys a chance to play, but Teh Dusty has shown nothing but the opposite inclination towards "proven vets" as a manager in the past. To make matters worse, Walt and Bob have shown me nothing to indicate that they will protest. Heck, they even seem to want to go the "proven vets" route lately.

Frankly I'm not sure how many times this has to be refuted. Baker has played young players since he's been here. Someone posted in this thread a significant list of our young players. Some of the playing time issues over the last two seasons, that might be veterans playing were due to injuries. This really is a myth with regards to the Reds.

GAC
08-23-2009, 06:53 AM
Well... look at it this way. Once Baker IS gone, Mr Excuse Maker will have his excuse.

"I didn't win because I didn't have the talent."

or

"It wasn't my team. It was Castellini's."

Of course this is the same guy that said his "name presence" would draw quality players to Cincy, and stated "We're close".

Of course it isn't Baker's fault if this FO won't spend the money. But he is a contributor to whatever so-called talent that was brought in here.

But what Fay said in this article, many of us on here stated at the onset of this season. And it's not that we're all wise sages or anything.

My Gawd! Forrest Gump could look at this roster and scream "I gotta find Bubba!"

You got a manager who is stubbornly old school, who believes outs are like your appetite...... So what if you waste one, two, three or twenty. There's always another one coming right behind it. You're never going to run out.

And many of us also stated last off-season that Baker is not the guy to "school" young prospects. Of course Baker said differently. But look at the way he has constructed this roster.

Yeah. We need greater talent on this team. But even with young players/prospects like Votto, Bruce, Stubbs, Sutton, Frazier, or whoever - I don't want Baker anywhere near them IMO.

mth123
08-23-2009, 07:22 AM
The Reds are last in the majors in Runs Scored with 476. The Padres have scored 477. Given that the Pads play in Petco with road games in SF and LA while the Reds play in GABP with Road games in Wrigley and Houston, it really isn't that close. Other areas may be lacking at times, but the offense is this team's biggest problem by far.

IMO, the current version of Rolen is only a minor upgrade from a healthy EdE at the plate. If it were 2003 or 2004 Scott Rolen would be just the kind of guy that this team needs, but now, he really isn't the player that was worth spending the team's last dollar on. Maybe GABP will bring out the .500+ slugging percentage guy from early in the decade. If not, he's not going to have a huge impact. He will improve the defense and surely be more enjoyable to watch play, but his impact on the team's record will be minimal IMO.

RedsBaron
08-23-2009, 08:08 AM
1996: Wait until next year.
1997: Wait until next year.
1998: Wait until next year.
1999: Wait until next year.
2000: Wait until next year.
2001: Wait until next year.
2002: Wait until next year.
2003: Wait until next year.
2004: Wait until next year.
2005: Wait until next year.
2006: Wait until next year.
2007: Wait until next year.
2008: Wait until next year.
2009: Wait until next year.

And some people claim the Reds do not have a plan..............

Krusty
08-23-2009, 09:03 AM
Rolen will improve the defense and add another righthand bat in the middle of the lineup but isn't the impact player the Reds need.

There was a big question of the end of last season on how you replace the lost production of the departures of Ken Griffey, Jr. and Adam Dunn and I think the Reds have found out painfully this season. Unless you increase the offensive production from centerfield, shortstop and catcher, this team will struggle. You could add a big bat like Matt Holliday but pretty much eliminate any payroll flexibility.

The Reds have their work cut out this offseason.

westofyou
08-23-2009, 09:34 AM
Edwin as a Jay, 60 ab's

.186/.206/.271/.478

Not very good, Willie Greene's ghost continues to insert itself in EE's game.

At this rate he's be Chris Brown or Willie by the age of 29.

RedEye
08-23-2009, 09:53 AM
Frankly I'm not sure how many times this has to be refuted. Baker has played young players since he's been here. Someone posted in this thread a significant list of our young players. Some of the playing time issues over the last two seasons, that might be veterans playing were due to injuries. This really is a myth with regards to the Reds.

Okay, well maybe my blame is misplaced. Maybe Dusty does play young players when he has them (other than Chris Dickerson). Then the blame lies with the FO, who has recently proven their taste for overpaid vets who either aren't what they were or never have been what they were supposed to be. Either way, I don't expect the team to be embracing a youth movement any time soon. The mandate to "win now... sort of" is just too strong.

paulrichjr
08-23-2009, 10:06 AM
After reading some of the comments over the last few days it seems the fan base on Redszone has gotten much more critical lately and I personally have a theory that it snowballed when the Rolen trade went down. We could get on board with a youth movement along with a plan of action from Walt but after that trade it really showed all of us how bad this team is from the head (Cast) through the GM down to the players. Walt did himself no favors with that trade except proved that he was part of a team in St. Louis that knew what they were doing. That team obviously didn't come along with Walt.

BCubb2003
08-23-2009, 10:11 AM
I like Rolen. I'm glad he's on the team. I just think he needs to be part of a series of moves to balance the erratic young projects with a core of competency. His move is one to build on, not the put-you-over-the-top move.

membengal
08-23-2009, 10:15 AM
I like Rolen. I'm glad he's on the team. I just think he needs to be part of a series of moves to balance the erratic young projects with a core of competency. His move is one to build on, not the put-you-over-the-top move.

except they NEVER build on it.

See under Cordero, Francisco...

BCubb2003
08-23-2009, 10:25 AM
except they NEVER build on it.

See under Cordero, Francisco...

I know, it seems like people are complaining about the Rolen deal because the Reds made it.

Although Cordero (and Rhodes) turned the bullpen from a disaster into a plus. Couple that with a supposedly top-quality rotation. Building on that with some hitting would have been good, as everybody said at the time. But Votto, Bruce and Phillips seemed like barely enough. It wasn't. And the rotation turned out to be fragile.

I've said before that the Reds need to break the cycle where getting better in one area makes them worse in another. Otherwise, they're never going to get ahead.

HokieRed
08-23-2009, 10:38 AM
Why not take a more radical approach? Consider trading Votto, for instance, if you can fill a position that's a lot more difficult to find excellence for than 1b? Ditto Bruce, Phillips etc. As I see it, the best players we have are not so good as to be untouchable; the best young prospects we have have not thus far shown themselves to be what we've hoped, the payroll is skewed in a way that's just not viable for a team with so many weaknesses to deal with.

penantboundreds
08-23-2009, 10:54 AM
Since this thread turned into money and "cap" room speak, is it fair to ask if we need to lock Bruce, Votto, Cueto, and these young guys up to long deals in hope they take less money like Longoria did in Tampa?

Also, why would you trade Votto? I'm just saying he is young, cheap, and can hit....

Trading him makes your line-up worse and there is no way to replace him at his price. ....

mth123
08-23-2009, 10:59 AM
Since this thread turned into money and "cap" room speak, is it fair to ask if we need to lock Bruce, Votto, Cueto, and these young guys up to long deals in hope they take less money like Longoria did in Tampa?

Also, why would you trade Votto? I'm just saying he is young, cheap, and can hit....

Trading him makes your line-up worse and there is no way to replace him at his price. ....

It might be fair and a good idea with Votto, but I don't think they even have the roomin the budget to do that. I'd wait with Bruce and Cueto.

nate
08-23-2009, 11:21 AM
Since this thread turned into money and "cap" room speak, is it fair to ask if we need to lock Bruce, Votto, Cueto, and these young guys up to long deals in hope they take less money like Longoria did in Tampa?

Also, why would you trade Votto? I'm just saying he is young, cheap, and can hit....

Trading him makes your line-up worse and there is no way to replace him at his price. ....

You trade if the net result makes your club better.

I don't think it's possible to say trading him makes you worse if you don't know what the return is.

TheNext44
08-23-2009, 11:42 AM
Votto Probably makes $600K to $750K in 2010 IMO. Masset and Owings over $500K. Cueto and Volquez probably the same as Votto. That probably adds a million or so that you aren't counting. And the guys on the 40 Man who aren't on the major league team will make more than $15K. Probably in the $100K range and some of those guys will spend time on the big league roster when guys are on the DL which will raise the figure significantly. Figure on at least $2 Million for that group.

This team totally is dependent on big years from Bruce, Bailey and Cueto for them to be anything more than a laughingstock. With no one for SS, C or clean-up hitter, they really have no chance to contend and the budget is set so that they have no chance to upgrade those spots or the rotation which really needs it with Volquez out and Owings looking like a failure. Trading Cordero and replacing him from within seems to be the only way IMO and dealing off Stewart and Roenicke makes that much less likely to be successful. They need to up the budget to $85 to $90 Million to be able to do much at all in the off-season and I don't see it happening in the face of growing fan apathy and waning attendance. Two things that will get much worse if the team continues in this direction. If Bruce, Bailey and Cueto perform like we've seen this year, 60 Wins may be out of reach in 2010. I know many don't care how many they win if they don't reach the play-offs, but given the state of the fanbase, a 100 loss season could be very damaging long-term.


I hate to nitpick, but just to be accurate, it is highly unlikely that any of those players will make what you are estimating. Go to the Dodgers page on Cot's: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/los-angeles-dodgers.html

You will see that Kemp, Loney, Martin, Ethier, Broxton and Billingsley all made just a hair above the minimum in their second and third full years (2007-08). None of them made more than $500K, most of them around $450K. The first three years, a players has no, absolutely no negotiating power. The only time you see players get more that around the league minimum is when they are signed to long term deals to buy out their arbitration and free agency years.

As for minor leaguers on the 40 man, here is the rule:

Players with no major league experience and on 40 man roster for the first time:

Triple-A--First year: $2,150/month, after first year no less than $2,150/month

Class AA-First year: $1,500/month, after first year no less than $1,500/month

They only get paid for the months that they play. So that means $15,050 for AAA and $10,500 for AA.

The minimum minor league salary for players who play on teams with 40
person rosters for their second year or who have played a day in the
major league is $52,600.

The max for them would be $789K, probably around $600k.

It really doesn't matter, since the Reds don't have enough payflex to get who they need regardless, but I am just trying to be as accurate as possible.

As to the 60 win opinion...

If you project career numbers for all the games missed by injury, the Reds would be around a .500 team this year, using RC an Pythag. I know that this not very accurate, but it does reveal that this team is much better than the record they currently have.

So even if Bruce, Cueto and Bailey perform the same way they did this year, next year's team, if healthy, should be around .500. If the have to play Sutton, Rosales, Nix, Tatum, Lehr, and Wells a good part of the year, they will probably be lucky to win 60 games, I agree.

But I agree with you, if they don't make the playoffs, who cares what the record is? That's why I don't mind them not making any big acquisitions and depleting the farm or hurting payflex for 2010.

Marc D
08-23-2009, 01:19 PM
So the Red's will have around $6M more than what Fay said. But the main point is that Fay is wrong when he says "Rolen’s salary really hamstrings the club are far as payroll flexibility." The Reds have paid for that increase with the money the got back, and the trades of Weathers, Hairston and Gonzo.


Actually no he's not. The Rolen deal in and of itself increased payroll and decreased prospects. The moves you are mentioning happened to offset the increase but again, by its self the Rolen deal did increase payroll at least based on the numbers any of us have seen. Its a classic example of opportunity costs.

The Reds decided to forgo applying the payflex of Weathers/JHJ/AG to other areas of need and instead decided to sink it into Scott Rolen. The other areas of need are still there, the payflex is gone and Rolen by himself isn't enough to make this team a winner. Add in the fact they also gave up assets in the form of prospects in the deal and its as bad a move today as it was when they made it.

IslandRed
08-23-2009, 01:20 PM
Rolen isn't going to transform the franchise by himself. But let's be honest -- if taking on a few million bucks (Rolen's salary net of EE's salary going the other way + Toronto cash coming back) next year is going to tap out the Reds, then it was hopeless anyway. There's nothing to be bought in free agency for $3-4 million that'll get a team very far.

Personally, I think that when we see the 2010 defense-considered upgrade Rolen will be over Encarnacion and compare that to how much a win typically costs on the free-agent market, it will have been money efficiently spent. It just won't be nearly enough.

Marc D
08-23-2009, 01:44 PM
Rolen isn't going to transform the franchise by himself. But let's be honest -- if taking on a few million bucks (Rolen's salary net of EE's salary going the other way + Toronto cash coming back) next year is going to tap out the Reds, then it was hopeless anyway. There's nothing to be bought in free agency for $3-4 million that'll get a team very far.

Personally, I think that when we see the 2010 defense-considered upgrade Rolen will be over Encarnacion and compare that to how much a win typically costs on the free-agent market, it will have been money efficiently spent. It just won't be nearly enough.


I agree. That is why I get so frustrated when I see people brush off poor decisions that "only" cost relatively small dollars. It's a zero sum game. You either use your limited resources wisely or poorly. They either net a return or a loss. 3-4 M + the money wasted on WT + the inexcusable extension of Arroyo etc etc etc. A couple of million here and a couple of million there and all of a sudden you are talking real money.

They simply have to stop making more bad decisions than good ones. I know that sounds too simplistic but its the old "first thing you do when digging yourself in a hole is to stop digging" rule. The Reds strike me as a bad trader/gambler chasing their losses. They are trying to make it all back in one big move and because of that spiraling down an ever deeper hole.

Stop digging, write everything before off as a loss and start building upward from wherever you currently are.

TheNext44
08-23-2009, 01:48 PM
NM

Island summed up what I wanted to say.

TheNext44
08-23-2009, 01:55 PM
If the Reds are to take it slow, and if 2010 is another building year, they should trade Harang and Arroyo this off-season. Perhaps Cordero too, but he has two years left. Harang/Arroyo are free agents after 2010 unless the Reds exercise a rich option.

The calculus with Harang and Arroyo really has nothing to do with their effectiveness as Reds pitchers. The key is that each has one year left. They won't be worth too much next trade deadline, as rentals. They would be worth more this off-season with a full year to give to some contending team.

If they finish strong and keep those ERA numbers relatively good, they should have some value this off-season -- they'll have a full year left but no long-term commitment.

I like both pitchers, and I realize the Reds are thin without them, but if they will be gone after 2010 anyway, might as well get something for them now.

If the Reds decide to keep these guys, my assumption is they will be adding a veteran middle-of-the-order hitter. Otherwise, they are wasting over $20 million on two pitchers who won't get any support on a losing ballclub again.

I agree with everything you said, and I think the Reds do to. If rumors were correct, they shopped all three, but no one wanted them without the Reds taking on a bunch of salary, which defies the purpose.

If the Reds can trade any or all of these three without having to pay salary relief, I think they will.

flyer85
08-23-2009, 02:07 PM
As for Bob Castellini, well, meddlesome owners absent a huge pledge of cash to go with the meddling are among the worst things for a franchise ever...clueless Bob

mth123
08-23-2009, 03:01 PM
Rolen isn't going to transform the franchise by himself. But let's be honest -- if taking on a few million bucks (Rolen's salary net of EE's salary going the other way + Toronto cash coming back) next year is going to tap out the Reds, then it was hopeless anyway. There's nothing to be bought in free agency for $3-4 million that'll get a team very far.

Personally, I think that when we see the 2010 defense-considered upgrade Rolen will be over Encarnacion and compare that to how much a win typically costs on the free-agent market, it will have been money efficiently spent. It just won't be nearly enough.

I agree that the extra money for Rolen in and of itself is probably not enough to matter much. The bigger concern budget wise IMO is that dealing Stewart and Roenicke effectively takes away options to reduce by backfilling for Cordero or possibly Arroyo or Harang from within. Those guys were the most likely late inning guys to team with Masset and Rhodes should Cordero's contract be moved and moving one of the big contracts and replacing it on the cheap is necessary to even think about doing anything.

Big Klu
08-23-2009, 03:28 PM
I agree that the extra money for Rolen in and of itself is probably not enough to matter much. The bigger concern budget wise IMO is that dealing Stewart and Roenicke effectively takes away options to reduce by backfilling for Cordero or possibly Arroyo or Harang from within. Those guys were the most likely late inning guys to team with Masset and Rhodes should Cordero's contract be moved and moving one of the big contracts and replacing it on the cheap is necessary to even think about doing anything.

Admittedly, I know little about Stewart (and I knew even less about him before the trade), but Roenicke seemed like another of the dime-a-dozen garden variety right-handed reliever that the Reds have been running out there for the last five years--Riedling, Norton, Wagner, Hancock, Valentine, Coffey, Majewski, Booker, Yan, Standridge, Salmon, Santos, McBeth, Lincoln, Burton, Fisher.

nate
08-23-2009, 03:32 PM
Does anyone know if the "Rolen effect" is anything like the "Coriolis effect?"

Like, we're still bad, just counterclockwise?

mth123
08-23-2009, 03:42 PM
Admittedly, I know little about Stewart (and I knew even less about him before the trade), but Roenicke seemed like another of the dime-a-dozen garden variety right-handed reliever that the Reds have been running out there for the last five years--Riedling, Norton, Wagner, Hancock, Valentine, Coffey, Majewski, Booker, Yan, Standridge, Salmon, Santos, McBeth, Lincoln, Burton, Fisher.

Roenicke and Stewart are both power arms. They are a cut above the guys you name (though 2008 Burton may be a little comparable). Fisher is good as a multi-inning guy. I think he's a guy that can provide 85+ innings of solid pitching in the middle of the game. Stewart was the stud of the group, but Roenicke was the hardest thrower. The reds really have no one else outside of Masset who seems like closer material unless Burton bounces all the way back and if they are going to shed the "proven closer" to save cash, I think multiple options are necessary. This deal basically means its just Masset.

Big Klu
08-23-2009, 03:55 PM
Roenicke and Stewart are both power arms. They are a cut above the guys you name (though 2008 Burton may be a little comparable). Fisher is good as a multi-inning guy. I think he's a guy that can provide 85+ innings of solid pitching in the middle of the game. Stewart was the stud of the group, but Roenicke was the hardest thrower. The reds really have no one else outside of Masset who seems like closer material unless Burton bounces all the way back and if they are going to shed the "proven closer" to save cash, I think multiple options are necessary. This deal basically means its just Masset.

That may be, but I was roundly unimpressed with Roenicke from what I saw of him this season.

Raisor
08-23-2009, 04:09 PM
That may be, but I was roundly unimpressed with Roenicke from what I saw of him this season.

He threw 13 innings for the Reds. Not sure that's enough to make any kind of impression. Hopefully you saw him in the minors to make that kind of opinion.

Big Klu
08-23-2009, 04:19 PM
He threw 13 innings for the Reds. Not sure that's enough to make any kind of impression. Hopefully you saw him in the minors to make that kind of opinion.

No, my opinion is based only on what I saw of him with the Reds. But as a 27-year-old rookie, he isn't exactly a pup.

TheNext44
08-23-2009, 04:24 PM
He threw 13 innings for the Reds. Not sure that's enough to make any kind of impression. Hopefully you saw him in the minors to make that kind of opinion.

I saw less than that of Booker, Belisle, Fogg, Yan, Standridge, Salmon, Santos, McBeth, Van Poppel, Dumatrait, Saarloos, Stone, Gosling, and Shackelford before I had an impression of them, and that impression turned out to be correct in every case. :p:

WMR
08-23-2009, 04:31 PM
I really hope you're not trying to compare any of those pitchers to Roenicke.

WMR
08-23-2009, 04:31 PM
No, my opinion is based only on what I saw of him with the Reds. But as a 27-year-old rookie, he isn't exactly a pup.

What does his age have to do with making a rash judgment on an incredibly small sample size?

WMR
08-23-2009, 04:32 PM
And I don't believe you were able to tell anything about Matt Belisle after seeing him less than 13 innings.

In 2006 he pitched 40 innings for the Reds with an ERA of 3.60. Hmmm.

TheNext44
08-23-2009, 04:41 PM
I really hope you're not trying to compare any of those pitchers to Roenicke.

Yes I am.

After seeing all of them pitch just a few innings, including Belisle, I could see that no matter how hard they threw, their fastball was too straight and they didn't have enough control of a breaking pitch to have any long term success in the majors.

Talk to me at the end of next year, and Roenicke will be easy to lump in with all those other failed pitchers.

Ron Madden
08-23-2009, 04:46 PM
You would've have given up on some pretty good to great pitchers by judging them on their first 13 innings.

WMR
08-23-2009, 04:49 PM
Yes I am.

After seeing all of them pitch just a few innings, including Belisle, I could see that no matter how hard they threw, their fastball was too straight and they didn't have enough control of a breaking pitch to have any long term success in the majors.

Talk to me at the end of next year, and Roenicke will be easy to lump in with all those other failed pitchers.

No he won't.

(Roenicke's ERA is 3.80 so far this season ... IN A VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE)

TheNext44
08-23-2009, 04:54 PM
You would've have given up on some pretty good to great pitchers by judging them on their first 13 innings.

13 innings of stats, absolutely. Heck, 13 starts isn't really enough to judge a pitcher.

But after just a few innings of watching a guy, it's pretty easy to judge who has the stuff to succeed and who doesn't. I've seen too many hard throwers with not enough movement or control who never amounted to much, to put much faith in Roenicke. I've been wrong based on first impressions, and maybe I am wrong about Roenicke, but I've been right far more often.

Big Klu
08-23-2009, 04:57 PM
What does his age have to do with making a rash judgment on an incredibly small sample size?

If he were 23 or 24, then I could see waiting for him to develop. But at 27, it's likely he is what he is.

WMR
08-23-2009, 05:00 PM
If he were 23 or 24, then I could see waiting for him to develop. But at 27, it's likely he is what he is.

Does he need much more development? That's my point: I don't think we can come close to accurately assessing that sort of question after such a small sample size. He seems to be holding his own this season (based yet again on those three darling little words).

I'm not labeling him the next Mariano Rivera, I'm just saying that dismissing a potential high leverage arm so willingly isn't a prudent decision.

Big Klu
08-23-2009, 05:09 PM
Does he need much more development? That's my point: I don't think we can come close to accurately assessing that sort of question after such a small sample size. He seems to be holding his own this season (based yet again on those three darling little words).

Maybe he doesn't need more development, and maybe he is holding his own this season. I'm just saying that he didn't impress me, and I didn't see him as being much different from the multitude of other right-handed middle relievers we have run out there in the last five years. (I'll concede that he throws harder than some of those guys.) He nibbled far too much for my tastes--especially for somebody who supposedly had a cannon attached to his right shoulder.

WMR
08-23-2009, 05:11 PM
Maybe he doesn't need more development, and maybe he is holding his own this season. I'm just saying that he didn't impress me, and I didn't see him as being much different from the multitude of other right-handed middle relievers we have run out there in the last five years. (I'll concede that he throws harder than some of those guys.) He nibbled far too much for my tastes--especially for somebody who supposedly had a cannon attached to his right shoulder.

That's fair.

Perhaps as a rookie, even an OLD rookie, he nibbles because that is what rookie pitchers tend to do, even if they've got good stuff?

SMcGavin
08-23-2009, 05:23 PM
Roenicke's 2009 MLB sample was definitely small, but it included more than a K per inning and a xFIP of 3.14. I can certainly understand not wanting to make a judgement based on 13 innings. But if you are going to make a judgement, it should be "this guy is pretty darn good".

He's not a crown jewel, but solid cheap relievers are useful guys to have around. When the Reds go sign a veteran RP for $2-3M this offseason, I'm going to wish Roenicke was still here.

Kc61
08-23-2009, 06:50 PM
Roenicke's 2009 MLB sample was definitely small, but it included more than a K per inning and a xFIP of 3.14. I can certainly understand not wanting to make a judgement based on 13 innings. But if you are going to make a judgement, it should be "this guy is pretty darn good".

He's not a crown jewel, but solid cheap relievers are useful guys to have around. When the Reds go sign a veteran RP for $2-3M this offseason, I'm going to wish Roenicke was still here.

If we're going to make judgments on small samples, we might check out Roenicke as a Blue Jay so far.

8.2 innings.
6.23 ERA.
6 earned runs, 9 hits.
7 Ks, 6 BBs.

I don't know what his blended numbers are for the whole season, they report them separately when a guy switches leagues.

VR
08-23-2009, 07:00 PM
The Rolen Effect:
1-0, charging into 5th place.

Scrap Irony
08-23-2009, 07:10 PM
If we're going to make judgments on small samples, we might check out Roenicke as a Blue Jay so far.

8.2 innings.
6.23 ERA.
6 earned runs, 9 hits.
7 Ks, 6 BBs.

I don't know what his blended numbers are for the whole season, they report them separately when a guy switches leagues.

Career 3.8 BB/9 is a bunch and Jocketty historically does not like relievers who nibble. That, IMO, is why Roenicke is available. Major league numbers are about the same.

Joseph
08-23-2009, 07:26 PM
Roenicke I could care less about and I don't know why any one is up in arms about it. Stewart was/is the swing man in this deal. If he develops it could look really bad. If not then this deal is a major plus for the Reds assuming Rolen plays 125 games a season the next few and is remotely productive compared to past seasons.

TheNext44
08-23-2009, 08:24 PM
Roenicke I could care less about and I don't know why any one is up in arms about it. Stewart was/is the swing man in this deal. If he develops it could look really bad. If not then this deal is a major plus for the Reds assuming Rolen plays 125 games a season the next few and is remotely productive compared to past seasons.

I like the trade, but I hate that they gave up Stewart. He seemed to be more than just a prospect, he seemed like the real deal. You are right, the trade really came down to Rolen for Stewart. Only time will tell who got the better end of the deal. I'm guessing the odds are 50-50 right now.

RedEye
08-23-2009, 08:30 PM
I like the trade, but I hate that they gave up Stewart. He seemed to be more than just a prospect, he seemed like the real deal. You are right, the trade really came down to Rolen for Stewart. Only time will tell who got the better end of the deal. I'm guessing the odds are 50-50 right now.

To be fair, most teams aren't interested in dealing for prospects who don't seem like they will be "the real deal" anyway, and you've got to give up something to get something. My main problem with this deal is not the particular something that got dealt, it's that I think the something they got in return isn't anything much.

OldRightHander
08-24-2009, 09:58 AM
1996: Wait until next year.
1997: Wait until next year.
1998: Wait until next year.
1999: Wait until next year.
2000: Wait until next year.
2001: Wait until next year.
2002: Wait until next year.
2003: Wait until next year.
2004: Wait until next year.
2005: Wait until next year.
2006: Wait until next year.
2007: Wait until next year.
2008: Wait until next year.
2009: Wait until next year.

The one consolation we have. That list goes back a lot longer on the north side of Chicago.

westofyou
08-24-2009, 10:28 AM
The one consolation we have. That list goes back a lot longer on the north side of Chicago.

Nope, the seed year was 1995, playoffs. Not WS, NOT champs, Play Offs.

The Cubs have been there more the Reds with that measurement, our peers wear eye patches and light blue in Missouri.

Chip R
08-24-2009, 01:20 PM
The Rolen Effect:
1-0, charging into 5th place.


2-0, no? Counting the game he was beaned in.

The Baumer
08-27-2009, 05:47 PM
THEx ROLENx EFFECTx

HokieRed
08-27-2009, 05:48 PM
Last three games have been, IMO, the most interesting and exciting of the year. First time you could really feel like something was coming alive in this team.

Tom Servo
08-27-2009, 05:50 PM
I'm digging the Rolen Effect so far.

Kc61
08-27-2009, 05:53 PM
Last three games have been, IMO, the most interesting and exciting of the year. First time you could really feel like something was coming alive in this team.

The team has a superior defensive infield for the first time in years. This is why Janish probably has a shot for next year. There aren't too many better combos than Rolen, Janish and Phillips on defense.

The team needs to improve the outfield in the offseason and shore up the pitching to cover the Volquez injury and some bullpen departures.

Then we may have something.

I never appreciated how good Rolen was until he returned from injury, he really has had a good impact. Now we need a Rolen for the outfield. A veteran with some mileage left to go.

BrooklynRedz
08-27-2009, 06:31 PM
Now we need a Rolen for the outfield.

Bobby Abreu? Fortunately for him, he's likely played his way out of the Reds' financial universe.

Brutus
08-27-2009, 06:32 PM
The team has a superior defensive infield for the first time in years. This is why Janish probably has a shot for next year. There aren't too many better combos than Rolen, Janish and Phillips on defense.

The team needs to improve the outfield in the offseason and shore up the pitching to cover the Volquez injury and some bullpen departures.

Then we may have something.

I never appreciated how good Rolen was until he returned from injury, he really has had a good impact. Now we need a Rolen for the outfield. A veteran with some mileage left to go.

I'll go you one better... Hanigan, Phillips, Janish and Stubbs is one of the best defenses up in the middle in all of baseball. Add in Bruce and Rolen on a couple of the corners, and you have a real, real good defensive baseball team. regardless of Gomes & Votto or whomever is in left.

Clearly, if Janish is to even remotely be considered for short, and I'm still very lukewarm on the idea though he looks a lot better at the plate recently, as much as I maintain Gomes could cut it as a starter, I'll concede that's not such a good idea with Janish as a starter. The Reds would need to go big or go home in left if they acquiesced to Janish as their starting shortstop.

I'm still hoping the Reds can pull off something else. Maybe Hardy. Maybe the Braves will remain open to trading Escobar (though I doubt it). Who knows. But I'm not ready to give the job to Janish. If he can pull off his minor league rates across the board, it might be enough to persuade me.

RANDY IN INDY
08-27-2009, 06:36 PM
I'll go you one better... Hanigan, Phillips, Janish and Stubbs is one of the best defenses up in the middle in all of baseball. Add in Bruce and Rolen on a couple of the corners, and you have a real, real good defensive baseball team.

Problem is, all but one of those guys are pretty weak with the stick at this point.

Brutus
08-27-2009, 06:39 PM
Problem is, all but one of those guys are pretty weak with the stick at this point.

I know, but if you're not going to field a good offensive team regardless, might as well maximize the defensive spectrum.

Ron Madden
08-28-2009, 02:56 AM
Last three games have been, IMO, the most interesting and exciting of the year. First time you could really feel like something was coming alive in this team.

Seems to me that we read a bunch of quotes just like this in May.

"This team is Fun to watch without Griffey and Dunn".

"This is an exiting team to watch with speed and defense, the culture of the clubhouse is much better without Griffey and Dunn, We're headed in the right direction".

There is nothing that I'd like to see more than the Reds winning and going in the right direction. I respect good pitching and defense I really do, but we gotta score runs too. That causes me to wonder about the folks in charge of steering this ship.

In my humble opinion getting rid of Adam Dunn was a big mistake, at least we could have resigned him during the off season at a reduced price like Washington did.

Ltlabner
08-28-2009, 06:56 AM
Three games means "it's all coming together" ?

How many times are we going to fall for the same trick?

Cyclone792
08-28-2009, 07:38 AM
Three games means "it's all coming together" ?

How many times are we going to fall for the same trick?

The common Reds fan is like the dog who always falls for the fake the ball throw. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book employed by the Lost Decade during the waning months of another Lost Season, and Reds fans are duped every single time.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 07:53 AM
I don't consider myself duped and I've no illusions about this team or what it needs. I also think we should have kept Adam Dunn but suspect there wasn't much possibility that was going to happen. It's amazing, though, what fatalism a few positive feelings seem to bring out from posters. Would everybody be happier if we all just universally decided that doom was imminent and unavoidable?

Hoosier Red
08-28-2009, 07:55 AM
Three games means "it's all coming together" ?

How many times are we going to fall for the same trick?

Hey, say what you want but if they don't lose any games when he's in the lineup for the rest of the season, I think they should keep him.

Ltlabner
08-28-2009, 08:10 AM
It's amazing, though, what fatalism a few positive feelings seem to bring out from posters. Would everybody be happier if we all just universally decided that doom was imminent and unavoidable?

Actually, I'd be happier if the Reds as an organization got their collective heads out of their buts and gave us a team that won all the time.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 08:12 AM
Actually, I'd be happier if the Reds as an organization got their collective heads out of their buts and gave us a team that won all the time.

Agree. I want to win every game. One player who will always play like that on this roster is Scott Rolen. One of the reasons I liked the acquisition, even though I didn't like giving up Stewart.

Ltlabner
08-28-2009, 08:39 AM
One player who will always play like that on this roster is Scott Rolen....

...when he isn't on the DL or the effect's of age haven't caught up with him. And assuming his "leadership" and "hustle" can somehow magically make up for a massive differential in runs scored versus those allowed.

Chip R
08-28-2009, 08:44 AM
Hey, say what you want but if they don't lose any games when he's in the lineup for the rest of the season, I think they should keep him.


That's the kind of reasoning that made the Reds bring back Jerry Hairston, Jr. this year. Of course, the talent level between the two players is pretty vast.

nate
08-28-2009, 09:30 AM
Actually, I'd be happier if the Reds as an organization got their collective heads out of their buts and gave us a team that won all the time.

If the Reds organization has their heads up their butts, don't ask to borrow their combs!

:cool:

Kc61
08-28-2009, 09:30 AM
That's the kind of reasoning that made the Reds bring back Jerry Hairston, Jr. this year. Of course, the talent level between the two players is pretty vast.

The Yankees seem to think it's good to have JHJ on their team. I saw the game two nights ago, he hit a homer and two walks. Scored several runs. Played good left field filling in for Damon. Their announcers and manager speak highly of his play.

It's a team sport. The slams at individual players around here often disregard that fact.

It was good to sign JHJ this off-season. What was wrong was not using him properly, not replacing the Reds' major hitters who were traded last summer. Not getting a shortstop last offseason. JHJ is an excellent super utility guy. But you need a starting left fielder who can hit in baseball. Also need to start the season with a healthy starting shortstop ready to go.

Rolen is a good move, unless of course Roenick or Stewart turn out much better than the Reds think. The Reds finally have a high caliber infield. Now they need a high caliber outfield, which they currently don't have.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 10:11 AM
Agree on JHJ. He's a very useful utility guy who needs to be on a team strong enough to use him that way and not need to depend on him to play every day. I'll like the Rolen trade even if Stewart and/or Roenicke turn out well, as I suspect they probably will. It's a classic trade of prospects for a veteran; can be made from both sides. You have to have both. If you try to keep all your prospects, you're guaranteed to lose today; if you have only veterans, you're sure to lose tomorrow.

Chip R
08-28-2009, 10:15 AM
It was good to sign JHJ this off-season. What was wrong was not using him properly, not replacing the Reds' major hitters who were traded last summer. Not getting a shortstop last offseason. JHJ is an excellent super utility guy. But you need a starting left fielder who can hit in baseball. Also need to start the season with a healthy starting shortstop ready to go.



I agree it wasn't a bad move to re-sign Hairston. But to hear the media talk during the offseason, he was re-signed because the Reds record when he started was so good. It wasn't because he was a good utility player or whatever, it was because he was a good luck charm. It's akin to signing or trading for a player who does well against your team. Usually that's because your pitching (or hitting) sucks.

I'm not saying that all Rolen has to offer is to be a good luck charm but I think people get carried away with that sort of thing.

Sea Ray
08-28-2009, 10:35 AM
In my humble opinion getting rid of Adam Dunn was a big mistake, at least we could have resigned him during the off season at a reduced price like Washington did.


We could have signed him just like Washington did. The issue wasn't letting him go. If you are of the opinion that we should have signed him as a FA then so be it.

Ltlabner
08-28-2009, 11:10 AM
The Rolen effect will be nothing more than a mild case of wind-blast.

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 11:35 AM
I wonder if the Reds finish strong will Fay revisit this piece. It appears he wrote this piece as a setup thinking the Reds will finish poorly, then at the end of the season he could write "Remember my Rolen Effect article, I am so smart, terrible trade, and so forth." Now I would think we all in here have a realistic comprehension of what Rolen brings to the Reds, but that is not who Fay geared the article for...he wrote it for the (no-offense) uneducated casual fan.

In short...maybe I'm mistaken but there seemed to be a nasty undertone to Fay's article, and I wouldn't mind it coming back to bite him.

BCubb2003
08-28-2009, 11:39 AM
Sound likes Rolen is the new The Trade. Maybe this thread should be emerged with the EE thread. Or the board might explode. I think the Rolen trade is being judge harshly because it's the Reds who made the move. I like Rolen and am glad he's on the team. But the move is being judged based on other moves that weren't made. Rolen has strengthened the offense and infield defense as much as one player can. That's tangible. If the Reds can build on that by boosting left field and shortstop, then the Rolen move will be a good one.

lollipopcurve
08-28-2009, 11:44 AM
I think the Rolen trade is being judge harshly because it's the Reds who made the move.

Yeah, and because there is a a tendency here to be biased against older players in favor of younger ones. Even proven excellent older guys and unproven younger guys. That's RZ.

bucksfan2
08-28-2009, 11:49 AM
It is nice to have a player that excels in pretty much every aspect of the game. Rolen is quickly becoming one of my favorite Reds. I love the way he plays the game.

IMO too much is being made about Rolen's contract. Or Wayne's love for Rolen or Rolen's age. Too many people are overlooking how good of a player he actually is. They are also overlooking how much of an upgrade at 3b he is.

nate
08-28-2009, 11:52 AM
It is nice to have a player that excels in pretty much every aspect of the game. Rolen is quickly becoming one of my favorite Reds. I love the way he plays the game.

IMO too much is being made about Rolen's contract. Or Wayne's love for Rolen or Rolen's age. Too many people are overlooking how good of a player he actually is. They are also overlooking how much of an upgrade at 3b he is.

I don't think anyone's mentioned Wayne's love for Rolen!

:cool:

As one who likes the trade, I don't think anyone is overlooking how good he is at all. I think there are legitimate concerns about what we gave up and his health.

ochre
08-28-2009, 11:58 AM
does the Rolen effect feature Ashton Kutcher?

edabbs44
08-28-2009, 12:18 PM
I don't think anyone's mentioned Wayne's love for Rolen!

:cool:

As one who likes the trade, I don't think anyone is overlooking how good he is at all. I think there are legitimate concerns about what we gave up and his health.

I think that the concerns of what was given up partially had to do with an erroneous valuation of EdE's worth. It looks like he is worth zero (or thereabouts), so the trade is much more appealing when factoring that in.

nate
08-28-2009, 12:20 PM
I think that the concerns of what was given up partially had to do with an erroneous valuation of EdE's worth.

I have no idea who's "valuation" you're talking about so it's hard to discuss this point.


It looks like he is worth zero (or thereabouts), so the trade is much more appealing when factoring that in.

I don't agree with this assessment of EE.

Nor was he the focus of my post.

Bumstead
08-28-2009, 12:24 PM
I agree with Nate. I think the concern was the adding in of the two pitchers, both who appeared to have a lot of upside (mostly Stewart). If it had been EE for Rolen, it wouldn't have bothered me that much. This trade took the Reds away from the 'plan' and from a payroll perspective, it really makes no sense to me.

Bum

edabbs44
08-28-2009, 12:33 PM
I have no idea who's "valuation" you're talking about so it's hard to discuss this point.

With Stark reporting that the Jays are trying to get rid of him already and the fact that they didn't want him in the deal in the first place, it sounds as if he has little worth on the market.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 12:37 PM
I've always considered this a trade of Rolen for a prospect from us. Who the first prospect discussed was I don't know; I suspect it was Alonso. What they settled on was Stewart, the others are the throw-ins, probably Roenicke to get the Jays to take EE.

Unassisted
08-29-2009, 12:49 AM
Was Rolen all that the Reds needed to make the losing stop now?

Is this what Dusty meant by "We're close?"

:confused:

Enjoying the mystery while it lasts. ;)

WebScorpion
08-29-2009, 02:45 AM
Was Rolen all that the Reds needed to make the losing stop now?



No, we need Bruce, Hernandez, Volquez, and Cueto back for that. IMO, the real key in the past five games has been the solid defensive play of Stubbs, Janish, and Rolen. Stubbs and Janish are both guys who took a while to adjust offensively at each level in the Minors, I'd expect them to improve slowly (BTW, slowly is measured in seasons, not weeks) at the Major League level as well. If they can manage a bit of offense, along with Phillips they'd make a nice foundation for a solid team. The lineup I'd like to see goes like this:

Stubbs CF <--- I think Stubbs 2011 OBP will be .350+
Votto 1B
Rolen 3B
Bruce RF
Phillips 2B
Gomes LF
Janish SS <--- Janish beloongs lower in the order, a la Concepcion.
Hernandez/Hanigan C
Pitcher

Maybe it's the +Rolen -Taveras -Gonzalez effect. :D

klw
08-29-2009, 09:53 AM
does the Rolen effect feature Ashton Kutcher?

No but in the tradition of Kate Blanchette as Bob Dylan, Amy Smart co-stars as Bronson Arroyo.