PDA

View Full Version : Blue Jays want to trade EE



Pages : [1] 2

Brutus
08-28-2009, 12:22 AM
Saw in Jayson Stark's "Rumblings" column that Toronto did not want Encarnacion but were forced to take him in the deal to get the prospects.

Rumblings (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings090827)

And now they want to trade him this offseason...


• Alert the customs officers: Clubs that have spoken with the Blue Jays say they've sent signals that one of their first orders of business this winter is to deal Edwin Encarnacion, the enigmatic third baseman they got from Cincinnati in the Scott Rolen deal.

"They didn't want him in the first place," one AL executive said. "They only did that deal to get the pitching prospects, and to get out from under Rolen's money next year."

But Encarnacion is signed for next year at $4.75 million. And he's a monumental disappointment who has piled up all of six homers, 19 RBIs and a .298 on-base percentage in 228 trips to the plate this year. So good luck.

If nothing else, it shows even Toronto thought Cincinnati was upgrading the position a good deal.

Homer Bailey
08-28-2009, 12:27 AM
As I've said all along, EE is a way below average player at 3B. Didn't realize his value was that low though.

Jpup
08-28-2009, 12:28 AM
He'll be starting somewhere next year and he'll probably break out. The Reds and Blue Jays did not want Adam Dunn either.

Reds1
08-28-2009, 01:13 AM
this is one guy I wasn't wrong on. Never got what people saw in him.

Brutus
08-28-2009, 01:16 AM
He'll be starting somewhere next year and he'll probably break out. The Reds and Blue Jays did not want Adam Dunn either.

Well, that was a whole different set of reasons. But at least teams knew what they would get out of Dunn both good and bad.

Encarnacion is an enigma. He very well may break out, and I don't think people discount the possibility he could break out with the bat, but his fielding is awful and the bat, to the extent it exists currently, is wildly unpredictable.

fearofpopvol1
08-28-2009, 01:43 AM
this is one guy I wasn't wrong on. Never got what people saw in him.

i'd hardly say his career is over with tomorrow. little early to make such proclimations...especially when he's been injured most of this year. he did hit 26 HRs last year and his OPS was at least league average.

i will say that i don't think his defense will ever come around.

Big Klu
08-28-2009, 02:10 AM
I think Edwin is a righty-hitting Willie Greene.

Caveat Emperor
08-28-2009, 02:12 AM
i'd hardly say his career is over with tomorrow. little early to make such proclimations...especially when he's been injured most of this year. he did hit 26 HRs last year and his OPS was at least league average.

i will say that i don't think his defense will ever come around.

And because his defense hasn't come around, it makes him a player without a position. His bat isn't good enough play in LF or DH, and his glove isn't good enough to play anywhere else.

That makes him strictly a pinch hitter and potential spot-starter -- a task which he is grossly overpaid for.

traderumor
08-28-2009, 08:10 AM
It is just possible that EE has played his best baseball. He seems to be heading Kearns direction, with a promising start to his career at a young age that quickly fizzled, from what I can see with both due to an attitude of indifference in doing the things necessary to adjust and improve throughout their career.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 08:55 AM
Who gave in?

cincrazy
08-28-2009, 09:26 AM
He'll be starting somewhere next year and he'll probably break out. The Reds and Blue Jays did not want Adam Dunn either.

Hahaha. Come on my man. You can not possibly compare him to Adam Dunn.

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 09:45 AM
I think Edwin is a righty-hitting Willie Greene.

Frankly, the writing was on the wall with the Narron demotion. Knuckle + head.

GoReds
08-28-2009, 09:49 AM
Wasn't there a time that EE played second base in the minors? Wonder if that would solve some of his throwing issues.

PuffyPig
08-28-2009, 09:49 AM
He'll be starting somewhere next year and he'll probably break out. The Reds and Blue Jays did not want Adam Dunn either.

I doubt it was as much of not Cincy not wanting Dunn, as much as not wanting to pay him a ton of money.

Everyone else agreed, and Dunn was forced to sign a much smaller contract to play in Hell.

edabbs44
08-28-2009, 09:56 AM
If true, this is a great illustration of this board's tendency to overvalue some of Cincy's players. Edwin's market value has now been set at negative.

lollipopcurve
08-28-2009, 09:58 AM
That didn't take long.

jojo
08-28-2009, 10:01 AM
I doubt it was as much of not Cincy not wanting Dunn, as much as not wanting to pay him a ton of money.

Everyone else agreed, and Dunn was forced to sign a much smaller contract to play in Hell.

That kind of speaks volumes.

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 10:01 AM
That didn't take long.

How anyone could see him as a player worth his $5 million contract next year is beyond me. Great trade. We dumped a terrible contract and a couple of bullpen arms for a plus bat and plus glove at a premium position. Vintage Walt. Now do it again.

TRF
08-28-2009, 10:30 AM
And because his defense hasn't come around, it makes him a player without a position. His bat isn't good enough play in LF or DH, and his glove isn't good enough to play anywhere else.

That makes him strictly a pinch hitter and potential spot-starter -- a task which he is grossly overpaid for.

dead wrong. his bat is good enough for LF.

bucksfan2
08-28-2009, 10:37 AM
How anyone could see him as a player worth his $5 million contract next year is beyond me. Great trade. We dumped a terrible contract and a couple of bullpen arms for a plus bat and plus glove at a premium position. Vintage Walt. Now do it again.

Just out of curiosity I checked Edwin's numbers yesterday and was surprised. He hasn't improved one iota since he left Cincy. It it speaks volumes about why Stewart was included in the deal, and how much the Reds wanted to rid themselves of Edwin.

I almost feel bad for Edwin because he has never been able to put it together. But then I realized that he will make $5M next year no matter what he does. Not a bad chunk of change.

edabbs44
08-28-2009, 10:38 AM
dead wrong. his bat is good enough for LF.

Good enough to what?

lollipopcurve
08-28-2009, 10:43 AM
EdE's hand injury may have been worse than we know. His hitting numbers are way down, and the injury is a possible explanation. My sense is that it's his defense -- and contract -- that's confounding clubs. I think he'll get more chances, but most likely in the AL where teams always have the option to DH him.

westofyou
08-28-2009, 10:46 AM
Good enough to what?
My thought exactly, I keep hearing how he's a quality player and yet he never showed anything beyond being an average hitter with some pop in a small park.

He's what many guys are, a good player but an indifferent player, a player with more upside than reality assigned to his carcass. He's over matched a good amount of the time and he's unable (or unwilling) to change his game.

I feel exactly about him the way Wilie Green and Chris Brown made me felt, talent there, but with a disconnect more evident than his talent.

Highlifeman21
08-28-2009, 10:50 AM
How anyone could see him as a player worth his $5 million contract next year is beyond me. Great trade. We dumped a terrible contract and a couple of bullpen arms for a plus bat and plus glove at a premium position. Vintage Walt. Now do it again.

But we gave up a Cy Young winner for Rolen.

REDREAD
08-28-2009, 11:15 AM
If true, this is a great illustration of this board's tendency to overvalue some of Cincy's players. Edwin's market value has now been set at negative.

Yep, EdE was always incredibly overrated here. I understand, the guy had mountains of potential. I had high hopes for him to.

Part of the way I saw the trade was basically selling Zach Stewart for payflex. I thought dumping EdE was a big plus.

Also, it's pretty clear Jocketty does have a plan. It might not work, but he really is trying to work on the defense, instead of just giving lip service to the idea. He also get the RH big hitter people have been asking for.. maybe not the perfect one, but he's not sitting on his hands.

Chip R
08-28-2009, 11:17 AM
Part of the way I saw the trade was basically selling Zach Stewart for payflex. I thought dumping EdE was a big plus.

How is that since the Reds took on more salary by trading for Rolen than they would have if they would have kept EE?

Bumstead
08-28-2009, 11:27 AM
ahhhh...Willie Greene...always liked him for some reason...I know, I know...but still...and one has to wonder: a post about EE and Dunn has to become part of the topic. Just let it go...:rolleyes:

I still fail to see the "Pay-Flex" the Reds gained by trading 2 quality pitchers and EE for an $11M Rolen??? I am waiting until after next season, hopefully when EE is fully healthy to draw any conclusions to what type of player he can become.

Bum

traderumor
08-28-2009, 11:50 AM
I would say there is a higher probability of Rolen earning his keep than there is that EE would play like a $5M ballplayer. The "Walt got hosed" narrative is starting to bring on the sound of crickets.

REDREAD
08-28-2009, 11:51 AM
How is that since the Reds took on more salary by trading for Rolen than they would have if they would have kept EE?

They gave up Zach Stewart to get more money.
Your point is sound, they used the payflex saved to pay for Rolen. Whether that is a good idea or not is debatable, but Zach Stewart basically brought us 5 million plus whatever cash the Jays sent us.

I'm pretty confident the Reds could find a prospect comparable to Zach Stewart if they were given 5+ million to do so. Not a bad sale.

fearofpopvol1
08-28-2009, 11:56 AM
And because his defense hasn't come around, it makes him a player without a position. His bat isn't good enough play in LF or DH, and his glove isn't good enough to play anywhere else.

That makes him strictly a pinch hitter and potential spot-starter -- a task which he is grossly overpaid for.

this is all sorts of unconfirmed. if his bat continues to improve (and it did improve a great deal last year), he can still be a a valuable player, even at 3B. not all players with good bats play great defense.

edabbs44
08-28-2009, 12:05 PM
this is all sorts of unconfirmed. if his bat continues to improve (and it did improve a great deal last year), he can still be a a valuable player, even at 3B. not all players with good bats play great defense.

OPS

2006 - .831
2007 - .794
2008 - .807

The only thing that improved was his HR total.

Bumstead
08-28-2009, 12:17 PM
I would say there is a higher probability of Rolen earning his keep than there is that EE would play like a $5M ballplayer. The "Walt got hosed" narrative is starting to bring on the sound of crickets.

uh...well they still have to pay Rolen and they gave away two solid pitchers on top of EE...of course Rolen has had a good week and he is new so he is awesome to the average Reds fans (like past 'new' improvements: Maloney, Rosales, etc....sure he's better than they are but costs a lot more). Nobody said he got hosed...he took like a man IMHO...:eek:

Marc D
08-28-2009, 12:26 PM
I would say there is a higher probability of Rolen earning his keep than there is that EE would play like a $5M ballplayer. The "Walt got hosed" narrative is starting to bring on the sound of crickets.


Only in the mind of those who have been convinced from day 1 that it was a good trade.

Look at it from the other side. The Jays saw enough value in getting pitching prospects and shedding Rolens salary to take on a player they didn't really want.

That tells you right there they thought they had so much margin in the deal they could afford to give some of it back to ensure the deal went down. They didn't want to get greedy and let their fish off the hook.

traderumor
08-28-2009, 12:37 PM
uh...well they still have to pay Rolen and they gave away two solid pitchers on top of EE...of course Rolen has had a good week and he is new so he is awesome to the average Reds fans (like past 'new' improvements: Maloney, Rosales, etc....sure he's better than they are but costs a lot more). Nobody said he got hosed...he took like a man IMHO...:eek:Hey, I post on RZ in the ORG, so I'm no average Reds fan :rolleyes:

traderumor
08-28-2009, 12:39 PM
Only in the mind of those who have been convinced from day 1 that it was a good trade.

Look at it from the other side. The Jays saw enough value in getting pitching prospects and shedding Rolens salary to take on a player they didn't really want.

That tells you right there they thought they had so much margin in the deal they could afford to give some of it back to ensure the deal went down. They didn't want to get greedy and let their fish off the hook.What they thought and what is reality is still a debatable. It is commendable to stick to your guns, but that train is losing steam and starting to head uphill, (if I may be excused for mixing and matching metaphors).

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 12:42 PM
Only in the mind of those who have been convinced from day 1 that it was a good trade.

Look at it from the other side. The Jays saw enough value in getting pitching prospects and shedding Rolens salary to take on a player they didn't really want.

That tells you right there they thought they had so much margin in the deal they could afford to give some of it back to ensure the deal went down. They didn't want to get greedy and let their fish off the hook.

Strike that. Reverse it.

Look at it from the other side. The Reds saw enough value in getting Rolen and shedding EE's salary to throw in a couple of prospects not in baseball americas top 100. They didn't want to get greedy and let their fish off the hook.

Bumstead
08-28-2009, 12:53 PM
Strike that. Reverse it.

Look at it from the other side. The Reds saw enough value in getting Rolen and shedding EE's salary to throw in a couple of prospects not in baseball americas top 100. They didn't want to get greedy and let their fish off the hook.

The 2 of you are humorous...a team with no payroll flexibility that is trying to 'build' a team through youth (Jockety's words) takes on $11M ($6M more than EE) and throws in 2 young pitchers that would be useful on the MLB team next season. And Stewart will be in the top 100 for 2010; he certainly has earned that. Nice to go back to 2009 when convenient though...all this for an aging, injury prone 3B...we'll be lucky if he plays 120 games next season...for $11M...great deal...:rolleyes:

And who says 'average' Red's fans can't post on ORG? :p:

nate
08-28-2009, 01:26 PM
The 2 of you are humorous...a team with no payroll flexibility that is trying to 'build' a team through youth (Jockety's words) takes on $11M ($6M more than EE) and throws in 2 young pitchers that would be useful on the MLB team next season. And Stewart will be in the top 100 for 2010; he certainly has earned that. Nice to go back to 2009 when convenient though...all this for an aging, injury prone 3B...we'll be lucky if he plays 120 games next season...for $11M...great deal...:rolleyes:

And who says 'average' Red's fans can't post on ORG? :p:

I believe the payroll obligations are essentially the same next year as they would've been if Walt made no moves.

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 01:33 PM
The 2 of you are humorous...a team with no payroll flexibility that is trying to 'build' a team through youth (Jockety's words) takes on $11M ($6M more than EE) and throws in 2 young pitchers that would be useful on the MLB team next season. And Stewart will be in the top 100 for 2010; he certainly has earned that. Nice to go back to 2009 when convenient though...all this for an aging, injury prone 3B...we'll be lucky if he plays 120 games next season...for $11M...great deal...:rolleyes:

And who says 'average' Red's fans can't post on ORG? :p:

1) I would say a team with no payroll flexibility couldn't have taken on the Rolen contract. That is the definition of payroll flexibilty.

2) How do you go back to 2009? Are you from the future?

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 01:36 PM
Look, the young arms involved in this trade are going to make it or break it. I'll be the first to say that the Reds could have really screwed up by dealing Stewart, but the odds are against it if you ask me. Simple as that. I won't ever knock anyone who didn't like the trade if they are willing to at least concede that this deal could work out nicely for the Reds. But don't act as if the results of the deal are final. It was a risky trade. Will it pay off? We'll see.

Will M
08-28-2009, 01:36 PM
1. one point that no one has brought up all year about EE. the mistake the Reds made was giving him the fat 2 year deal last winter. in hindsight it would have been better to trade him for anything & if we got no takers release him.

2. question for EE lovers: if the Jays gave us EE for a bag of baseballs would you play him at 1B (holding the position warm for Alonso) and move Votto to LF?

kpresidente
08-28-2009, 01:45 PM
Uh, if the Blue Jays only wanted the prospects then why did we give them EE? Salary dump? Are you kidding me? We're paying Taveras almost as much ($4M) as EE, and he doesn't have a 3-year .810 OPS. They could have moved him in LF. Are they really this incompetent?

flyer85
08-28-2009, 01:48 PM
Look, the young arms involved in this trade are going to make it or break it. I'll be the first to say that the Reds could have really screwed up by dealing Stewart, but the odds are against it if you ask me.
hard to see the upside of the deal for the Reds ... rent a aging player for 1 year in a season they aren't likely good enough to compete.

BRM
08-28-2009, 01:50 PM
hard to see the upside of the deal for the Reds ... rent a aging player for 1 year in a season they aren't likely good enough to compete.

I doubt the Reds see Rolen as a rental. Walt even said they want to extend him.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 01:55 PM
I doubt the Reds see Rolen as a rental. Walt even said they want to extend him.you don't have to trade for him for 2011 and beyond(just sign him as a free agent). His current contract makes him a 1 year rental.

edabbs44
08-28-2009, 01:57 PM
you don't have to trade for him for 2011 and beyond(just sign him as a free agent). His current contract makes him a 1 year rental.

Unless he is traded to someone else and re-signs before he hits the market.

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 01:58 PM
hard to see the upside of the deal for the Reds ... rent a aging player for 1 year in a season they aren't likely good enough to compete.

Upside - EE flames out. Josh and Zach never become average MLB pitchers. Rolen has a solid 2010.

Sure that scenario costs a few million bucks, but I'm not throwing in the towel for 2010. If the Reds stay healthy in 2010 and pick up a few upgrades, the chips could fall their way. This deal doesn't kill "the plan"...heck if wanted the Reds can wash their hands of it after 2010...the year that you don't seem them competing.

I acknowledge there is a downside. Do you reasonably acknowledge there is an upside?

traderumor
08-28-2009, 01:58 PM
And who says 'average' Red's fans can't post on ORG? :p:I'm still waiting for proof that folks who call out the "average Reds fan" are more than average Reds fans themselves, as I would characterize someone using what "the average Reds fans" believe as strawmen to refute and support their own position. That is becoming an increasingly common debating technique.

TRF
08-28-2009, 02:01 PM
He's what many guys are, a good player but an indifferent player, a player with more upside than reality assigned to his carcass. He's over matched a good amount of the time and he's unable (or unwilling) to change his game.

ridiculous. his game did change. he's not the same player he was three years ago, and I contend in any other organization, any one that can ACTUALLY teach, he'd be a far better player. He's more of a HR hitter now than ever before.



OPS

2006 - .831
2007 - .794
2008 - .807

The only thing that improved was his HR total.

OPS by itself, yeah his game looks flat, He's still young and is learning the power game.

I'd take him for LF over what the Reds have in house right now.

traderumor
08-28-2009, 02:02 PM
hard to see the upside of the deal for the Reds ... rent a aging player for 1 year in a season they aren't likely good enough to compete.I think it is called improving the product. Can't win with 'em, can't win without 'em.

BRM
08-28-2009, 02:03 PM
Improving the talent on the active roster, one position at a time.

traderumor
08-28-2009, 02:03 PM
Improving the talent on the active roster, one position at a time.

I win, posted it first. ;)

kpresidente
08-28-2009, 02:05 PM
How anyone could see him as a player worth his $5 million contract next year is beyond me. Great trade. We dumped a terrible contract and a couple of bullpen arms for a plus bat and plus glove at a premium position. Vintage Walt. Now do it again.

Pretty much wrong on every count.

1. How anyone could see him as a player worth his $5 million contract next year is beyond me. Easy, by being objective. Fangraphs pegged him as having $9.5 million value in 2008, $6.6M in 2007 and $6.0M in 2006.

2. ...We dumped a terrible contract... No, Cordero is a terrible contract that we could have dumped thanks to those bullpen arms we gave away. Not now.

3. ...for a plus bat... Rolen's 3-year OPS is exactly the same as EE's.

4. ...and plus glove... So we traded our best two pitching prospects for better defense at 3B for one year? 2010 WS here we come!

5. Vintage Walt. Now do it again. He can't. We're out of money.

Caveat Emperor
08-28-2009, 02:05 PM
this is all sorts of unconfirmed. if his bat continues to improve (and it did improve a great deal last year), he can still be a a valuable player, even at 3B. not all players with good bats play great defense.

In addition to what edabbs posted, there's also the fact that the team is paying $5m to a guy that needs to improve to have value.

That's bad economics of the first degree.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:06 PM
Upside - EE flames out. Josh and Zach never become average MLB pitchers. Rolen has a solid 2010.
Do you reasonably acknowledge there is an upside?only if the Reds are in the thick of the playoff chase come late August 2010 ... otherwise there is none. IMO, the upside sas nothing to do with the performance of the traded assets.

WVRedsFan
08-28-2009, 02:06 PM
He'll be starting somewhere next year and he'll probably break out. The Reds and Blue Jays did not want Adam Dunn either.

Uh, no. We've heard "he's going to break out" forever. Hit bat may come around (but I doubt it), but his fielding will doom him as a major leaguer. Like most of the Reds team for so long, he remained eternally young and that was used as an excuse for his defecencies. The fact that no one really wants him shows me that it was a good move to dump him.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:07 PM
I think it is called improving the product. Can't win with 'em, can't win without 'em.really isn't known about the guys not named EE. Jays weren't winning with Rolen this year or last.

kpresidente
08-28-2009, 02:08 PM
Improving the talent on the active roster, one position at a time.

Like CF (Taveras), SS (Janish) and LF (Dunn>Gomes)?

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 02:11 PM
Pretty much wrong on every count.

1. How anyone could see him as a player worth his $5 million contract next year is beyond me. Easy, by being objective. Fangraphs pegged him as having $9.5 million value in 2008, $6.6M in 2007 and $6.0M in 2006.

2. ...We dumped a terrible contract... No, Cordero is a terrible contract that we could have dumped thanks to those bullpen arms we gave away. Not now.

3. ...for a plus bat... Rolen's 3-year OPS is exactly the same as EE's.

4. ...and plus glove... So we traded our best two pitching prospects for better defense at 3B for one year? 2009 WS here we come!

5. Vintage Walt. Now do it again. He can't. We're out of money.

1) What will his 2009 value be? Not that great.

2) Corderos 2008 salary was 8.2 M. Fangraphs has it listed at 8.6 on the FA market. How is that terrible, since you used fangraphs as reference for #1. If you want to be objective, stay objective. Terrible was an overboard choice of adjective.

3) After this year, Rolen will be easily be ahead.

4) Yeah thats right, our D improved.

5) I can't debate snark.

BRM
08-28-2009, 02:11 PM
Like CF (Taveras), SS (Janish) and LF (Dunn>Gomes)?

I was referring to Rolen. He is a clear improvement from EE. The others? No doubt Walt whiffed in CF. LF has been a downgrade offensively although Gomes/Nix have been alright. SS is a wash. Janish is better than Gonzalez defensively but probably not offensively.

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 02:12 PM
only if the Reds are in the thick of the playoff chase come late August 2010 ... otherwise there is none. IMO, the upside sas nothing to do with the performance of the traded assets.

Sure it does. You traded players who couldn't help much at the MLB level for 1 who can.

traderumor
08-28-2009, 02:12 PM
only if the Reds are in the thick of the playoff chase come late August 2010 ... otherwise there is none. IMO, the upside sas nothing to do with the performance of the traded assets.If only roster building was so neat and tidy.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:13 PM
I can't debate snark.
seems rather obvious the Reds won't be looking to expand payroll. The only way they can bring in another expensive contract is by shedding current payroll. Looks as if they have boxed themselves into a corner at the moment.

fearofpopvol1
08-28-2009, 02:14 PM
OPS

2006 - .831
2007 - .794
2008 - .807

The only thing that improved was his HR total.

The OPS did go up over 2007, albeit not much. He also played in more games in 2008 than he did by 2006, by quite a few.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:14 PM
If only roster building was so neat and tidy.roster building seems like an oxymoron when applied to the Reds

kpresidente
08-28-2009, 02:14 PM
The fact that no one really wants him shows me that it was a good move to dump him.

Nobody wanted Rolen, either. I'd venture you'd have found plenty of takers on Stewart and Roenicke, though. The Reds are a mess right now.

westofyou
08-28-2009, 02:15 PM
ridiculous. his game did change. he's not the same player he was three years ago, and I contend in any other organization, any one that can ACTUALLY teach, he'd be a far better player. He's more of a HR hitter now than ever before.



Ridiculous, maybe, maybe not.... it also is ridiculous to pump him up year after year, he's in Shackleford country now.

traderumor
08-28-2009, 02:16 PM
roster building seems like an oxymoron when applied to the Redsthe other two little pigs built something. It just wasn't sturdy.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:16 PM
Sure it does. You traded players who couldn't help much at the MLB level for 1 who can.If the traded for player doesn't help you win the next season then what was the point?

Bumstead
08-28-2009, 02:16 PM
What's the upside to that trade? The Reds make fewer errors at 3B and get similar hitting for 90-120 games for at least $3M more? Who plays the other games? Is Rolen going to make the Reds 5 games better next year? 78 wins instead of 73 (if so, who cares?)? Are the Reds pennant contenders during Rolen's rental period? Unlikely. I acknowledge that when Rolen plays he is a pretty good 3B and a swell guy but that doesn't make it a good trade for the Reds...The reality of the situation is that the Reds don't have any more money to spend without trading Harang, Cordero, and/or Arroyo now...who's going to pitch those innings in an effective manner if they are traded? Show me the upside for next season, I would like to see it.

TradeRumour-you can think of me whatever you want. It gets tiring to hear when a new guy is brought up (not the real prospects, the older guys who are probably 25th men or roster filler due to injuries) or obtained like Rosales, Maloney, Lehr and even Wells to some extent, and they have one good game or a good week and then they are awesome and will be the answer for the Reds to compete...Not happening with those guys. Not happening with Rolen either unless a lot of other money is spent on this team.

I am as frustrated, or maybe moreso, as anyone about the losing but there should be a plan that is actually followed. The moves should make sense. This move doesn't make sense to me (much like the idea of playing Janish at SS for 162 games doesn't....). The Reds need to tear it down and start at the foundation and work their way up instead of starting with the first floor and then trying to pour the foundation...

All of this is IMHO... :p:

Bum

fearofpopvol1
08-28-2009, 02:18 PM
In addition to what edabbs posted, there's also the fact that the team is paying $5m to a guy that needs to improve to have value.

That's bad economics of the first degree.

yeah, but is trading away 2 legitimate pitching prospects that are cheap, plus an affordable 3B as a stopgap (which I think EdE was--he was not overpaid for his production) when the Reds had a more than capable 3B in waiting--Todd Frazier for a guy that makes over $12M good ecnomics??

nate
08-28-2009, 02:24 PM
5. Vintage Walt. Now do it again. He can't. We're out of money.

The total amount of the next year's payroll is pretty much the same now as it was at the start of the season.

So, if he's out of money now, he was out of money then.

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 02:27 PM
If the traded for player doesn't help you win the next season then what was the point?

Improving the club. Since the Reds were terrible the past 4-5 years, does that mean that the trade for BP didn't have upside? Sure it did. It improved the club. I haven't seen anyone say that the sole reason for obtaining Rolen was solely to win/go for it in 2010 (and if they did that is mistake IMHO), but I do think it will improve the club, which is something that you do in increments. Don't rule out the trading of a hot Rolen in 2010 if the Reds are floundering...how do these things get overlooked/ignored by some?

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 02:29 PM
What's the upside to that trade? The Reds make fewer errors at 3B and get similar hitting for 90-120 games for at least $3M more?
Bum

If that is your upside I will agree to disagree and move on. I simply have a higher upside than that.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:30 PM
Improving the club.
they are only trading for one year in Rolen. They may sign him to play in 2011 as well but they could do that without trading for him.

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 02:32 PM
they are only trading for one year in Rolen. They may sign him to play in 2011 as well but they could do that without trading for him.

But they'd not have gotten out from under EE's corpse. Next year's product is unquestionably improved by this trade. Maybe not 2011, I don't know. But really, that's an eternity away in baseball time.

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 02:32 PM
they are only trading for one year in Rolen. They may sign him to play in 2011 as well but they could do that without trading for him.

Remember, the bet has been hedged since you can trade Rolen at the break next year if you want. I've acknowleged this deal could explode in the Reds face. Can you reasonably acknowledge that it could work out?

traderumor
08-28-2009, 02:32 PM
What's the upside to that trade? The Reds make fewer errors at 3B and get similar hitting for 90-120 games for at least $3M more? Who plays the other games? Is Rolen going to make the Reds 5 games better next year? 78 wins instead of 73 (if so, who cares?)? Are the Reds pennant contenders during Rolen's rental period? Unlikely. I acknowledge that when Rolen plays he is a pretty good 3B and a swell guy but that doesn't make it a good trade for the Reds...The reality of the situation is that the Reds don't have any more money to spend without trading Harang, Cordero, and/or Arroyo now...who's going to pitch those innings in an effective manner if they are traded? Show me the upside for next season, I would like to see it.
So, can't win with 'em, can't win without 'em, lets just keep 'em all and complain about the FO not making any moves to improve the product.


TradeRumour-you can think of me whatever you want. It gets tiring to hear when a new guy is brought up (not the real prospects, the older guys who are probably 25th men or roster filler due to injuries) or obtained like Rosales, Maloney, Lehr and even Wells to some extent, and they have one good game or a good week and then they are awesome and will be the answer for the Reds to compete...Not happening with those guys. Not happening with Rolen either unless a lot of other money is spent on this team.Self-proclaimed "not average Reds fans" is just as tiresome.


I am as frustrated, or maybe moreso, as anyone about the losing but there should be a plan that is actually followed. The moves should make sense. This move doesn't make sense to me (much like the idea of playing Janish at SS for 162 games doesn't....). The Reds need to tear it down and start at the foundation and work their way up instead of starting with the first floor and then trying to pour the foundation...

All of this is IMHO... :p:

BumI said the same thing when Detroit acquired Ivan Rodriguez to play C the year after they were the easily the worst team in baseball. Walt's gibberish about his plan doesn't help matters. But many have pointed out how this move does make sense with valid arguments, and those folks are not spouting off about "Rolen's here, Maloney's on his way, here we go Redlegs, here we go (clap, clap)." And one does not have to be an insipidly homer "average Reds fan" to view the transaction as such.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:34 PM
Remember, the bet has been hedged since you can trade Rolen at the break next year if you want. I've acknowleged this deal could explode in the Reds face. Can you reasonably acknowledge that it could work out?I don't think it will explode in the Reds face ... However, IMO the potential upside is not enough to justify the risk.

TheNext44
08-28-2009, 02:36 PM
If the traded for player doesn't help you win the next season then what was the point?

Having Rolen on the team the rest of this year and all of next can help the Reds win after 2010, even if he is not on the team then.

First, he is a veteran big RH bat for the middle of the lineup. This will help Bruce (and other young hitters) as he develops as a hitter. It is very difficult to learn to hit major league pitching, which Bruce is in the middle of right now, when you have no protection, when pitchers can pitch around you. Bruce should see much better pitches to hit with Rolen in the lineup, which should help him develop better as hitter.

Second, he is a gold glove caliber thirdbaseman. That will have a huge effect on the development of the pitchers. Cueto, Bailey, and all the young relievers can concentrate on pitching and not have to feel like the need to strike everyone out. A bad infield defense behind a young pitcher can seriously damage his development.

Third, the Reds sorely needed a veteran in the clubhouse. Forget "leadership" or being a good "clubhouse guy", this is about having a player who has experience and knows the game. The Reds are a young team, and Hernandez was the only guy on the offensive side, who had any experience. And Rolen has more experience than him, considering all the playoffs he has been in.
When Bruce was interviewed recently, Grande asked him who looks to on the Reds team to learn about the game. He couldn't come up with anyone, then finally said, "Joey, I guess." Just by being there, and leading by example, Rolen can teach the young players what it takes to win, which is something the Reds clearly need.

kpresidente
08-28-2009, 02:37 PM
2) Corderos 2008 salary was 8.2 M. Fangraphs has it listed at 8.6 on the FA market. How is that terrible, since you used fangraphs as reference for #1. If you want to be objective, stay objective. Terrible was an overboard choice of adjective.
I think you're reading that wrong. They have Cordero's 2009 value at $4.7M.

His 3-year numbers looks like this: 2007=$10M, 2008=$3.8M, 2009=$4.7M.
His contract going forward looks like this: 2009=$12M, 2010=$12M, 2011=$12M.

Terrible is a good word.


3) After this year, Rolen will be easily be ahead.
Rolen has a .333 BABiP. EE has a .245 BABiP. Both are flukes.


4) Yeah thats right, our D improved.
For an extra $3 million. It's break even, plus we could have done that on the FA market without giving up any players.


5) I can't debate snark.
Sure you can.:)

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 02:40 PM
I don't think it will explode in the Reds face ... However, IMO the potential upside is not enough to justify the risk.

I don't think the risk that they've given away future Trevor Hoffman is all that great. A future Chris Perez maybe.

fearofpopvol1
08-28-2009, 02:41 PM
I don't think the risk that they've given away future Trevor Hoffman is all that great. A future Chris Perez maybe.

how many times did you watch stewart pitch?

Bumstead
08-28-2009, 02:41 PM
So...I read those responses...What's the upside again? Is it: we like Rolen cause he's new and he's not EE, or whatever Reds player we are tired of this week? Or, is he going to make the Reds contenders next year? Another question: Does Rolen make the Reds better than the addition of Roenicke and Stewart would have (if they were in our bullpen in 2010)? Give me something real that lets me know the upside to the trade. I haven't heard anything. Of course, if die-hard Reds fans are excited at the opportunity to win 78 games instead of 73 then I stand corrected...

Bum

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:43 PM
Having Rolen on the team the rest of this year and all of next can help the Reds win after 2010, even if he is not on the team then.nothing better than subjective and anecdotal effects. That line of thinking is what allows the inept to keep their jobs.

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 02:45 PM
I think you're reading that wrong. They have Cordero's 2009 value at $4.7M.

His 3-year numbers looks like this: 2006=$10M, 2008=$3.8M, 2009=$4.7M.
His contract going forward looks like this: 2009=$12M, 2010=$12M, 2011=$12M.

Terrible is a good word.


Rolen has a .333 BABiP. EE has a .245 BABiP. Both are flukes.


For an extra $3 million. It's break even, plus we could have done that on the FA market without giving up any players.


Sure you can.:)

Yeah I botched my columns up with fangraphs. :explode:

I found myself thinking...I can go point by point here in about 30 seconds. Sorry.

I agree the Reds got their moneys worth out of EE. But he seems to be going downhill fast. Am I reading it correctly...fangraphs has him at -2.8 million for 2009? Rolen at 13.7 million?

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:45 PM
I don't think the risk that they've given away future Trevor Hoffman is all that great. and the prospects of the Reds being in the playoff chase in 2010 aren't too good either (which really must be the point of the trade).

TheNext44
08-28-2009, 02:45 PM
Pretty much wrong on every count.

1. How anyone could see him as a player worth his $5 million contract next year is beyond me. Easy, by being objective. Fangraphs pegged him as having $9.5 million value in 2008, $6.6M in 2007 and $6.0M in 2006.

[

I've argued this before, but forget UZR/150, forget all defensive metrics. EE does not play good enough defense to justify his bat. Period. Therefore he has negative value as a starting 3B.

This is one of those rare occasions when a players defense is do bad, that having him play everyday hurts the team on so many levels, that it no longer is about his individual combined run production.

Here is what I said about the SS position in an earlier post:



I think that there is a point, especially for SS, where a player's defense is so bad, that his offense can not make up for it, no matter how great.

Let's say Pujols played SS. His offense is worth around 60 runs above replacement. If his defense was -50 UZR/150, I think that could be so bad, that it would make it impossible for the team to compete, even though his overall production would be + 10 runs, or one win.

A shortstop that bad defensively would cost the team more than 5 wins on defense, as it would deflate the entire team's confidence, especially the pitchers. There has to be a certain level of professional play for a team to win on a regular basis. When a team is constantly making errors, it leads to them almost giving up, thinking that they don't deserve to win. And has a devastating effect on pitchers.

I do think that this would show up in the numbers, just not in a players personal numbers. It would show up in team's run difference, most likely the overall runs given up, so it's not an "intangible" factor, just a hard to find one.

I think it is similar to my personal feelings about beautiful women and how long I want to hear them talk about something I could care less about.

The more beautiful they are, the longer I will listen, regardless of the topic. But there are certain topics that are so boring to me, (her ex, how "human" her cat is, her favorite "Sex and The City" episode...) that no matter how beautiful she is, I just want her to shut up.

There are some SS, that no matter how much offense they bring, they can't make up for their defense.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:46 PM
Of course, if die-hard Reds fans are excited at the opportunity to win 78 games instead of 73 then I stand corrected...
:beerme:

That's the way I see it. Although it is probably more like a 2 win improvement.

TheNext44
08-28-2009, 02:48 PM
nothing better than subjective and anecdotal effects. That line of thinking is what allows the inept to keep their jobs.

Just because something is difficult to quantify into an easily quotable stat, does not mean it is meaningless or not there. And I am a "stat" guy.

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 02:50 PM
and the prospects of the Reds being in the playoff chase in 2010 aren't too good either (which really must be the point of the trade).

That's a related but different argument: are the Reds going to be crap next year? Almost certainly. But that's because not a soul in this organization knows how to draft or develop (and hasn't known for 25 years), not because Rolen will be insufficient to the task.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:50 PM
Just because something is difficult to quantify into an easily quotable stat, does not mean it is meaningless or not there. And I am a "stat" guy.
and if you spend your time chasing for improvements that you can't quantify ...

IMO it is simply a way to avoid responsibility for the decisions being made.

"it worked great we just can't find any data that shows you".

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 02:52 PM
how many times did you watch stewart pitch?

Almost no one becomes Trevor Hoffman. Comfort in numbers and the irrepressible negative force of the Reds' development system.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:53 PM
That's a related but different argument: are the Reds going to be crap next year? Almost certainly. But that's because not a soul in this organization knows how to draft or develop (and hasn't known for 25 years), not because Rolen will be insufficient to the task.if he doesn't help win in 2010(the only year you have under control) then isn't the potential that you could hit on Stewart worth more than trading for something for one season that isn't likely to get you where you really want to go.

Will ROlen make the 2010 Reds better? Very likely if he stays healthy. However if it doesn't get them to the playoffs or in the hunt in August then his acquisition is meaningless (all anecdotal stuff aside :D )

edabbs44
08-28-2009, 02:53 PM
So...I read those responses...What's the upside again? Is it: we like Rolen cause he's new and he's not EE, or whatever Reds player we are tired of this week? Or, is he going to make the Reds contenders next year? Another question: Does Rolen make the Reds better than the addition of Roenicke and Stewart would have (if they were in our bullpen in 2010)? Give me something real that lets me know the upside to the trade. I haven't heard anything. Of course, if die-hard Reds fans are excited at the opportunity to win 78 games instead of 73 then I stand corrected...

Bum

That's why this trade should be judged next year and not right now. If the FO dedicates money to the cause this off-season, this trade looks better.

Just like Cordero. The signing looked better at the time than it does now.

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 02:54 PM
Will ROlen make the 2010 Reds better? Very likely if he stays healthy. However if it doesn't get them to the playoffs or in the hunt in August then his acquisition is meaningless (all anecdotal stuff aside :D )

This is of course wrong.

TheNext44
08-28-2009, 02:59 PM
and if you spend your time chasing for improvements that you can't quantify ...

IMO it is simply a way to avoid responsibility for the decisions being made.

"it worked great we just can't find any data that shows you".

But it will show up, there will be plenty of data to back it up. In Bruce's better numbers, in the pitching staff throwing more strikes, in the team scoring more runs, letting in less runs, winning more game. It just won't be summed up in one, easy to quote stat with a funny name like UZR or xFIP.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 02:59 PM
This is of course wrong.depends on the criteria for success. From my POV the only criteria for success is "did you make the playoffs"? Seeing as Rolen is only signed for 2010 then if he doesn't help them make the playoffs then his acquisition is a failure unless he is flipped for something valuable in 2010 that can help the Reds make in the playoffs in future seasons.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:00 PM
But it will show up, there will be plenty of data to back it up. In Bruce's better numbers, in the pitching staff throwing more strikes, in the team scoring more runs, letting in less runs, winning more game. It just won't be summed up in one, easy to quote stat with a funny name like UZR or xFIP.how do you objectively attribute that to Rolen?

RedEye
08-28-2009, 03:01 PM
This is of course wrong.

And how? You of all posters would seem to be of the variety that does not really value a 78-win team over a 72-win team. Perhaps flyer is using rhetoric that is too strong here, but in terms of the playoffs (which should be the goal), Rolen's acquisition could, indeed, be "meaningless." What am I missing?

WMR
08-28-2009, 03:03 PM
I don't see how the Rolen acquisition can make one iota of sense unless they're planning a payroll in the neighborhood of 85-90 million next season.

Maybe that's 'the plan'?

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 03:03 PM
depends on the criteria for success. From my POV the only criteria for success is "did you make the playoffs"? Seeing as Rolen is only signed for 2010 then if he doesn't help them make the playoffs then his acquisition is a failure unless he is flipped for something valuable in 2010 that can help the Reds make in the playoffs in future seasons.

Going younger doesn't help this organization. They don't know how to nursemaid young players into superstars. In almost every case they stunt or screw up young players.

Get the vets.

fearofpopvol1
08-28-2009, 03:03 PM
Almost no one becomes Trevor Hoffman. Comfort in numbers and the irrepressible negative force of the Reds' development system.

your non-answering of my question answered my question...zero.

regardless if he becomes hoffman or a #3 starter or an ace or a #4 or 5 starter, the odds of him positively contributing to the reds were high. the reds need pitching and stewart was one of the better pitching prospects they had.

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 03:04 PM
And how? You of all posters would seem to be of the variety that does not really value a 78-win team over a 72-win team. Perhaps flyer is using rhetoric that is too strong here, but in terms of the playoffs (which should be the goal), Rolen's acquisition could, indeed, be "meaningless." What am I missing?

Get baseball players not question marks. It works.

TRF
08-28-2009, 03:04 PM
Ridiculous, maybe, maybe not.... it also is ridiculous to pump him up year after year, he's in Shackleford country now.

heh.

not really though. he's got a better bat than BP though is far worse defensively. And he can hit RH's a bit. He also finds 1B in other ways.

I'd take him in LF right now were he not hurt. 2009 is just a lost year for him Guys get hurt. I'll say right now he posts an .850ish OPS next year with 25+ HR's

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 03:04 PM
And how? You of all posters would seem to be of the variety that does not really value a 78-win team over a 72-win team. Perhaps flyer is using rhetoric that is too strong here, but in terms of the playoffs (which should be the goal), Rolen's acquisition could, indeed, be "meaningless." What am I missing?

If it is meaningless...can't the Reds deal him next season to recoup some of the proverbial cost?

edabbs44
08-28-2009, 03:07 PM
I'd take him in LF right now were he not hurt. 2009 is just a lost year for him Guys get hurt. I'll say right now he posts an .850ish OPS next year with 25+ HR's

Except he may be more of a butcher in left than he is at 3rd. We have no idea if he can play the OF.

bucksfan2
08-28-2009, 03:07 PM
if he doesn't help win in 2010(the only year you have under control) then isn't the potential that you could hit on Stewart worth more than trading for something for one season that isn't likely to get you where you really want to go.

Will ROlen make the 2010 Reds better? Very likely if he stays healthy. However if it doesn't get them to the playoffs or in the hunt in August then his acquisition is meaningless (all anecdotal stuff aside :D )

What if Rolen helps the Reds win this season? Granted the Reds aren't going to go to the playoffs, but that doesn't mean the season is over with. But don't underestimate how much of a confidence boost a young team could have if they finish a season off strong.

Mario-Rijo
08-28-2009, 03:11 PM
What if Rolen helps the Reds win this season? Granted the Reds aren't going to go to the playoffs, but that doesn't mean the season is over with. But don't underestimate how much of a confidence boost a young team could have if they finish a season off strong.

They finished off strong last year also.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:12 PM
If it is meaningless...can't the Reds deal him next season to recoup some of the proverbial cost?depends on if he has any value in relation to his cost

traderumor
08-28-2009, 03:12 PM
and if you spend your time chasing for improvements that you can't quantify ...

IMO it is simply a way to avoid responsibility for the decisions being made.

"it worked great we just can't find any data that shows you".

I'm a CPA, and that is not a valid decision rule and an unrealistic management expectation. If everything were quantifiable, decision making in any discipline would be oh so easy and I would be demanding doctors rates for my services as I would be the key to a successful business of any kind. Yet, there all these consultants running around making money and helping businesses succeed because running a business has unquantifiable aspects that still need identified and addressed if the business is going to be a success. And if the business is human resource heavy, guess what, the unquantifiable aspects only increase. Guess what baseball is?

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:13 PM
What if Rolen helps the Reds win this season?
means next to nothing. How the Reds do in 2010 will depend on they perform next year, not on how many game they might win in September 2009.

nate
08-28-2009, 03:14 PM
Does Rolen make the Reds better than the addition of Roenicke and Stewart would have (if they were in our bullpen in 2010)?

I think so, yes. Rolen addresses an area of need. The bullpen is not an area of need.


Give me something real that lets me know the upside to the trade. I haven't heard anything. Not for nothing but if you haven't heard anything, I don't think you've been listening.


Of course, if die-hard Reds fans are excited at the opportunity to win 78 games instead of 73 then I stand corrected...Does trading for Scott Rolen preclude other moves from being made?

pedro
08-28-2009, 03:14 PM
No kidding. He's Aaron Boone without the glove.

He'll be out of the majors within 2 years.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:15 PM
Going younger doesn't help this organization. They don't know how to nursemaid young players into superstars. In almost every case they stunt or screw up young players.

Get the vets.My suggestion would be fire all the draft and development and pay to get people that can do the job rather than acquiring vets. an "acquire the vets" strategy is likely to expensive in terms of $$ for the Reds to be successful.

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 03:16 PM
My suggestion would be fire all the draft and development and pay to get people that can do the job rather than acquiring vets. an "acquire the vets" strategy is likely to expensive in terms of $$ for the Reds to be successful.

The first isn't going to happen. So the latter is the next best option under the circumstances.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:17 PM
Does trading for Scott Rolen preclude other moves from being made?seeing as they Reds are seemingly restricted in payroll it pretty much precludes acquiring proven major league help. Which leaves you with "hope the young guys can step up and produce".

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:18 PM
The first isn't going to happen. So the latter is the next best option under the circumstances.I don't see what precludes the first unless you are an organization unwilling to make the tough choices and decisons necessary for success.

traderumor
08-28-2009, 03:18 PM
depends on the criteria for success. From my POV the only criteria for success is "did you make the playoffs"? Seeing as Rolen is only signed for 2010 then if he doesn't help them make the playoffs then his acquisition is a failure unless he is flipped for something valuable in 2010 that can help the Reds make in the playoffs in future seasons.Buddy Bell was long gone by the time the Reds made the playoffs in 1990. However, he sure did help bring some credibility and stability to the major league product while the youngsters developed and eventually matured into the perfect storm 1990 season. Now, I can't quantify that, so I guess we should not even consider such things in the evolution process, eh? Add to that I can remember Buddy Bell, but I haven't the foggies who they traded away to obtain him.

nate
08-28-2009, 03:22 PM
seeing as they Reds are seemingly restricted in payroll it pretty much precludes acquiring proven major league help. Which leaves you with "hope the young guys can step up and produce".

Only if they go the FA route. They can still make trades.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:24 PM
Buddy Bell was long gone by the time the Reds made the playoffs in 1990. However, he sure did help bring some credibility and stability to the major league product while the youngsters developed and eventually matured into the perfect storm 1990 season. Now, I can't quantify that, so I guess we should not even consider such things in the evolution process, eh?then how do you know it actually happened and was attributable to Buddy Bell. Why wasn't 1990 attributable to bringing in Lou Pinella or development of some much needed pitching or just maturation of young players getting better? I would say the odds of 1990's success are likely more attributable to players that were still on the teams or the new manager are a lot than the leftover effects of the "professionalism" of Buddy Bell.

traderumor
08-28-2009, 03:24 PM
FWIW, the similarities of bringing Rolen in to Bell back in the mid-80s is becoming eery. The PTBNL was Jeff Russell, who had a good relief career, perhaps as Stewart will. Duane Walker (EE) went to Texas at the time of the deal. No Roenicke comp, though ;)

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:26 PM
Only if they go the FA route. They can still make trades.
if you make trades you have to give something to get something. I really don't see a surplus of anything the Reds have to trade that would acquire the kind of talent that they need.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:28 PM
FWIW, the similarities of bringing Rolen in to Bell back in the mid-80s is becoming eery. so I am assuming you are prediciting the ghost of Rolen will spur the Reds on to a World Series title in 2014? :eek:

traderumor
08-28-2009, 03:33 PM
then how do you know it actually happened and was attributable to Buddy Bell. Why wasn't 1990 attributable to bringing in Lou Pinella or development of some much needed pitching or just maturation of young players getting better? I would say the odds of 1990's success are likely more attributable to players that were still on the teams or the new manager are a lot than the leftover effects of the "professionalism" of Buddy Bell.Did I really need to explain that I was not making a one to one cause-effect statement there, but merely relating to the Rolen transaction? I supposed that was understood. Silly me.

westofyou
08-28-2009, 03:35 PM
heh.

not really though. he's got a better bat than BP though is far worse defensively. And he can hit RH's a bit. He also finds 1B in other ways.

I'd take him in LF right now were he not hurt. 2009 is just a lost year for him Guys get hurt. I'll say right now he posts an .850ish OPS next year with 25+ HR's

The Waiting for Godot method of team building is boring.

traderumor
08-28-2009, 03:35 PM
so I am assuming you are prediciting the ghost of Rolen will spur the Reds on to a World Series title in 2014? :eek:Well, gee, apparently I did need to explain that. That explains the "it must be quanitfiable." My goodness, add some color to the world (imagine, a CPA asking that of another).

Caveat Emperor
08-28-2009, 03:39 PM
if he doesn't help win in 2010(the only year you have under control) then isn't the potential that you could hit on Stewart worth more than trading for something for one season that isn't likely to get you where you really want to go.

After almost 15 years of putrid baseball, I'm willing to sell off a few guys who are long on potential and short on actual results. It's not like Stewart was the only guy in the minors who could throw a baseball -- heck, it's a decent bet that Mike Leake will make his first major league start before Stewart ever takes the mound.

Haven't we learned the foolishness of penciling young players in to immediate success based on flashes of brilliance in the minors? Have we learned nothing from the Stephen Smithermans, Chris Denorfias, Matt Maloneys, and Homer Baileys of the world?

nate
08-28-2009, 03:44 PM
if you make trades you have to give something to get something. I really don't see a surplus of anything the Reds have to trade that would acquire the kind of talent that they need.

Or sometimes you trade a position of strength for a position of weakness.

Thinking inside the box isn't going to get the Reds anywhere. Maybe they have to trade Joey Votto or Jay Bruce or ________ to make the TEAM better.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:53 PM
Haven't we learned the foolishness of penciling young players in to immediate success based on flashes of brilliance in the minors?
Yep and you never really know which ones will hit and which will miss ... which is why you had better
1) have a bunch on hand
2) be willing to trade them to acquire a proven commodity.

While Rolen qualifies in the #2 category the fact that he is old and signed for 2010 makes it not really the type of deal you want to expend scarce resources on.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:57 PM
Maybe they have to trade Joey Votto or Jay Bruce or ________ to make the TEAM better.Without a doubt ... there are no untouchables.

Sometimes you trade potential and cheap salary for proven success. However, there is no commodity more valuable than pitching, especially cheap pitching as it creates all kind of flexibility. I wouldn't have minded at all if it would have been Drew Stubbs rather than Zach Stewart.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 03:58 PM
"it must be quanitfiable." Gosh darn we don't have any criteria to define success ... we just make it up as we go along.

pedro
08-28-2009, 04:00 PM
The Waiting for Godot method of team building is boring.

EE makes Estragon seem engaged.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 04:01 PM
funny thing now is that with these reports out of Toronto it sounds like the Reds priority was getting rid of EE ... I wonder who gave that guy a 2 year deal.

edabbs44
08-28-2009, 04:02 PM
funny thing now is that with these reports out of Toronto it sounds like the Reds priority was getting rid of EE ... I wonder who gave that guy a 2 year deal.

I guess if you can erase a mistake early on it is a good thing.

traderumor
08-28-2009, 04:03 PM
Gosh darn we don't have any criteria to define success ... we just make it up as we go along.Who's saying that? What reasonable people ARE saying is that there are unquantifiable aspects that can be identified and addressed and that perhaps (again, not having a hidden microphone, I cannot provide taped conversations) have properly factored into as a benefit of this transaction.

westofyou
08-28-2009, 04:05 PM
EE makes Estragon seem engaged.

We are all born mad. Some remain so.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 04:14 PM
there are unquantifiable aspects that can be identified and addressed and that perhaps ... have properly factored into as a benefit of this transaction.Can there be subjective benefits for decisions? Sure there can but you had better not waste your time defining success/failure based on supposed subjective benefits. Decisions need to have pre-defined objective criteria on which to determine the outcome.

Organizations that waste time determining subjective criteria are likely will to see things that are there. Or likely to attribute success to something that is likely attributable to something else. Organizations like that are ones that end up chasing their tail and going nowhere(sounds like the Reds doesn't it?).

bucksfan
08-28-2009, 04:18 PM
I am cautiously optimistic about the Rolen trade and future impact.

First of all, I do not get into the guessing games of what will or will not be spent by management going in to next year. There are simply entirely too many unknown variables to me to make assumptions that one move (such as acquiring Rolen) would preclude any other future beneficial moves.

I value what I think is a fact-based approach to what a player can add to a team based on what he has historically done at the major league level. These facts (to me, mind you) are the statistics as well as some of the oft-criticized observations. I score Rolen generally highly in all aspects, with the caution borne from the fear of injury and subsequent unavailability.

I did not strongly dislike Edwin, but overall Rolen IMO will be a superior player in all aspects of the game for the next year. And I want "my team" to get better, and it does have to come in steps. The price we paid for that upgrade (again IMO) is the risk of the lost talent of Stewart/Roenicke. I understand the other side of the argument for those who really liked those guys. I honestly don't know enough about Stewart to intelligently argue 1 way or another. I am just willing, from my perspective and in this particular case, to go to that level of risk to make the upgrade I think the Reds made.

I still like the team's overall construction going forward providing they continue to find ways to improve. Again, I am not going to assume they will not do that. Votto, Bruce, Phillips, Rolen, Dickerson are nice pieces. Hanigan, Gomes/Nix are useful as well. Janish will be a nice backup shortstop or a starter (if and only if) we get a big OF bat. Stubbs will be much better than Taveras in whatever role Taveras would be in. The pitching, while being dealt a large blow with Volquez, is still on the right path barring more injuries.

What i hope for going forward is either :
1) a significant offensive upgrade at SS (however that would come about, either Phillips + new 2B, or new SS)
2) cut ties with Taveras
3) OF bat, a big one hopefully

The exodus of Gonzo, Hairston Jr, and Edwin, IMO helps us and gives us some opportunity to improve that was not really there when these guys were on the roster.

I just simply cannot let the last month-and-a-half jade my views on a group that generally seemed promising to me prior to that. The injuries were horrendous and the impact to a team this young in the first place I think cannot be understimated. I understand many argue they are over-estimated, but I guess I just simply disagree. I agree the 2009 Reds were walking a thin line from the beginning. But besides some individual player performances, I don't see how one can draw conclusions about the team for 2010 or further bemoan the team's performance from anything that happened since July 4.

Marc D
08-28-2009, 04:24 PM
Strike that. Reverse it.

Look at it from the other side. The Reds saw enough value in getting Rolen and shedding EE's salary to throw in a couple of prospects not in baseball americas top 100. They didn't want to get greedy and let their fish off the hook.


Well suffice it to say I think the team who counts on the "trade prospects and increase payroll to a horrible team to add injury prone, aging, expensive players past their prime" isn't the one who's judgment of the situation I would bet on. I'm sure they thought they were doing some fishing when they stole the services of WT from the rest of baseball this past winter.

OnBaseMachine
08-28-2009, 04:42 PM
I guess if you can erase a mistake early on it is a good thing.

Or you can make the mistake worse by trading your best pitching prospect just to get rid of your mistake.

westofyou
08-28-2009, 04:46 PM
Or you can make the mistake worse by trading your best pitching prospect just to get rid of your mistake.


The one who was also targeted by BP as a setup guy for his ceiling prior to this season.

It's not like he was annoited team savior 6 months ago, he sure is getting his feet washed though these days.

OnBaseMachine
08-28-2009, 04:48 PM
Stewart is a starter now. Many people thought he had the ability to be a closer if he stayed in the pen, but now he's a starter and most projections have him as a potential #2/3 starter.

traderumor
08-28-2009, 04:57 PM
Can there be subjective benefits for decisions? Sure there can but you had better not waste your time defining success/failure based on supposed subjective benefits. Decisions need to have pre-defined objective criteria on which to determine the outcome.

Organizations that waste time determining subjective criteria are likely will to see things that are there. Or likely to attribute success to something that is likely attributable to something else. Organizations like that are ones that end up chasing their tail and going nowhere(sounds like the Reds doesn't it?).Yep, we hired a very intelligent MBA of Middle Eastern descent based on objective criteria. Then, we found out that she still retained the hygeine of a Middle Eastern woman, which results in very noticeable BO. I shared an office for a short period of time. We decided that was not a good decision and should perhaps consider such subjective matters in hiring decisions.

BTW, I don't think anyone is developing "subjective criteria" checklists and using them for acquistion decisions, but those type of common knowledge things may make you rightly pursue player A over player B.

Bumstead
08-28-2009, 05:08 PM
Honestly, I have read through all these responses and I still don't see the upside to Rolen other than we like him because he's not EE and he is better defensively...for $3-$6M more than EE in cost plus the tossing in of the young pitching, I still don't see how it makes sense for the Reds for 2010. I do hear things like the upside of Rolen is 'if' we add payroll or 'if' we trade for whoever...who's printing the cash to do these things and who are we trading to add something valuable? Edabbs makes a good point about evaluating it next year, after the fact...I guess, I'm just not going to be happy by improving a 70-75 win team by 2-7 additional wins. The team will still suck and then the Reds will either let Rolen walk away having gotten nothing or they will resign an aging, injury prone 3B for x-number of years.

I guess I just have to resign myself to the fact that the Reds are going to try to build from the middle again even though that only works for teams that have $$$$ to burn...ah hell...

Bum

TheNext44
08-28-2009, 05:16 PM
Stewart is a starter now. Many people thought he had the ability to be a closer if he stayed in the pen, but now he's a starter and most projections have him as a potential #2/3 starter.

Just to clarify, I did read that the Jays were thinking of using him as a starter next year, but as of right now, he is still a reliever. 7 relief appearances so far in AAA for the Jays.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=stewar001zac

OnBaseMachine
08-28-2009, 05:17 PM
Just to clarify, I did read that the Jays were thinking of using him as a starter next year, but as of right now, he is still a reliever. 7 relief appearances so far in AAA for the Jays.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=stewar001zac

The only reason he's in the bullpen right now is to keep his innings down.

Bumstead
08-28-2009, 05:18 PM
Stewart started most of the year at AA Carolina and H-A Sarasota before moving to AAA. He was moved to the bullpen to keep his innings down was my understanding...

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 05:24 PM
The only reason he's in the bullpen right now is to keep his innings down.

So your posts read "Stewart is a starter now" followed by "he's in the bullpen right now". Huh? Just keepin' it fair here.

edabbs44
08-28-2009, 05:26 PM
Stewart is a starter now. Many people thought he had the ability to be a closer if he stayed in the pen, but now he's a starter and most projections have him as a potential #2/3 starter.

Projections are just that...projections.

Turning projections into major league success is a good thing. Walt needs to follow up with more major league additions.

If not, then I have no idea why he made the trade.

westofyou
08-28-2009, 05:27 PM
So your posts read "Stewart is a starter now" followed by "he's in the bullpen right now". Huh? Just keepin' it fair here.

IIRC he was a reliever in college too, so saying he's going to be starter is some squishy ground at this point.

He might make the transition, he might not.

I'm just ready to say he's a sure fire 25 start 200 IP guy myself, no matter how good his stuff is this year.

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 05:29 PM
IIRC he was a reliever in college too, so saying he's going to be starter is some squishy ground at this point.

He might make the transition, he might not.

I'm just ready to say he's a sure fire 25 start 200 IP guy myself, no matter how good his stuff is this year.

The judges would have accepted "he is being groomed to be a starter".

Brutus
08-28-2009, 05:48 PM
Stewart is a starter now. Many people thought he had the ability to be a closer if he stayed in the pen, but now he's a starter and most projections have him as a potential #2/3 starter.

Actually, Ricciardi has said several times that they have not decided what he is. He has said they learn toward his being a starter, but some in their organization believe he's best suited as a reliever. He's said they will make the decision in time.

I don't think it's clear-cut what he is. I personally feel he could be a good starter, but there are still several people that believe he's better in a relief role. We'll see. But the Jays have said they have not made a decision on what he is.

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 06:16 PM
Honestly, I have read through all these responses and I still don't see the upside to Rolen other than we like him because he's not EE and he is better defensively...for $3-$6M more than EE in cost plus the tossing in of the young pitching, I still don't see how it makes sense for the Reds for 2010. I do hear things like the upside of Rolen is 'if' we add payroll or 'if' we trade for whoever...who's printing the cash to do these things and who are we trading to add something valuable? Edabbs makes a good point about evaluating it next year, after the fact...I guess, I'm just not going to be happy by improving a 70-75 win team by 2-7 additional wins. The team will still suck and then the Reds will either let Rolen walk away having gotten nothing or they will resign an aging, injury prone 3B for x-number of years.

I guess I just have to resign myself to the fact that the Reds are going to try to build from the middle again even though that only works for teams that have $$$$ to burn...ah hell...

Bum

I'd say you're reading what you're wanting to read and ignoring what you don't. YMMV.

TRF
08-28-2009, 06:19 PM
The Waiting for Godot method of team building is boring.

So is brining in a high priced FA and ignoring your true glaring weaknesses. It's 2009, 2008, 2005, 2000 all over again.

can't find a SS
can't find a CF
can't find a LF
can't find SP.

but hey they replaced our .800+ ops bat at 3B for another .800+ ops bat, albeit one with better defense.

meh.

TRF
08-28-2009, 06:23 PM
So your posts read "Stewart is a starter now" followed by "he's in the bullpen right now". Huh? Just keepin' it fair here.

Fact: The Reds put him in the pen at AAA to keep his innings down.

Opinion: the Jays are following suit while they determine what they want him to be.

JMO: he's skilled enough to be a #2 or higher starter or a shut down closer.

jojo
08-28-2009, 06:24 PM
but hey they replaced our .800+ ops bat at 3B for another .800+ ops bat, albeit one with better defense.

meh.

If Rolen and EE hit exactly the same, Rolen's glove alone could make him as much as a 2 win upgrade over EE depending upon playing time.

Then of course, Rolen is a better hitter than EE to boot...

Brutus
08-28-2009, 06:28 PM
Fact: The Reds put him in the pen at AAA to keep his innings down.

Opinion: the Jays are following suit while they determine what they want him to be.

JMO: he's skilled enough to be a #2 or higher starter or a shut down closer.

Actually, I'd be careful labeling the Reds putting him in AAA to keep his innings down as a 'fact.'

That's definitely the reason they gave for it. But that does not necessarily mean it's the reason, or at least, the whole reason.

I do believe it played a large part. But I'm not convinced the Reds were sold yet on what to do with him, either.

I agree with your opinion. I do think he's got the necessary skill to be either a solid starter or very dependable closer. But there are still a lot of people in the baseball world that seem to think of him as more of the latter and not the former.

TRF
08-28-2009, 06:28 PM
If Rolen and EE hit exactly the same, Rolen's glove alone could make him as much as a 2 win upgrade over EE depending upon playing time.

Then of course, Rolen is a better hitter than EE to boot...

more brittle too. and older. and more expensive. and cost two of the reds top prospects as well as EE

I'm glad the reds have him, but it was a bad trade. He should have been a red in what? 2002? 2003? That was the time to get him and lock him up.

westofyou
08-28-2009, 06:33 PM
but hey they replaced our .800+ ops bat at 3B for another .800+ ops bat, albeit one with better defense.

meh.

Funny, I see it as they replaced an enigma with a real live baseball player.

yay

Brutus
08-28-2009, 06:35 PM
Funny, I see it as they replaced an enigma with a real live baseball player.

yay

Heh. I guess it really can be all about perception, sometimes.

TheNext44
08-28-2009, 06:37 PM
Funny, I see it as they replaced an enigma with a real live baseball player.

yay

I think this is the problem most Reds fans are having with this trade. They have seen so few of these in the last decade, they have forgotten how valuable they can be. :cool:

jojo
08-28-2009, 06:39 PM
Besides, it's not like the Reds wont get a chance to pick EE back up for free.... :cool:

edabbs44
08-28-2009, 06:42 PM
more brittle too. and older. and more expensive. and cost two of the reds top prospects as well as EE

I'm glad the reds have him, but it was a bad trade. He should have been a red in what? 2002? 2003? That was the time to get him and lock him up.

Roenicke isn't a top prospect

TheNext44
08-28-2009, 06:49 PM
Besides, it's not like the Reds wont get a chance to pick EE back up for free.... :cool:

Maybe the Reds can agree to take him off the Jays hands, contract and all, if the send over a pitching prospect, like that Stewart guy in AAA?

IslandRed
08-28-2009, 06:56 PM
I'll say right now he posts an .850ish OPS next year with 25+ HR's

Is he being traded to Colorado? :p:

Considering his career road OPS is .738, playing in the not-so-tough NL Central, I don't see any way he puts up .850 going to a more neutral ballpark in the hard division of the hard league.

jojo
08-28-2009, 07:15 PM
Maybe the Reds can agree to take him off the Jays hands, contract and all, if the send over a pitching prospect, like that Stewart guy in AAA?

I don't think the Bluejays would give up a starting pitcher but they might give up a reliever. :cool:

OnBaseMachine
08-28-2009, 07:16 PM
So your posts read "Stewart is a starter now" followed by "he's in the bullpen right now". Huh? Just keepin' it fair here.

As in Stewart is projected as a starter now whereas last year his future appeared to be as a closer.

pedro
08-28-2009, 07:18 PM
Is he being traded to Colorado? :p:

Considering his career road OPS is .738, playing in the not-so-tough NL Central, I don't see any way he puts up .850 going to a more neutral ballpark in the hard division of the hard league.

Maybe at Colorado Springs....

The Baumer
08-28-2009, 07:19 PM
I think a lot of people are undervaluing Stewart. Especially those who say he'll be a #2 starter. IMO, he is a #1 at worst.

westofyou
08-28-2009, 07:28 PM
I think a lot of people are undervaluing Stewart. Especially those who say he'll be a #2 starter. IMO, he is a #1 at worst.

Funny I was thinking the exact opposite. Not many #1 starters in MLB have had as low a profile at age 22 (going on 23) as he does currently

kaldaniels
08-28-2009, 07:53 PM
As in Stewart is projected as a starter now whereas last year his future appeared to be as a closer.

And that's reasonable. Not what was stated the first time, hence my post.

REDREAD
08-28-2009, 07:57 PM
depends on the criteria for success. From my POV the only criteria for success is "did you make the playoffs"? Seeing as Rolen is only signed for 2010 then if he doesn't help them make the playoffs then his acquisition is a failure unless he is flipped for something valuable in 2010 that can help the Reds make in the playoffs in future seasons.

Just out of curiousity, were the following trades/moves failures, since they added salary and did not get the Reds into the playoffs?

Vaughn (left as FA, we gave up players that were signed longer)
Guzman (BJ Ryan became a good closer)

Buddy Bell, Bo Diaz, Gullickson, John Denny.. gave up prospects for all of them IIRC. Reds did not make playoffs, but the team became a lot more fun to watch

Kc61
08-28-2009, 08:00 PM
I think a lot of people are undervaluing Stewart. Especially those who say he'll be a #2 starter. IMO, he is a #1 at worst.

Please explain.

What I see is a guy who clearly was too good for AA this year. But at AAA, in limited innings, he's walked a lot of guys. The question is whether he was just too good for AA or whether he is on his way to being a solid major leaguer. I'm not sure of the answer.

Stewart's best attribute seems to be throwing ground balls. We'll see how that translates. But he needs to keep the walks down.

By the way, if he's a #1 "at worst" what is he at best? A #0?

nate
08-28-2009, 08:11 PM
Please explain.

What I see is a guy who clearly was too good for AA this year. But at AAA, in limited innings, he's walked a lot of guys. The question is whether he was just too good for AA or whether he is on his way to being a solid major leaguer. I'm not sure of the answer.

Stewart's best attribute seems to be throwing ground balls. We'll see how that translates. But he needs to keep the walks down.

By the way, if he's a #1 "at worst" what is he at best? A #0?

I think Baumer's post was jokes.

REDREAD
08-28-2009, 08:11 PM
I think a lot of people are undervaluing Stewart. Especially those who say he'll be a #2 starter. IMO, he is a #1 at worst.

:lol: Great comic relief in a thread that needed it :)

mth123
08-28-2009, 08:36 PM
1. one point that no one has brought up all year about EE. the mistake the Reds made was giving him the fat 2 year deal last winter. in hindsight it would have been better to trade him for anything & if we got no takers release him.

2. question for EE lovers: if the Jays gave us EE for a bag of baseballs would you play him at 1B (holding the position warm for Alonso) and move Votto to LF?

Yes. But I'd rather keep the bag of balls and deal Willy Taveras for him instead.

mth123
08-28-2009, 08:56 PM
My take:

1. The debate was never that EdE is better than Rolen. I think its clear that Rolen, when he can stay in the line-up is better.

2. The real question is was it worth increasing the payroll to the point of being able to make no other moves and dealing off the two guys most likely to be able to step in for the guy that the should be dealing in order to have enough money to fill the other holes on the roster.

So there you have it. Rolen is better than EdE. The trade wasn't worth the price and the Reds are now done being able to address other areas.

I would not have traded either Stewart or Roenicke straight-up for Rolen. I certainly was not going to deal them both to move EdE or get a little cash. This team's number one priority should be moving Cordero and replacing him on the cheap. The cheap replacements are now in Toronto. Rolen improves the team from EdE, but now they've reached a dead end as far as further improvement goes. Add that in 2011, Stewart was also the most likely guy to successfully step in for Harang or Arroyo. Not sure how they'll replace them either.

OnBaseMachine
08-28-2009, 09:00 PM
BTW, I'd just like to reiterate that I'm a big Scott Rolen fan. I love watching him play, his defense is spectacular and his bat is very good. I'm glad to have him on the Reds, I just wish the Reds could've acquired him without giving up their best pitching prospect.

Brutus
08-28-2009, 09:04 PM
BTW, I'd just like to reiterate that I'm a big Scott Rolen fan. I love watching him play, his defense is spectacular and his bat is very good. I'm glad to have him on the Reds, I just wish the Reds could've acquired him without giving up their best pitching prospect.

But that's the point. They couldn't. The Jays weren't going to move him unless they included Stewart.

People want the Reds to spend money. People want the Reds to do something. They did that this time, and now people are upset because they gave up too much.

Now some will say they would have rather the Reds just done nothing. I don't understand that mentality. For an organization whose fans are starved for some sort of progress - some sort of willingness to go out and improve the club, even if this is left alone in isolation, they finally did that.

OnBaseMachine
08-28-2009, 09:07 PM
I'll say this. I won't mind giving Stewart up as much if Jocketty goes out and makes a few more solid moves to improve this team for 2010. Otherwise, this deal doesn't make a ton of sense.

Brutus
08-28-2009, 09:13 PM
I'll say this. I won't mind giving Stewart up as much if Jocketty goes out and makes a few more solid moves to improve this team for 2010. Otherwise, this deal doesn't make a ton of sense.

I kind of see that point. I still think anything that makes your team better is worthwhile. But at the same time, I understand this point. It would help to know that if you're going to trade some of the organization's top young talent, at least you're going to work hard to field the best possible team you can.

mth123
08-28-2009, 09:17 PM
Who gave in?

Walt.

Highlifeman21
08-28-2009, 09:25 PM
I think a lot of people are undervaluing Stewart. Especially those who say he'll be a #2 starter. IMO, he is a #1 at worst.

When does he win his 1st Cy Young?

Highlifeman21
08-28-2009, 09:30 PM
Actually, Ricciardi has said several times that they have not decided what he is. He has said they learn toward his being a starter, but some in their organization believe he's best suited as a reliever. He's said they will make the decision in time.

I don't think it's clear-cut what he is. I personally feel he could be a good starter, but there are still several people that believe he's better in a relief role. We'll see. But the Jays have said they have not made a decision on what he is.

What's clear-cut is that he (Stewart) is no longer a Red.

I don't get all the hand-wringing over the Rolen deal.

Let's focus on the team we have now, and how we can make the current team better, as opposed to crying over losing some prospect.

RedEye
08-28-2009, 09:32 PM
Yep, we hired a very intelligent MBA of Middle Eastern descent based on objective criteria. Then, we found out that she still retained the hygeine of a Middle Eastern woman, which results in very noticeable BO. I shared an office for a short period of time. We decided that was not a good decision and should perhaps consider such subjective matters in hiring decisions.

BTW, I don't think anyone is developing "subjective criteria" checklists and using them for acquistion decisions, but those type of common knowledge things may make you rightly pursue player A over player B.

Hmmm... I wonder how body odor factored into the Rolen trade? Hadn't crossed my mind as a factor. ;)

Seriously, though, are the subjective criteria you refer to things like leadership, moxie and scrappiness? I'm not tongue in cheek here--I really want to know what you think they are. Because whatever they are, I have a hard time seeing how they could possibly outweigh the objective factors in this deal, which include 1) Rolen's contract, 2) his age, 3) his injury history, and 4) his recent decline in productivity.

mth123
08-28-2009, 09:33 PM
Going younger doesn't help this organization. They don't know how to nursemaid young players into superstars. In almost every case they stunt or screw up young players.

Get the vets.

In a world where money doesn't matter I'd agree. This team needs to keep its young and cheap guys who can fill a role for a discount and trade the others. Stewart, in particular, was a guy to keep. This team just can't afford vets all around.

RedEye
08-28-2009, 09:33 PM
I'll say this. I won't mind giving Stewart up as much if Jocketty goes out and makes a few more solid moves to improve this team for 2010. Otherwise, this deal doesn't make a ton of sense.

Amen!

Falls City Beer
08-28-2009, 09:49 PM
In a world where money doesn't matter I'd agree. This team needs to keep its young and cheap guys who can fill a role for a discount and trade the others. Stewart, in particular, was a guy to keep. This team just can't afford vets all around.

Other than Votto, who's the keeper on this franchise? Honestly? The problem with this team is that the young guys just aren't very good.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 09:50 PM
Walt.

I doubt it.

mth123
08-28-2009, 09:55 PM
I doubt it.

Lets see.
1. Jays have a salary they wanted to dump.
2. Veteran Player requested a trade to an area of the country where the Reds were the only viable alternative.
3. The Reds GM dealt his top pitching prospect as if he had no leverage in this situation.

I'd say Walt gave in.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 10:02 PM
While I like Stewart, the description of him as our top pitching prospect is certainly debatable.

mth123
08-28-2009, 10:05 PM
While I like Stewart, the description of him as our top pitching prospect is certainly debatable.

Who else? I don't see anybody else who is close. I like Bailey better, but he's not a prospect anymore technically. I don't see another arm above rookie league who projects as better than a number 4 starter and only Roenicke has closer stuff among the relievers. He's gone too.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 10:10 PM
I've not seen enough of Roenicke to know whether his stuff is better than Fisher's. Don't underestimate Fisher. I think it's likely Leake may be as good a prospect as Stewart. Don't get me wrong. I like Stewart a lot; I've said all along I think this was a trade of Stewart for Rolen. Getting rid of EE was probably also a plus, which is too bad because I continue to think EE has a lot of ability and may still be a good player--but I can't see that happening in Cinti. But I value Rolen a lot and I think at some point you just can't keep hanging onto prospects thinking some day you'll be better. If you don't start getting better now, by the time your prospects are all ready, nobody will any longer know how to win.

mth123
08-28-2009, 10:17 PM
I've not seen enough of Roenicke to know whether his stuff is better than Fisher's. Don't underestimate Fisher. I think it's likely Leake may be as good a prospect as Stewart. Don't get me wrong. I like Stewart a lot; I've said all along I think this was a trade of Stewart for Rolen. Getting rid of EE was probably also a plus, which is too bad because I continue to think EE has a lot of ability and may still be a good player--but I can't see that happening in Cinti. But I value Rolen a lot and I think at some point you just can't keep hanging onto prospects thinking some day you'll be better. If you don't start getting better now, by the time your prospects are all ready, nobody will any longer know how to win.

I was touting Fisher before most heard of him. He's not a closer though IMO. I do think he'll be one of those 80+ inning guys who holds a pen together.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 10:18 PM
I was touting Fisher before most heard of him. He's not a closer though IMO. I do think he'll be one of those 80+ inning guys who holds a pen together.


I was watching Fisher closely when he was pitching for Billings. I'm not really sure he's not a closer. In any case, with Coco there's no need of a closer for two more years anyway.

mth123
08-28-2009, 10:21 PM
I was watching Fisher closely when he was pitching for Billings. I'm not really sure he's not a closer. In any case, with Coco there's no need of a closer for two more years anyway.

This is probably the basis of our disagreement. The Reds are out of money and need to deal Coco and replace him on the cheap to have some funds to address other areas. Stewart and Roenicke were the cheap replacements. I think having that is more important than having Rolen.

Brutus
08-28-2009, 10:24 PM
This is probably the basis of our disagreement. The Reds are out of money and need to deal Coco and replace him on the cheap to have some funds to address other areas. Stewart and Roenicke were the cheap replacements. I think having that is more important than having Rolen.

So is Fisher. So is Herrera. So is Masset. The Reds are not really short on possible cheap replacements for the closing job. I don't at all disagree with your premise... but right now, the one thing the Reds had going for it is young, lively bullpen arms. It had an abundance of those.

mth123
08-28-2009, 10:27 PM
So is Fisher. So is Herrera. So is Masset. The Reds are not really short on possible cheap replacements for the closing job. I don't at all disagree with your premise... but right now, the one thing the Reds had going for it is young, lively bullpen arms. It had an abundance of those.

I just don't think Fisher or Herrera are closer material. I like Masset a lot but wouldn't want to deal Cordero unless the team had multiple options. Perhaps Burton and Bray can both make a comeback, though I don't really think Bray is closer material either unless his surgery adds stuff as happens some times.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 10:28 PM
This is probably the basis of our disagreement. The Reds are out of money and need to deal Coco and replace him on the cheap to have some funds to address other areas. Stewart and Roenicke were the cheap replacements. I think having that is more important than having Rolen.

No disagreement. I'd love to see us deal Coco. I don't think we can, just as in the case of Arroyo and Harang, without taking so much salary on that we're better off just keeping them. I'd guess that's exactly the dilemma Walt faces every time he makes a call. But, as far as 2010 goes, I think Masset is farther along toward being the replacement for Coco than Roenicke was and I don't think Stewart has yet thrown enough innings at any level to be an effective starter next year. This is not to say he won't be by 2011 and after. Where we probably disagree most is that I think things are worse--or were so at the time of the Rolen trade--than you. I think we needed something immediately. We needed to start learning how to play now. In order to get that we had to take something from the future--something it hurts to give. It's great and important to plan for the future, but in this game you have to play today.

mth123
08-28-2009, 10:35 PM
No disagreement. I'd love to see us deal Coco. I don't think we can, just as in the case of Arroyo and Harang, without taking so much salary on that we're better off just keeping them. I'd guess that's exactly the dilemma Walt faces every time he makes a call. But, as far as 2010 goes, I think Masset is farther along toward being the replacement for Coco than Roenicke was and I don't think Stewart has yet thrown enough innings at any level to be an effective starter next year. This is not to say he won't be by 2011 and after. Where we probably disagree most is that I think things are worse--or were so at the time of the Rolen trade--than you. I think we needed something immediately. We needed to start learning how to play now. In order to get that we had to take something from the future--something it hurts to give. It's great and important to plan for the future, but in this game you have to play today.

Another option woud be to deal Coco and use the money to address 2 or 3 positions. Frankly, I'm not sold that this little hot streak is due to Rolen being in the line-up and rubbing off on evryone. The pitching has settled down and the subtraction of Willy and Gonzalez could easily be something that improves this team as much. Maybe adding the kids like Stubbs and Janish in place off the sub-replacement players who were stinking up the joint is a bigger boon than adding the "solid vet."

Brutus
08-28-2009, 10:41 PM
I just don't think Fisher or Herrera are closer material. I like Masset a lot but wouldn't want to deal Cordero unless the team had multiple options. Perhaps Burton and Bray can both make a comeback, though I don't really think Bray is closer material either unless his surgery adds stuff as happens some times.

I don't necessarily think Herrera is, though I think Fisher has the stuff to be a good closer. But I guess my point is the Reds to have a lot of good bullpen arms in the organization. That's something they actually have had an abundance of. I like Roenicke and Stewart a lot. And while I don't see Stewart as only a reliever by any means, I can live with trading guys that profile as relievers - even if they are back-end guys, if it means upgrading the roster.

I think the Reds' pen has the chance to be real good next year. Especially if Burton keeps getting back to where he was previously.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 10:44 PM
Another option woud be to deal Coco and use the money to address 2 or 3 positions. Frankly, I'm not sold that this little hot streak is due to Rolen being in the line-up and rubbing off on evryone. The pitching has settled down and the subtraction of Willy and Gonzalez could easily be something that improves this team as much. Maybe adding the kids like Stubbs and Janish in place off the sub-replacement players who were stinking up the joint is a bigger boon than adding the "solid vet."


Agree about the little hot streak. Rolen's a contributor but getting Willy T. out of the lineup certainly helps and both Gomes and Nix are playing very well. When Dusty puts the two of them in the lineup we can have five major leaguers in a row: Votto, Phillips, Rolen, Gomes, Nix. And they've gotten some help from Stubbs, Janish, Balentien, and even Corky.

The Baumer
08-29-2009, 12:26 AM
When does he win his 1st Cy Young?

This is pretty confidential so you didn't hear it from me but Stewart has actually won the NL Cy Young the past two years, and he's already won the AL and NL Cy Young awards this year. The trophies given to Peavy and Lincecum are actually hollow "facsimile" trophies that MLB intends on repossessing once Stewart makes his MLB debut and pitches enough innings to actually qualify for the Cy Young Award.

bucksfan2
08-29-2009, 11:12 AM
BTW, I'd just like to reiterate that I'm a big Scott Rolen fan. I love watching him play, his defense is spectacular and his bat is very good. I'm glad to have him on the Reds, I just wish the Reds could've acquired him without giving up their best pitching prospect.

If what you just said is true, and I believe it is, that is the reason why it took Stewart to get Rolen. Add into the fact that the Blue Jays took Edwin, who right isn't a major league caliber player, off their hands as well as his contract.

I know many minor league fans thought that Stewart was the Reds best pitching prospect, but what if the Reds didn't think that way? I would imagine that the Reds thought both Leake and Boxburger would rank higher than Stewart as well as maybe Wood. So now we are talking about their 4th best pitching prospect who has questions as to whether he is a starter or a reliever.

Jocketty improved this club this year as well as next year for about the same amount of money (I am considering the money Toronto is giving, savings from Hariston, Weathers, and Gonzo). The Reds went from one of the MLB worst at 3b, to one of the best.

Caveat Emperor
08-29-2009, 02:12 PM
The only thing anyone can say with certainty is that, regardless of how Stewart turns out, this thread will be an amusing read 3 years from now.

WVRedsFan
08-29-2009, 03:27 PM
If what you just said is true, and I believe it is, that is the reason why it took Stewart to get Rolen. Add into the fact that the Blue Jays took Edwin, who right isn't a major league caliber player, off their hands as well as his contract.

I know many minor league fans thought that Stewart was the Reds best pitching prospect, but what if the Reds didn't think that way? I would imagine that the Reds thought both Leake and Boxburger would rank higher than Stewart as well as maybe Wood. So now we are talking about their 4th best pitching prospect who has questions as to whether he is a starter or a reliever.

Jocketty improved this club this year as well as next year for about the same amount of money (I am considering the money Toronto is giving, savings from Hariston, Weathers, and Gonzo). The Reds went from one of the MLB worst at 3b, to one of the best.

Exactly. I had a high school coach who always said that there was no tomorrow in baseball. Only today. He said that because he once had what he considered a dynamite team coming in two years with talented athletes. He was supposedly all set for a state championship. Of the four premier prospects, one was killed in a car wreck, another blew out his arm and never recovered, and a third decided he didn't want to play baseball anymore.

It's always been my philosophy, but I understand the supposed financial contraints of the "small market." The powers that be will never understand that you get out of the "small market" by putting a winning team on the field and getting butts in the seats (as well as souvenir sales--wonder how much they've gone down since Junior left?).

Mario-Rijo
08-29-2009, 04:15 PM
I think the one thing that is missing in this debate is the fact that while Ricciardi and company may have asked for Alonso or maybe even Stewart himself (although I doubt it) Rolens value wasn't that high. Maybe Ricciardi is the only GM in baseball right now who can get great value for an older guy with a fairly long and recent track record of injuries making a boat load of money. Looking around at the market Rolen wouldn't have fetched that kind of haul anywhere else. Only one other team got as good a prospect and a healthy one to boot without any significant deficiencies/issues and they traded away a middle of the lineup bat in his prime.

Everyone says you got to give up something to get something but you really don't when looking at recent deals. They probably could have offered Travis Wood/Sean Watson and Roenicke and still got their man and Ricciardi would have still been giddy. Not to mention the fact that Ricciardi was trying to dump some salary himself as everyone knew and although no one knew it Rolen had asked to be dealt. Walt blinked and got taken to the cleaners out of desperation, regardless of how things turn out.

Big Klu
08-29-2009, 04:35 PM
There would have been weeping and gnashing of teeth over Travis Wood, too.

To be honest, I don't follow the minors all that closely, but all I kept hearing about future pitching prospects was Travis Wood. I figured that he was the top minor-league pitching prospect until this trade happened, and I was informed that Zach Stewart and Josh Roenicke were our top two pitching prospects. (If Roenicke was our #2 prospect, then we are in bigger trouble than I thought. 27-year-old rookies should NEVER be the #2 prospect on any organizational chart!)

mth123
08-29-2009, 05:03 PM
There would have been weeping and gnashing of teeth over Travis Wood, too.

To be honest, I don't follow the minors all that closely, but all I kept hearing about future pitching prospects was Travis Wood. I figured that he was the top minor-league pitching prospect until this trade happened, and I was informed that Zach Stewart and Josh Roenicke were our top two pitching prospects. (If Roenicke was our #2 prospect, then we are in bigger trouble than I thought. 27-year-old rookies should NEVER be the #2 prospect on any organizational chart!)

Klu,

Stewart was easily the top prospect both as a starter or as a reliever. Roenicke was the number 2 bullpen guy (behind Stewart) but not number 2 overall.

With those guys gone, Bailey ineligible and a ton of guys hurt, I'd probably go:

1. Leake (whenever the top guy is the most recent draftee who hasn't even played a pro game, you're in trouble).
2. Wood
3. Fairel
4. Boxberger
5. Klinker
6. Horst
7, Maloney
8. Ravin
9. Sulbaren (the HRs he gives up have soured me on him).
10. Lecure/Ramirez

A bunch of guys who are hurt would jump up there if they come back healthy. Of those, I'd rank them:

1. Lotzkar
2. Smith
3. Thompson
4. Buck
5. Avery

In the pen I'd go:

1. Mace Thurman
2. Logan Ondrusek
3. Donnie Joseph
4. Ramirez
5. Pedro Viola
6. Phil Valiquette
7. Lecure
8. Sean Watson

I'd say only a couple of those guys will be much more than the latest version of Phil Dumatrait as starters. There may be quite a few decent pen arms for cheap 10th and 11th guy on the staff roles. Stewart was the clear class of both lists and if Stewart was a starter, Roenicke was the top guy for the bullpen. The injuries really set the system back this year and trading the better guys just compounds the situation.

westofyou
08-29-2009, 06:59 PM
Minor league pitchers are like girls in a bar, 2/3rds of them look great until ya spend some time with them.

mth123
08-29-2009, 08:26 PM
Minor league pitchers are like girls in a bar, 2/3rds of them look great until ya spend some time with them.

Agreed, but the Reds aren't exactly a chick magnet in this area. Ones with promise shouldn't be cast aside.

The Baumer
08-29-2009, 09:13 PM
I don't think we need to make a girl in a bar analogy to draw attention to how unbelievably attractive Stewart is. I know most of us are thinking it so I'm just going to say it: if I had one night with any one of my choice, I would choose Stewart hands down. His plus fastball is nothing compared to his plus cuddling.

Brutus
08-29-2009, 09:14 PM
I don't think we need to make a girl in a bar analogy to draw attention to how unbelievably attractive Stewart is. I know most of us are thinking it so I'm just going to say it: if I had one night with any one of my choice, I would choose Stewart hands down. His plus fastball is nothing compared to his plus cuddling.

... not that there's anything wrong with that...

WebScorpion
08-30-2009, 03:52 AM
Wasn't there a time that EE played second base in the minors? Wonder if that would solve some of his throwing issues.
Probably not since his throwing issues are all footwork related...he has really slow feet. Second base has more complicated footwork than possibly any position on the field. He has plenty of arm for third base and his arm is accurate, but he often doesn't get his feet set before he throws. Outfield may be his best bet...or DH, but I don't think he'll ever hit enough to justify DH.

kaldaniels
08-30-2009, 10:09 AM
Is there anyone who is against this deal, who if EE,Josh, and Zach don't pan out, who would change their view of this trade, or is it that you are against the principle of it and you will never support it?

Chip R
08-30-2009, 01:04 PM
To be honest, I don't follow the minors all that closely, but all I kept hearing about future pitching prospects was Travis Wood. I figured that he was the top minor-league pitching prospect until this trade happened, and I was informed that Zach Stewart and Josh Roenicke were our top two pitching prospects. (If Roenicke was our #2 prospect, then we are in bigger trouble than I thought. 27-year-old rookies should NEVER be the #2 prospect on any organizational chart!)

:)

I'm like you, Klu. I don't follow the minors as much as some but I like to keep my ear to the ground. Rest assured, Stewart has been mentioned more times on this forum after the trade than he was before. I may have heard a couple of things about him over the past year or so then days before the trade, I read a blurb in Baseball America about him rapidly advancing through the minors. Two days later, he's traded. I've heard more about a lot of guys than I did about Stewart before he was traded. I've heard more about guys like Roenicke, Thompson, Viola, Wood, Jukich, LeCure and Buck than Stewart.

It may be that Stewart is going to live up to the hype folks on here put on him but your pimping of this guy is starting to sound like hindsight more than anything.

mth123
08-30-2009, 01:13 PM
Is there anyone who is against this deal, who if EE,Josh, and Zach don't pan out, who would change their view of this trade, or is it that you are against the principle of it and you will never support it?

I'm not against the principle of it, I think the Reds need to keep some cheap prospects to fill the roles they can from within and trade others to get vets to fill roles where no home grown talent exists.

My problems with it are that:

1. The Reds are out of money and need to deal a high priced arm away (Cordero would be the one I'd prefer to deal) to be able to address their other needs. To do that cheap replacements need to be on hand. These two guys IMO are the most likely cheap replacements.

2. The high priced guy the Reds chose to target has a recent history of injuries and unreliability. The funds are too limited here to have so much money tied up in a guy who is so iffy where playing time is concerned (anybody remember Ken Griffey Jr?). If the Reds are going to pay in excess of $10 Million for a player, he needs to be a guy who is pretty reliably going to be in there every day. Rolen's health history suggests otherwise.

3. The position the team chose to go after is one where 3 if not 4 of the team's top 10 prospects (Frazier, Francisco, Soto and probably Valaika) should call home as a major leaguer. The team should have been dealing a young 3B (and CF) for an arm, not dealing arms for a 3B.

4. If Rolen was a "must have," doing it at the 2009 deadline simply created more Salary that the team needed to absorb or more for Toronto to have to cover. Adding that Salary now, simply raised Toronto's asking price from a talent standpoint in order for them to kick in more money to cover the salary. I don't think anything Rolen does in 2009 is going to matter, so why pitch in more talent to get him now instead of waiting until the off-season?

5. I know EdE is viewed as awful (and I thought defense at 3B needed an upgraded as well), but he has been an .800+ OPS bat with 20+ HR power. He played this season with a fractured wrist and his numbers were down due to his injury. The team picked an absolute low point in his value to deal him.

No problem dealing for a 3B. No problem dealing EdE. No problem dealing Stewart and Roenicke in the right deal. This combination of things makes the deal seem like the Reds didn't get enough bang for their buck even though Rolen is an obvious upgrade from Encarnacion. I can upgrade my 2003 Ford F-150 to a brand new F250. There would be no doubt that I would have a better truck, with fewer miles, more reliability and more hauling power. But if I pay 100 grand, I made a bad deal in spite of the upgrade. That's how I view the Rolen acquisition. Sure its an upgrade, but the team seemed to pay a lot to get it and probably will forego opportunities to use those pieces a different way to get more upgrades in other areas.

jojo
08-30-2009, 03:00 PM
:)

I'm like you, Klu. I don't follow the minors as much as some but I like to keep my ear to the ground. Rest assured, Stewart has been mentioned more times on this forum after the trade than he was before. I may have heard a couple of things about him over the past year or so then days before the trade, I read a blurb in Baseball America about him rapidly advancing through the minors. Two days later, he's traded. I've heard more about a lot of guys than I did about Stewart before he was traded. I've heard more about guys like Roenicke, Thompson, Viola, Wood, Jukich, LeCure and Buck than Stewart.

It may be that Stewart is going to live up to the hype folks on here put on him but your pimping of this guy is starting to sound like hindsight more than anything.

To be fair though it was his performance as a converted starter this year that gives one cause to reevaluate his potential value so it's not surprising that the saber rattling on redszone didn't begin until BA pointed him out.

But, ya, you'd think the guy pulled a sword out of a boulder given the reaction since then...

Big Klu
08-30-2009, 03:02 PM
:)

I'm like you, Klu. I don't follow the minors as much as some but I like to keep my ear to the ground. Rest assured, Stewart has been mentioned more times on this forum after the trade than he was before. I may have heard a couple of things about him over the past year or so then days before the trade, I read a blurb in Baseball America about him rapidly advancing through the minors. Two days later, he's traded. I've heard more about a lot of guys than I did about Stewart before he was traded. I've heard more about guys like Roenicke, Thompson, Viola, Wood, Jukich, LeCure and Buck than Stewart.

It may be that Stewart is going to live up to the hype folks on here put on him but your pimping of this guy is starting to sound like hindsight more than anything.

I'm assuming that's a misprint? I haven't been pimping anyone. (I could, but pimpin' ain't easy. :pimp:)

Chip R
08-30-2009, 04:05 PM
I'm assuming that's a misprint? I haven't been pimping anyone. (I could, but pimpin' ain't easy. :pimp:)

Wasn't referring to you, Klu. Just the folks saying Stewart is going to be so great. Sorry you misunderstood.

Big Klu
08-30-2009, 04:25 PM
Wasn't referring to you, Klu. Just the folks saying Stewart is going to be so great. Sorry you misunderstood.

No problem. I figured that's what you meant, but I wanted to make sure. :)

edabbs44
09-10-2009, 10:27 AM
So the Blue Jays want to dump Edwin and now this, from Rotoworld.com...


Josh Roenicke hasn't pitched since August 28 due to right elbow soreness.

Roenicke was acquired at the trade deadline from the Reds in a package for Scott Rolen. He's pitched only 12 1/3 innings with the Blue Jays, posting a 5.05 ERA and 12/8 K/BB ratio. There's no timetable for his return.

osuceltic
09-10-2009, 11:46 AM
So the Blue Jays want to dump Edwin and now this, from Rotoworld.com...

Sure, but those guys were just baggage the Jays had to accept in order to land a Cy Young winner.

REDREAD
09-10-2009, 02:04 PM
So the Blue Jays want to dump Edwin and now this, from Rotoworld.com...

Maybe Stewart will amount to something, but I really trust Walt to be able to sort out the Roenoeke types and figure out which ones are disposable. The guy has a history on making the right calls about bubble bullpen arms.

traderumor
09-10-2009, 02:58 PM
I think the Jays should file a grievance. Worked out well for the Reds.

bucksfan2
09-10-2009, 03:30 PM
Its looking like the trade was Stewart for Rolen. Which I am fine with, even more so now.

Tom Servo
09-10-2009, 03:53 PM
Its looking like the trade was Stewart for Rolen. Which I am fine with, even more so now.
Just wait until he start racking up those Cy Young's.

The Baumer
09-10-2009, 04:05 PM
Just wait until he start racking up those Cy Young's.

Nah, man when referring to Stewart and his eventual awards we call them "Cy's" or "sighs", because that's what Reds fans will be doing after each one of his perfect games.

Trading HOFers and keeping BUSTS. Welcome to the Reds!

kpresidente
09-10-2009, 05:27 PM
Maybe Stewart will amount to something, but I really trust Walt to be able to sort out the Roenoeke types and figure out which ones are disposable. The guy has a history on making the right calls about bubble bullpen arms.

So now guys with 98 mph fastballs, 11 k/9, and 3:1 k/bb ratios are bubble arms? The spin is out of control.


Its looking like the trade was Stewart for Rolen. Which I am fine with, even more so now.

That would be a bad deal itself. But the trade was EE, Stewart and Roenicke, all of whom would have been productive Reds.

Tony Cloninger
09-10-2009, 05:32 PM
EE would have been productive for the Reds? Really? When was that going to happen? I have seen Rolen's play in 1 month outshine just about anything that EE did...especially in the field.

westofyou
09-10-2009, 05:37 PM
So now guys with 98 mph fastballs, 11 k/9, and 3:1 k/bb ratios are bubble arms? The spin is out of control.



That would be a bad deal itself. But the trade was EE, Stewart and Roenicke, all of whom would have been productive Reds.

When the man throws 180 innings in a season I'll buy the stater stud spin, until then he's just a college reliever being groomed to be the next big thing.

The Baumer
09-10-2009, 06:34 PM
98 IS FAST, BRO.

cincrazy
09-10-2009, 07:29 PM
So now guys with 98 mph fastballs, 11 k/9, and 3:1 k/bb ratios are bubble arms? The spin is out of control.



That would be a bad deal itself. But the trade was EE, Stewart and Roenicke, all of whom would have been productive Reds.

EE may be the worst every day player in the majors right now.

kpresidente
09-10-2009, 08:29 PM
EE may be the worst every day player in the majors right now.

Couldn't be that he's been hurt or the .202 BABiP vs. RHP. Cause, you know, guys with .800 career OPS's routinely just fall off the map at 26.

kpresidente
09-10-2009, 08:32 PM
EE would have been productive for the Reds? Really? When was that going to happen? I have seen Rolen's play in 1 month outshine just about anything that EE did...especially in the field.

Rolen has a .760 OPS with the Reds...lower than EEs.

nate
09-10-2009, 08:55 PM
Couldn't be that he's been hurt or the .202 BABiP vs. RHP. Cause, you know, guys with .800 career OPS's routinely just fall off the map at 26.


Rolen has a .760 OPS with the Reds...lower than EEs.

I see.

buckeyenut
09-10-2009, 09:33 PM
If Toronto releases EE this offseason, would you sign him to a 500K deal and have him backup 1B/3B/LF and be a bat off bench?

edabbs44
09-10-2009, 09:52 PM
Cause, you know, guys with .800 career OPS's routinely just fall off the map at 26.

http://www.battingstanceguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/t1_kearns.jpg

Bumstead
09-11-2009, 10:29 AM
EE may be the worst every day player in the majors right now.

uh...no...Willy T is the worst everyday player in MLB right now, having one of the worst seasons in MLB history as a 'leadoff' hitter...it's not close. EE has been hurt all year, how could he possibly be the worst everyday player?

Bum

bucksfan2
09-11-2009, 10:49 AM
98 IS FAST, BRO.

98 and straight exits the stadium REAL FAST, BRO :p:

RANDY IN INDY
09-11-2009, 10:52 AM
uh...no...Willy T is the worst everyday player in MLB right now, having one of the worst seasons in MLB history as a 'leadoff' hitter...it's not close. EE has been hurt all year, how could he possibly be the worst everyday player?

Bum

At least the Reds don't have #1 and #2 now.

westofyou
09-11-2009, 10:52 AM
http://www.battingstanceguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/t1_kearns.jpg

http://ohiocardsblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wgreen-93don2.jpg

RANDY IN INDY
09-11-2009, 10:53 AM
98 and straight exits the stadium REAL FAST, BRO :p:

Ain't that the truth.

REDREAD
09-11-2009, 11:11 AM
I think the Jays should file a grievance. Worked out well for the Reds.

:lol: Yeah, it worked great when we went crying to King Bud.
That whole incident was an embarrassment on our franchise.

REDREAD
09-11-2009, 11:14 AM
So now guys with 98 mph fastballs, 11 k/9, and 3:1 k/bb ratios are bubble arms? The spin is out of control.


No Roenocke was the bubble arm. Note I said "Stewart may amount to something". ie. Stewart has a better shot of succeeding, Roenoeke is nothing special. Sorry that was not clear.

Bumstead
09-11-2009, 11:43 AM
At least the Reds don't have #1 and #2 now.

They still have Janish, so it's close, especially with EE not playing (not that I agree with the original statement regardless). Gotta find somebody that can hit!

Bum

Bumstead
09-11-2009, 11:46 AM
98 and straight exits the stadium REAL FAST, BRO :p:

Stewart hasn't had that problem. Not that I want to re-hash the whole argument again...just sayin'

kpresidente
09-11-2009, 11:46 AM
No Roenocke was the bubble arm. Note I said "Stewart may amount to something". ie. Stewart has a better shot of succeeding, Roenoeke is nothing special. Sorry that was not clear.

You were clear. Those are Roenicke's numbers. He wasn't a bubble arm, he was a strong late-inning reliever/closer prospect.

kpresidente
09-11-2009, 11:49 AM
http://www.battingstanceguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/t1_kearns.jpg

Injuries.