PDA

View Full Version : Zach Stewart's progress



Pages : 1 [2]

jojo
05-16-2010, 11:47 AM
PUH-LEEEAAASE!!!

EE has 37 PAs this season, so those numbers are irrelevant. Rolen is on pace to be about 0.5 WAR better than EE's career numbers, which is CLEARLY what I said I was using and the only realistic/fair comparison.

So far, all I hear is what a great "professional" Rolen is. Get real, I'm the only one in this debate who's said anything substantial.

I respectfully disagree that you're looking at their values correctly. Projection systems are about as unbiased as one can get for this particular question and they speak directly to true talent levels (that's basically what they are designed to define).

Comparing a consensus of what projection systems have to say about their bats and projecting UZR for their leather suggests the two have significantly different values.

pedro
05-16-2010, 11:50 AM
You'll notice the person I responded to called me "crazy" even though I made a solid argument with facts and stats in a totally non-antagonistic post. Several others have nodded their assent, or dismissed me with with irrational, emotional non-arguments. I'm sorry, but that's a little irritating. And yet, I'm the jerk?

And I'd say 37 PAs doesn't constitute a season. EE was bad last year, in 338 PAs, but was back-and-forth on the DL the whole time. Prior to that, his numbers had been ascending. The point is to try and predict what he would have given us this season had he been playing 3B instead of Rolen. Throwing out any small-sample judgments or cherry-picked stats, EE is a little less than a 2-win player, say a 1.5 win player at worst. Rolen is currently on pace to be a 1.9 win player. Josh Roenicke over Ondrusek/Fisher probably makes up that difference. Josh Roenicke for six years almost certainly does. So I don't even need to bring up Stewart.


I think to an extent that you are missing the point that some of us are making. We aren't talking about emotional intangibles like club house presence and professionalism, although I wouldn't go so far as to totally discount the value of these things. What we are saying is that there are lot of aspects of playing the game well that don't show up in statistics. Base running, situational hitting, throwing to the right base, cutting off throws, not cutting off throws, when to field the ball or concede the play to another player who is in a better position to make the play. Backing up plays. These are all things that are non trivial and at which Scott Rolen is light years ahead of EE.

As for Roenicke, the almost only thing Josh Roenicke "almost certainly does" is belong in AAA. Trying to use him to bolster your argument is a non starter. He's 27 and can't throw strikes. The minors are littered with these guys, worrying about hanging onto them is fools gold.

jojo
05-16-2010, 12:19 PM
I agree with this. I just don't understand how you judge it any other way.

What should Zach Stewart, Josh Roenicke, and Edwin Encarnacion have fetched? If Scott Rolen and $4 Million isn't enough, what specifically was fair value?

We know what it did fetch. What it did fetch has performed better than what was given up.

Edwin pretty much had no trade value and frankly was a trade liability given his salary.

Roenicke as a 27 yo unestablished reliever was an interesting arm but really couldn't command a lot of tangible value.

Stewart, given his place on the BA prospect ranking last season probably had a value of $12M on average given what similarly ranked pitchers have went on to produce in the bigs but the error bars around that value (i.e. the risk associated with that return) are huge.

Basically Rolen was free last season and looks to give the Reds like 4 WAR over last season and this one (the time before he was extended). So they're paying him $11M for 4 WAR which is actually below market rates even with the recession. The Reds don't have to pay EE $5M this season (the could've in theory not offered him a contract in 2011). So the difference is like 3 WAR at $6M given the projected difference between the two this year and the known difference after the trade last year. That's a bargain.

But lets sum up the whole deal. Lets assume $12M for Stewart's value based upon prospect studies (ignore all risk).

The Reds get a 3 WAR upgrade from the trade. They pay $11M to Rolen for 2010. Pay $12M in total value by sending Stewart to Toronto. They don't have to pay EE or Roenicke and save $5M this year.

So they paid $18M for a 3 WAR upgrade but Toronto assumes all of the risk for $12M of that value (i.e. its imaginary value that may never materialize).

The Rolen vs EE and Roenicke part of the equation is really a straightforward win for the Reds. The central question is could the Reds have gotten $12M in return value for Stewart by trading him elsewhere? That seems to be the peg that those who are against the trade hang their hat upon.

Maybe they could've in a vacuum. But it's probably not likely that the Reds would've gotten a 3 WAR bird in the hand and I'd argue that the possible other returns aren't so large or risk free that it would make this trade an obviously poor decision.

Meanwhile the Reds 25 man roster is 3 WAR better, it's early but the Reds are in a pennant chase and last night was probably one of the most exciting Reds games i've had the pleasure to watch in, well, too long.

Brutus
05-16-2010, 04:04 PM
The key point is this:

People are tired of 10 years of losing, yes? The Reds made a trade, finally, that made the ball club competitive right now. They finally look like they have a chance to compete.

I would think the price of a prospect with a potential starter/reliever identity crisis is well worth the ability to finally compete. The Reds acquired a very good baseball player. In my book, that overrides whatever value an unproven prospect might have. If the argument is "they gave up more than they needed to," well, that's conjecture at best. We don't know what it would have taken to get the deal done so it's necessary to examine the trade for what it was, not what it could/should have been.

thatcoolguy_22
05-16-2010, 09:51 PM
I checked this thread to see how Zach Stewart has been performing. I didn't realize the Royal Rumble had already begun. "Hit him in the face!"

I was as against the trade as you could be when it happened. I have been very surprised by how well Rolen has played over the 3 months he has been here. His 3 year extension may be a little much, but it gave the FO a little payroll flex (allegedly). But seriously how well has Stewart been of late?

lollipopcurve
05-17-2010, 10:18 AM
But seriously how well has Stewart been of late?

Unwell. Post #146 has the most recent update.

Hoosier Red
05-17-2010, 10:27 AM
So they paid $18M for a 3 WAR upgrade but Toronto assumes all of the risk for $12M of that value (i.e. its imaginary value that may never materialize).

The Rolen vs EE and Roenicke part of the equation is really a straightforward win for the Reds. The central question is could the Reds have gotten $12M in return value for Stewart by trading him elsewhere? That seems to be the peg that those who are against the trade hang their hat upon.


When you're assigning relative value to a prospect, is it possible to come up with a "net-present value" like assumption which discounts how many years it will be before the major league roster is reached and considers the risk that he will never get to the majors(for any number of reasons.)

I know the prospect rating attempts to take all these things into account, but I'm not sure if it is properly discounting the "TNSTAAPP" factor, or considering what 1 WAR will be worth when/if the prospect actually makes the majors.

Tommyjohn25
05-17-2010, 10:34 AM
This thread needs to get back on topic, and the personal insults and snark need to stop. Now.

jojo
05-17-2010, 10:43 AM
When you're assigning relative value to a prospect, is it possible to come up with a "net-present value" like assumption which discounts how many years it will be before the major league roster is reached and considers the risk that he will never get to the majors(for any number of reasons.)

I know the prospect rating attempts to take all these things into account, but I'm not sure if it is properly discounting the "TNSTAAPP" factor, or considering what 1 WAR will be worth when/if the prospect actually makes the majors.

Most of the studies that I've seen (and there aren't tons of them) basically take the prospect lists and track the player's production at the major league level, translate it into market value and then average it across all position players and all pitchers (the two groups have different success rates) at a specific prospect slot.

Puffy
05-17-2010, 11:21 AM
Edwin pretty much had no trade value and frankly was a trade liability given his salary.

Roenicke as a 27 yo unestablished reliever was an interesting arm but really couldn't command a lot of tangible value.

Stewart, given his place on the BA prospect ranking last season probably had a value of $12M on average given what similarly ranked pitchers have went on to produce in the bigs but the error bars around that value (i.e. the risk associated with that return) are huge.

Basically Rolen was free last season and looks to give the Reds like 4 WAR over last season and this one (the time before he was extended). So they're paying him $11M for 4 WAR which is actually below market rates even with the recession. The Reds don't have to pay EE $5M this season (the could've in theory not offered him a contract in 2011). So the difference is like 3 WAR at $6M given the projected difference between the two this year and the known difference after the trade last year. That's a bargain.

But lets sum up the whole deal. Lets assume $12M for Stewart's value based upon prospect studies (ignore all risk).

The Reds get a 3 WAR upgrade from the trade. They pay $11M to Rolen for 2010. Pay $12M in total value by sending Stewart to Toronto. They don't have to pay EE or Roenicke and save $5M this year.

So they paid $18M for a 3 WAR upgrade but Toronto assumes all of the risk for $12M of that value (i.e. its imaginary value that may never materialize).

The Rolen vs EE and Roenicke part of the equation is really a straightforward win for the Reds. The central question is could the Reds have gotten $12M in return value for Stewart by trading him elsewhere? That seems to be the peg that those who are against the trade hang their hat upon.

Maybe they could've in a vacuum. But it's probably not likely that the Reds would've gotten a 3 WAR bird in the hand and I'd argue that the possible other returns aren't so large or risk free that it would make this trade an obviously poor decision.

Meanwhile the Reds 25 man roster is 3 WAR better, it's early but the Reds are in a pennant chase and last night was probably one of the most exciting Reds games i've had the pleasure to watch in, well, too long.

Wow, thats just a fantastic bit of information/analysis jojo - thanks!

Hoosier Red
05-17-2010, 11:47 AM
Most of the studies that I've seen (and there aren't tons of them) basically take the prospect lists and track the player's production at the major league level, translate it into market value and then average it across all position players and all pitchers (the two groups have different success rates) at a specific prospect slot.

So essentially, they're taking Zach Stewart for instance, and saying, "We think he'll be a top 20% starting pitcher, and a top 20% starting pitcher is worth 3 WAR, at $4 Million per WAR, he's worth $12 million.

Forgive me if the numbers are not correct, but please let me know if the methodology is correct because if so, that would likely greatly overvalue the prospect whether pitcher or hitter.

To me it would seem to make more sense to actually plot out when he is likely to make the major league roster. What his production is likely to be when he reaches the majors.

To me it appears as though value is derived from when Stewart will surpass Rolen's value.

Let's say for comparison's sake that the Reds didn't extend Rolen.

If the Reds projected Stewart will be AAA in 2010(0WAR), say a slightly above replacement pitcher in 2011(1 WAR) and improves to 2 WAR in 2012 and 3 WAR in 2013-2016.

At first blush it appears as though this is a loss for the Reds. In exchange for 3 WAR in 2010. The Reds gave up 15 WAR over the six season that Stewart would be under their control.

But Scott Rolen was almost a lock to hit his 3 WAR, and in any case WAR in 2010 is better for the 2009 team than WAR in 2015.

So I'm curious if anyone is working out a way to create the present value of WAR?

jojo
05-17-2010, 01:47 PM
So essentially, they're taking Zach Stewart for instance, and saying, "We think he'll be a top 20% starting pitcher, and a top 20% starting pitcher is worth 3 WAR, at $4 Million per WAR, he's worth $12 million.

Forgive me if the numbers are not correct, but please let me know if the methodology is correct because if so, that would likely greatly overvalue the prospect whether pitcher or hitter.

To me it would seem to make more sense to actually plot out when he is likely to make the major league roster. What his production is likely to be when he reaches the majors.

To me it appears as though value is derived from when Stewart will surpass Rolen's value.

Let's say for comparison's sake that the Reds didn't extend Rolen.

If the Reds projected Stewart will be AAA in 2010(0WAR), say a slightly above replacement pitcher in 2011(1 WAR) and improves to 2 WAR in 2012 and 3 WAR in 2013-2016.

At first blush it appears as though this is a loss for the Reds. In exchange for 3 WAR in 2010. The Reds gave up 15 WAR over the six season that Stewart would be under their control.

But Scott Rolen was almost a lock to hit his 3 WAR, and in any case WAR in 2010 is better for the 2009 team than WAR in 2015.

So I'm curious if anyone is working out a way to create the present value of WAR?

Basically its saying over the period looked at, pitchers ranked as Stewart was as a group averaged $12M of production at the major league level over their careers. That could be a starting pitcher who produced $100M, several guys who ended up being relievers and maybe contributed $6 million total as a group and a bunch of guys who never made it to the majors (and all variations in between).

If the Reds really were confident that Stewart would have 15 WAR production as a Red, they shouldn't have included him in the deal (That's about $60M worth of production on the open market most of which would've been surplus value given how little they'd have to pay relative to service time).

I doubt they thought about it like this BTW but who knows?

Basically I think it means that the Reds had some reservations about Stewart's chances to stick as a starter in the bigs and it probably also suggests that his trade market may not have been as enticing as we'd like to hope (probably because it is still in the air concerning which role he's ultimately likely to assume as a major leaguer). It probably also means the Reds wanted Rolen so badly that they'd error on the side of overpaying a bit too. That said, I don't think it was a dramatic overpay in the sense that the Reds were blinded at all costs in their like of Rolen (i.e. the Reds didn't think they were trading a TOR starter who commanded a stellar trade return).

lollipopcurve
05-17-2010, 02:03 PM
Basically its saying over the period looked at, pitchers ranked as Stewart was as a group averaged $12M of production at the major league level over their careers.

Prospect rankings are notoriously inexact. Just another reason to leave the accounting on a trade until the players "play it out."

jojo
05-17-2010, 02:16 PM
Prospect rankings are notoriously inexact. Just another reason to leave the accounting on a trade until the players "play it out."

To me, I think the point of these kind of exercises is to assess if the teams involved used good calculus because it's the process that should trump results when determining whether a trade ultimately was good or not. The underlying premise of such an argument is that all moves are a crap shoot (i.e. stuff happens) but good process should decrease the number of moves that turn out poorly on average.

In other words, it's not ultimately whether Stewart goes on to be a 30 WAR pitcher or a 3 WAR pitcher that matters regarding whether the trade was a smart one. It's whether the Reds correctly gauged the likelihood of him being either a 3 or 30 WAR guy and whether they effectively gauged his current value at the time of the trade that really matters.

Hoosier Red
05-17-2010, 02:34 PM
To me, I think the point of these kind of exercises is to assess if the teams involved used good calculus because it's the process that should trump results when determining whether a trade ultimately was good or not. The underlying premise of such an argument is that all moves are a crap shoot (i.e. stuff happens) but good process should decrease the number of moves that turn out poorly on average.

In other words, it's not ultimately whether Stewart goes on to be a 30 WAR pitcher or a 3 WAR pitcher that matters regarding whether the trade was a smart one. It's whether the Reds correctly gauged the likelihood of him being either a 3 or 30 WAR guy and whether they effectively gauged his current value at the time of the trade that really matters.

That's a good point jojo, I really appreciate your thoughts on this.

jojo
05-17-2010, 03:18 PM
That's a good point jojo, I really appreciate your thoughts on this.

Just take them for what they're worth.... :cool:

lollipopcurve
05-17-2010, 03:40 PM
it's the process that should trump results when determining whether a trade ultimately was good or not. The underlying premise of such an argument is that all moves are a crap shoot (i.e. stuff happens) but good process should decrease the number of moves that turn out poorly on average.

And who determines what "good process" is? If it's the system you used whereby values are assigned based upon "prospect rankings," I'd say the process is deeply flawed. Those rankings are way too inexact -- one should expect that an organization would have a far better handle on its own prospects than some journalist who's cobbling together opinions from people who know the player less well.


In other words, it's not ultimately whether Stewart goes on to be a 30 WAR pitcher or a 3 WAR pitcher that matters regarding whether the trade was a smart one. It's whether the Reds correctly gauged the likelihood of him being either a 3 or 30 WAR guy and whether they effectively gauged his current value at the time of the trade that really matters.

How would we know if the Reds "correctly gauged the likelihood" of Stewart being a memorable or a forgettable player? If the WAR numbers at the outset of the trade balance out? Again, the rating system puts faith in a form of generalized knowledge (prospect outcomes over time) that is based on questionable information, while in reality the team's own information is likely to be far more trustworthy. In other words, we should expect the Reds to know more about Stewart in late July of 2009, when the trade is made, than some prospect ranker thought he knew back when the ranking got made. (For example, the Reds may have a good feel for Stewart's adaptability to a starting, and they would naturally know quite a bit about any health or off the field issues that could affect his performance.)

The rush to judgment is hamhanded, especially in the case of trades where prospects are involved. That's why I say it's best to wait till the actual evidence is in.

Hoosier Red
05-17-2010, 04:03 PM
And who determines what "good process" is? If it's the system you used whereby values are assigned based upon "prospect rankings," I'd say the process is deeply flawed. Those rankings are way too inexact -- one should expect that an organization would have a far better handle on its own prospects than some journalist who's cobbling together opinions from people who know the player less well.


This is also a good point. Ultimately the process is defined by the results. If Walt makes enough Stewart for Rolen trades where the prospect comes up short, we'll go back and judge the process as "good" as Walt knew who to keep and who to trade away. If he makes a bunch of trades where the prospect turns out to be the second coming of Syd Finch, then the process was bad as Walt gave away a bunch of great prospects and only got marginal return.

jojo
05-17-2010, 04:56 PM
And who determines what "good process" is? If it's the system you used whereby values are assigned based upon "prospect rankings," I'd say the process is deeply flawed. Those rankings are way too inexact -- one should expect that an organization would have a far better handle on its own prospects than some journalist who's cobbling together opinions from people who know the player less well.

Defining good process is pretty easy. Good process occurs when decisions are made using the greatest amount of the best available data as a matter of course.

Sometimes this is easy to discern. It's pretty clear for instance that Bavasi failed this as he often made moves that flew in the face of reasonable arguments that countered his moves. I think "The Trade" was pretty easy to evaluate just using sabermetics etc too. Sometimes it's much trickier.

I agree that the premise should be that an organization has better and more data upon which to base their conclusions than fans and studies like Wang's are just very crude biomarkers (i.e. using BA's scouting opinion to rank players). In fact, its very possible (probable?) that weighing things like Wang's work very lightly is in fact good process at this point. That said, if after a while, such approaches are shown to correlate meaningfully to major league performance, they're useful.

It's just that those kind of studies (and i'd argue using sabermetrics in general) and surveying resources like BA and Sickels etc are the best that we as fans can do when trying to evaluate the process employed by the FO of our favorite teams.

BTW, no one is arguing that assigning values based upon prospect rankings is the only metric that an organization should use. Even if that was an airtight method for assigning the value of a prospect, an organization would still have to use a multitude of methods to judge the likelihood that a prospect would achieve the high end or the low end of the error bars or that the prospect was ranked appropriately etc (one would have to assume that the Braves list of the top 100 differs than BA's for instance).



How would we know if the Reds "correctly gauged the likelihood" of Stewart being a memorable or a forgettable player? If the WAR numbers at the outset of the trade balance out? Again, the rating system puts faith in a form of generalized knowledge (prospect outcomes over time) that is based on questionable information, while in reality the team's own information is likely to be far more trustworthy. In other words, we should expect the Reds to know more about Stewart in late July of 2009, when the trade is made, than some prospect ranker thought he knew back when the ranking got made. (For example, the Reds may have a good feel for Stewart's adaptability to a starting, and they would naturally know quite a bit about any health or off the field issues that could affect his performance.)

The rush to judgment is hamhanded, especially in the case of trades where prospects are involved. That's why I say it's best to wait till the actual evidence is in.

I think the real problem is that we'll never really have access to the actual evidence that we'd need to make the proper conclusion given we don't actually know the true rational for the trade (i.e. the logic the Reds used). So it's all supposition....

But as a matter of principle, I'd still argue that often the evidence (results) can cloud the proper conclusion especially when dealing with prospects.

Kingspoint
05-17-2010, 07:12 PM
Basically its saying over the period looked at, pitchers ranked as Stewart was as a group averaged $12M of production at the major league level over their careers. That could be a starting pitcher who produced $100M, several guys who ended up being relievers and maybe contributed $6 million total as a group and a bunch of guys who never made it to the majors (and all variations in between).

If the Reds really were confident that Stewart would have 15 WAR production as a Red, they shouldn't have included him in the deal (That's about $60M worth of production on the open market most of which would've been surplus value given how little they'd have to pay relative to service time).

I doubt they thought about it like this BTW but who knows?

Basically I think it means that the Reds had some reservations about Stewart's chances to stick as a starter in the bigs and it probably also suggests that his trade market may not have been as enticing as we'd like to hope (probably because it is still in the air concerning which role he's ultimately likely to assume as a major leaguer). It probably also means the Reds wanted Rolen so badly that they'd error on the side of overpaying a bit too. That said, I don't think it was a dramatic overpay in the sense that the Reds were blinded at all costs in their like of Rolen (i.e. the Reds didn't think they were trading a TOR starter who commanded a stellar trade return).

Good analyses, Jojo.

Kingspoint
05-17-2010, 07:18 PM
Defining good process is pretty easy. Good process occurs when decisions are made using the greatest amount of the best available data as a matter of course.

Sometimes this is easy to discern. It's pretty clear for instance that Bavasi failed this as he often made moves that flew in the face of reasonable arguments that countered his moves. I think "The Trade" was pretty easy to evaluate just using sabermetics etc too. Sometimes it's much trickier.

I agree that the premise should be that an organization has better and more data upon which to base their conclusions than fans and studies like Wang's are just very crude biomarkers (i.e. using BA's scouting opinion to rank players). In fact, its very possible (probable?) that weighing things like Wang's work very lightly is in fact good process at this point. That said, if after a while, such approaches are shown to correlate meaningfully to major league performance, they're useful.

It's just that those kind of studies (and i'd argue using sabermetrics in general) and surveying resources like BA and Sickels etc are the best that we as fans can do when trying to evaluate the process employed by the FO of our favorite teams.

BTW, no one is arguing that assigning values based upon prospect rankings is the only metric that an organization should use. Even if that was an airtight method for assigning the value of a prospect, an organization would still have to use a multitude of methods to judge the likelihood that a prospect would achieve the high end or the low end of the error bars or that the prospect was ranked appropriately etc (one would have to assume that the Braves list of the top 100 differs than BA's for instance).




I think the real problem is that we'll never really have access to the actual evidence that we'd need to make the proper conclusion given we don't actually know the true rational for the trade (i.e. the logic the Reds used). So it's all supposition....

But as a matter of principle, I'd still argue that often the evidence (results) can cloud the proper conclusion especially when dealing with prospects.

None of us certainly saw Mike Leake coming, nor the contribution that Bryan Price may have had on the Starting rotation, nor the turnaround by Arroyo the second half of last year leading to his ability to pitch the way he has his last 4 starts. Perhaps Walt did, though, and actually thought that in 2010 we could contend for the playoffs. There's no reason to make the trade for Rolen unless you think you can reach the playoffs in 2010. A 2011 Rolen will be handcuffing the growth of a better, younger player. Walt's certainly showed signs of being able to recognize great things in players.

pedro
05-17-2010, 08:32 PM
None of us certainly saw Mike Leake coming, nor the contribution that Bryan Price may have had on the Starting rotation, nor the turnaround by Arroyo the second half of last year leading to his ability to pitch the way he has his last 4 starts. Perhaps Walt did, though, and actually thought that in 2010 we could contend for the playoffs. There's no reason to make the trade for Rolen unless you think you can reach the playoffs in 2010. A 2011 Rolen will be handcuffing the growth of a better, younger player. Walt's certainly showed signs of being able to recognize great things in players.

I'm not convinced Rolen will be blocking anyone who could outplay him in 2011. I'm just not sold that Francisco or Frazier are going to be all that good. I hope I'm wrong though.

lollipopcurve
05-18-2010, 09:16 AM
I think the real problem is that we'll never really have access to the actual evidence that we'd need to make the proper conclusion given we don't actually know the true rational for the trade (i.e. the logic the Reds used). So it's all supposition....

But as a matter of principle, I'd still argue that often the evidence (results) can cloud the proper conclusion especially when dealing with prospects.

"Proper conclusion"? At the moment a trade is made? Like, is this a good trade or not? Look, teams always have their own rationale, and it always makes sense from a certain perspective. You can like it, or not, but at that moment of the trade the conclusion one draws is a matter of how one *chooses" to see it (which priorities to have, essentially).

To judge the *success* of a trade, one needs time to see how the players perform on their new teams and what other moves might be facilitated by the trade. It's really that simple, and the only objective means to making a summary judgment about a deal. And even if one buys a team's rationale for a trade, the trade can fail. Happens all the time, because we're talking about human beings here, not robots.

jojo
05-18-2010, 10:36 AM
"Proper conclusion"? At the moment a trade is made? Like, is this a good trade or not? Look, teams always have their own rationale, and it always makes sense from a certain perspective. You can like it, or not, but at that moment of the trade the conclusion one draws is a matter of how one *chooses" to see it (which priorities to have, essentially).

To judge the *success* of a trade, one needs time to see how the players perform on their new teams and what other moves might be facilitated by the trade. It's really that simple, and the only objective means to making a summary judgment about a deal. And even if one buys a team's rationale for a trade, the trade can fail. Happens all the time, because we're talking about human beings here, not robots.

And that's why the results aren't as important as the process. If a good decision can fail but a poor decision be successful based upon results, the results really only cloud the interpretation of the job the FO is doing.

Was it a good decision or not? The results really only color the conclusion-they aren't the deciding factor. The results aren't needed to be objective BTW.

lollipopcurve
05-18-2010, 11:08 AM
Was it a good decision or not? The results really only color the conclusion-they aren't the deciding factor. The results aren't needed to be objective BTW.

The results are what we, as fans, are left with because, as you yourself have said, we do not have access to all the information a FO has nor to its decision-making process. To render a negative judgment on a trade is thus based on one of two criteria:

1. You don't think the future performance of the players in the trade will provide a net benefit to the team in question.

My response: Let's wait and see how it works out -- you could be wrong about this.

2. You don't like the rationale for the trade.

My response: Matter of preference. There are no correct or incorrect rationales. There are only choices based on sometimes competing priorities within an organization. To say that one knows which priorities an organization should have, when one has no access to the inner workings of a front office, is untenable. If the rationale comes down to nothing more than a preference for the players acquired over those dealt, see my response to #1.

In the end, the calculus/thinking/rationale of a deal is not subjective to any absolute scale of right/wrong or good/bad, given the many priorities an organization must juggle. Further, what the team says about a deal is not necessarily revelatory of the true thought process that brought it to fruition. Because we know so little about the underpinnings of a trade, it is really a product of our own biases and assumptions to render a judgment about a trade when it happens.

You can say you like or don't a deal when it happens for a variety of reasons, but you're really just stating a preference or making a prediction. If you're truly objective, you'll wait and see how it works out -- acknowledging that it takes a lot more than a few transactions in either the "win" or "loss" column to know whether a GM is doing his job well.

jojo
05-18-2010, 11:25 AM
The results are what we, as fans, are left with because, as you yourself have said, we do not have access to all the information a FO has nor to its decision-making process. To render a negative judgment on a trade is thus based on one of two criteria:

1. You don't think the future performance of the players in the trade will provide a net benefit to the team in question.

My response: Let's wait and see how it works out -- you could be wrong about this.

2. You don't like the rationale for the trade.

My response: Matter of preference. There are no correct or incorrect rationales. There are only choices based on sometimes competing priorities within an organization. To say that one knows which priorities an organization should have, when one has no access to the inner workings of a front office, is untenable. If the rationale comes down to nothing more than a preference for the players acquired over those dealt, see my response to #1.

In the end, the calculus/thinking/rationale of a deal is not subjective to any absolute scale of right/wrong or good/bad, given the many priorities an organization must juggle. Further, what the team says about a deal is not necessarily revelatory of the true thought process that brought it to fruition. Because we know so little about the underpinnings of a trade, it is really a product of our own biases and assumptions to render a judgment about a trade when it happens.

You can say you like or don't a deal when it happens for a variety of reasons, but you're really just stating a preference or making a prediction. If you're truly objective, you'll wait and see how it works out -- acknowledging that it takes a lot more than a few transactions in either the "win" or "loss" column to know whether a GM is doing his job well.

Again, that's not really an appropriate standard for objectivity (and maybe we're tripping on semantics a bit?).

Objectivity is forming a conclusion based upon the best available information-i.e. having reasons for your opinion- and then being willing to revise the conclusions as additional or better information becomes available.

Objectivity doesn't really require a moratorium on discussion until all of the results are in. What's more, the results can often cloud the issue. Also, fans actually have a great many tools available to help fuel such discussions.

Finally, its kind of an implicit understanding that the best case a fan can make for an opinion won't be based upon all of the facts a GM has isn't it? There are decisions that are made that defy the on the field calculus for sure (ie. Jr/Sweeney as DH). That doesn't mean that fans are incapable of forming opinions that are pretty accurate nonetheless.

lollipopcurve
05-18-2010, 12:04 PM
Finally, its kind of an implicit understanding that the best case a fan can make for an opinion won't be based upon all of the facts a GM has isn't it? There are decisions that are made that defy the on the field calculus for sure (ie. Jr/Sweeney as DH). That doesn't mean that fans are incapable of forming opinions that are pretty accurate nonetheless.

I wish it were so. I get impatient with Internet GMs who form immediate opinions about deals as if they were rendering a final judgment.

When it comes to trades, there's not a whole lot of gradation among opinions. So, I have a hard time understanding how one's opinion could be "pretty accurate." Often, folks like to say they love or hate a trade, and in some cases they sit on that stance no matter what happens. The objectivity is sacrificed in order to preserve the illusion that one's opinion was right "at the time."

jojo
05-18-2010, 12:08 PM
I wish it were so. I get impatient with Internet GMs who form immediate opinions about deals as if they were rendering a final judgment.

When it comes to trades, there's not a whole lot of gradation among opinions. So, I have a hard time understanding how one's opinion could be "pretty accurate." Often, folks like to say they love or hate a trade, and in some cases they sit on that stance no matter what happens. The objectivity is sacrificed in order to preserve the illusion that one's opinion was right "at the time."

That's a pretty blanket statement that surely mischaracterizes a great many voices IMHO.

TheNext44
05-18-2010, 12:36 PM
Because there are so many factors that effect the results of a trade that are outside the control of the GM, it is impossible to judge them correctly on just the results of their moves.

This is true for all human decision making. In the end, we control maybe 10% the results of our actions. Circumstance, luck and that great dynamic that exists when everyone is trying to do their own thing has a far greater influence on the results of our actions than our actual actions do. Depressing, I know, but true.

Because of this, when judging decisions, the best we can do is judge them based on what the decider knew at the time of the decision. That is how we evaluate decisions, not on their results, but on how they were made.

We can after the fact say that these decisions were successful or not, but that is different from saying whether or not the decisions were smart ones. And even there, that is cloudy.

For instance, the Red Sox traded Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez and two other minor leaguers to the Marlins for Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell and reliever. How do you judge the results? The Red Sox won a World Series after that trade, probably because of that trade, but the Marlins clearly got more value out of the players they received. The result don't clearly tell us if this was a smart trade or not for either team.

The best way, a clearer, more decisive way, is to judge both GM's based on what they knew at the time about all the players involved and their own teams situation at the time. Did they make a smart move? Did they make a move that if made over and over again would be likely to pay off more often than not? To me that is the only way to judge a GM's decision.

ILoveWilly
05-18-2010, 04:13 PM
Except guys like JJ Cooper at Baseball America or John Sickels, who both openly questioned what the heck the Reds were thinking with the move. Not so much to acquire Rolen, which everyone was on board with, but giving up what they gave up to acquire him.

So did Stewart get the win for us today or was it Rolen? LOL.

I love the the whole overvaluing players thing by fans of teams. Every fan thinks *their* player is THE guy. If a fan sees a prospect listed by any Joe Schmo on some lists for tearing it up in all of Double A then - gezads! - we should be getting Pujols or ARod for that! :lol:

You keep gnashing your teeth over your rose colored glasses about what a you thought we gave up to get a future Hall of Famer, and being totally and utterly incorrect, and I'll enjoy the Reds in first as of today. K thx.

westofyou
05-18-2010, 04:17 PM
While I was for the trade I find crowing about it after a win almost as unbearable as the other side claiming they were so right a minute after the deal was confirmed.

GIDP
05-18-2010, 04:22 PM
Is trolling bannable or that not considered trolling?

ILoveWilly
05-18-2010, 04:28 PM
While I was for the trade I find crowing about it after a win almost as unbearable as the other side claiming they were so right a minute after the deal was confirmed.

Hey, I didn't start it. The only trolling is coming from the guy who responding to me being a smart you-know-what. So I'm not allowed to be after another awesome Rolen moment? The guy has been nothing but gold. Like I said, these guys can worry about their lists of prospects when barely any on those lists become even solid MLB players, I'll worry about being in first. The only thing I wish is that we could have gotten this guy about three years ago. :D

Keep on Rolen baby. :beerme:

lollipopcurve
05-18-2010, 04:29 PM
The best way, a clearer, more decisive way, is to judge both GM's based on what they knew at the time about all the players involved and their own teams situation at the time. Did they make a smart move? Did they make a move that if made over and over again would be likely to pay off more often than not? To me that is the only way to judge a GM's decision.

You're asking for knowledge that is unattainable to anyone here. We can't know what a GM knows about his players, his team, or how the move would play out in a thousand incarnations. That kind of evaluation process is misguided. It is a product of the "Look-at-me, I-can-be, a GM" (apologies to JFogarty) delusion that afflicts some commentators, mainly bloggers, in the age of Everybody's an Expert.

We are fans. That is all. We have our feelings, our opinions, and our numbers. No matter how hard we try, they cannot transport us into that sanctum where we could know the decision-making processes that a front office goes through as it shapes its team. All we can know is what happens on the field. For me, that tells me all I'll pretend to know when I say a trade has succeeded or failed.

Chip R
05-18-2010, 04:35 PM
.

nate
05-18-2010, 05:18 PM
While I was for the trade I find crowing about it after a win almost as unbearable as the other side claiming they were so right a minute after the deal was confirmed.

Co-sign.

Kingspoint
05-18-2010, 05:21 PM
So did Stewart get the win for us today or was it Rolen? LOL.



If you're going to look at that, then look at the other side, too. Rolen, while batting in an RBI-spot all season long is hitting just .223 with RISP. That's a pretty poor job for someone who's being asked to drive in runs.

I'm not looking at either.

Since most posts are trying to "evaluate" the trade, I like this one best of all:

Originally Posted by jojo

Basically its saying over the period looked at, pitchers ranked as Stewart was as a group averaged $12M of production at the major league level over their careers. That could be a starting pitcher who produced $100M, several guys who ended up being relievers and maybe contributed $6 million total as a group and a bunch of guys who never made it to the majors (and all variations in between).

If the Reds really were confident that Stewart would have 15 WAR production as a Red, they shouldn't have included him in the deal (That's about $60M worth of production on the open market most of which would've been surplus value given how little they'd have to pay relative to service time).

I doubt they thought about it like this BTW but who knows?

Basically I think it means that the Reds had some reservations about Stewart's chances to stick as a starter in the bigs and it probably also suggests that his trade market may not have been as enticing as we'd like to hope (probably because it is still in the air concerning which role he's ultimately likely to assume as a major leaguer). It probably also means the Reds wanted Rolen so badly that they'd error on the side of overpaying a bit too. That said, I don't think it was a dramatic overpay in the sense that the Reds were blinded at all costs in their like of Rolen (i.e. the Reds didn't think they were trading a TOR starter who commanded a stellar trade return).

ILoveWilly
05-18-2010, 08:26 PM
If you're going to look at that, then look at the other side, too. Rolen, while batting in an RBI-spot all season long is hitting just .223 with RISP. That's a pretty poor job for someone who's being asked to drive in runs.

I'm not looking at either.

Since most posts are trying to "evaluate" the trade, I like this one best of all:

Originally Posted by jojo

Basically its saying over the period looked at, pitchers ranked as Stewart was as a group averaged $12M of production at the major league level over their careers. That could be a starting pitcher who produced $100M, several guys who ended up being relievers and maybe contributed $6 million total as a group and a bunch of guys who never made it to the majors (and all variations in between).

If the Reds really were confident that Stewart would have 15 WAR production as a Red, they shouldn't have included him in the deal (That's about $60M worth of production on the open market most of which would've been surplus value given how little they'd have to pay relative to service time).

I doubt they thought about it like this BTW but who knows?

Basically I think it means that the Reds had some reservations about Stewart's chances to stick as a starter in the bigs and it probably also suggests that his trade market may not have been as enticing as we'd like to hope (probably because it is still in the air concerning which role he's ultimately likely to assume as a major leaguer). It probably also means the Reds wanted Rolen so badly that they'd error on the side of overpaying a bit too. That said, I don't think it was a dramatic overpay in the sense that the Reds were blinded at all costs in their like of Rolen (i.e. the Reds didn't think they were trading a TOR starter who commanded a stellar trade return).

Stewart has an almost 7 ERA in DOUBLE A - and nitpicking about this or that stat for one of the guys that's helping the REDS win is like, totally and utterly incomparable. It's like bragging about a rec league game where you scored 20 points or something and then bashing Kobe Bryant based on it. It makes no sense.

Why don't people just admit they're wrong? They were wrong about the Kearns/Lopez trade, which sucked to trade two at the time contributors for nothing, but those guys didn't help other teams out either. We've never *really* been hosed on a trade in recent history (unless you want to count the Griffey fiasco, in which you had to have been Nostradomus to know he would be hurt that much.) Our demise and rise has been thanks to the minor league system/developing player, and free agency.

As I said in the other thread you pasted this in, what exactly does it mean to say pitchers ranked as Stewart was? At what point in time, from what service? I mean, its all random. Some places had him ranked, some didn't, does that mean he's good?

Scrap Irony
05-18-2010, 09:21 PM
Because there are so many factors that effect the results of a trade that are outside the control of the GM, it is impossible to judge them correctly on just the results of their moves...

For instance, the Red Sox traded Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez and two other minor leaguers to the Marlins for Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell and reliever. How do you judge the results?

Like, lollipop, I respectfully disagree with the assumption that you cannot judge a trade by its results. You can.

Oh, you can point to the vagaries of the human condition-- injuries, mental struggles, light bulbs, whatever.

But this is a results business.

So far, the deal has worked really well for the Reds. It's worked less well for the Jays, though it could eventually.

And, for the record, Boston made a great trade. It won them the World Series. Without both Lowell and Beckett, the Sox don't win.

Florida also made a great trade. They dealt a major headache and underperforming 3B and a really expensive-to-be SP for a prospect that turned into a great player.

jojo
05-18-2010, 09:38 PM
Here's a pretty timely entry on USSM-it discusses process versus results using the Ms but it's still on point with the recent focus on how to view the Rolen deal....

http://www.ussmariner.com/2010/05/18/process-and-results/


One of the main tenets of the blog is that, since we can’t predict the future, the best you can ask from someone is to make wise decisions based on probability and hope for the best. Good plans don’t always work, but the best path to success is to make decisions that have proven to work more often than not, and over the long haul, you will end up successful. So, we judge organizations on the process of their decisions, not on the outcomes they couldn’t have predicted to begin with.

Baseball fans have unprecedented access to information and evaluation tools-devoted, knowledgeable fans can form meaningful and informed opinions about process.

TheNext44
05-19-2010, 02:11 AM
Like, lollipop, I respectfully disagree with the assumption that you cannot judge a trade by its results. You can.

Oh, you can point to the vagaries of the human condition-- injuries, mental struggles, light bulbs, whatever.

But this is a results business.

So far, the deal has worked really well for the Reds. It's worked less well for the Jays, though it could eventually.

And, for the record, Boston made a great trade. It won them the World Series. Without both Lowell and Beckett, the Sox don't win.

Florida also made a great trade. They dealt a major headache and underperforming 3B and a really expensive-to-be SP for a prospect that turned into a great player.

Like I said, you can judge the trade based on results, it's fun to do. But you can't judge the GM based on results. You can only judge them based on how intelligent their moves were based on the knowledge that they had available at the time.

A great example of this is when the Tigers traded John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander in 1987. Results say it was a terrible trade for the Tigers. But at the time, they needed a starting pitcher, and Alexander was the best one out there, and he lead them to the division title with a 9-0 record. Smoltz was a 22 round draft pick with just one and a half years of pro ball under his belt. He was 4-10 with a 5.68 ERA at the time of the trade in AA.

There was no way the Tigers could have known how good Smoltz would end up being. In fact, most people doubt Smoltz would have been anybody if the Tigers kept him. But the point is that at the time of the trade, the Tigers made the right decision. If they trade a 22 round draft pick who has a 5 ERA in AA for a legitimate major league starter 20 times, 19 times they will come out on top. They just got unlucky that this one time was the one in 20 chance that it turned out bad.

So the moral is, judge the trade based on the results, judge GM on the process.

membengal
05-19-2010, 06:22 AM
I don't see why you can't judge the Alexander/Smoltz trade on results.

From my view, both teams "won" that trade. Detroit got exactly what they wanted and needed to complete a run at the division. Atlanta got a piece that led to years of competitiveness. Both teams won that deal.

Why is it not okay to look at the results?

lollipopcurve
05-19-2010, 07:12 AM
From my view, both teams "won" that trade. Detroit got exactly what they wanted and needed to complete a run at the division. Atlanta got a piece that led to years of competitiveness. Both teams won that deal.

Exactly.

jojo
05-19-2010, 07:12 AM
I don't see why you can't judge the Alexander/Smoltz trade on results.

From my view, both teams "won" that trade. Detroit got exactly what they wanted and needed to complete a run at the division. Atlanta got a piece that led to years of competitiveness. Both teams won that deal.

Why is it not okay to look at the results?

It's kind of like pitching and ERA.... it's best to view the things that the GM could know/control when looking at how well he performed. Lots of things can effect the results that could be classified as being things a reasonable person couldn't hang on a GM.

lollipopcurve
05-19-2010, 07:18 AM
Working on 5 days rest, Stewart has a good outing last night:

6 IP, 5 H, 2 ER, 0 BB, 3 K 9/6 GB:FB

ERA now at 6.12 on the year at AA New Hampshire.

membengal
05-19-2010, 08:20 AM
It's kind of like pitching and ERA.... it's best to view the things that the GM could know/control when looking at how well he performed. Lots of things can effect the results that could be classified as being things a reasonable person couldn't hang on a GM.

I fully reject the "it's best to view" tone of this as officious and unhelpful. I will choose to view deals based on results. You don't, apparently. Full stop agree to disagree here. When a GM makes a deal, results matter.

kpresidente
05-19-2010, 08:51 AM
A 2 WAR difference is kind of huge.

Is it? It's 2 WAR for one season. At the time of the trade I had EE vs Rolen as a little over 1 WAR for one season. Roenicke could reasonably be expect to add that over 6 seasons, and that's not even mentioning Stewart, the centerpiece of the trade.

jojo
05-19-2010, 09:17 AM
Is it? It's 2 WAR for one season.

Right and if things keep breaking right for the Reds this season, that two WAR could be gold. A playoff appearance is big money. Winning a series is huge. Getting to the world series....jackpot.

medford
05-19-2010, 10:20 AM
An interesting article from Doc on this subject today...

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100518/COL03/305180115/1007/SPT/Doc++Anyone+questioning+Rolen+trade+now

Here's a quote from Walt from the article:


It can be said now that Walt Jocketty and Bob Castellini acquiring Scott Rolen was pretty much a masterstroke. The general manager and owner had concluded the home clubhouse was a mess. The “culture’’ as Jocketty called it, was aimless. There were players who wanted to win. They didn’t know how. Rolen knew.

Jocketty knew Rolen knew, having watched him in St. Louis, where he’d played on two World Series teams. The GM saw Rolen’s “subtle leadership’’ and guessed it would work a little magic in Cincinnati. He was right. Boy, was he ever.

What can't be factored into this, or at least hasn't by many is the human element. Its almost impossible to judge correctly, but I'm guessing a good GM can spot when his missing a non-baseball skill within the clubhouse much quicket than any fan or beat writer can (well maybe the beat writer would have a good idea). At the time of the trade, your best team player was dealing w/ questions about his mental health, your best young prospect was injuried and stuck in a terrible season long slump w/ major difficulities handling lefties. You're most expensive position player, and one that would typically get the "leadership" roll was getting questioned several times about his "hustle" and there were questions about how much of a "leader" he really was, despite his previous claims of wanting that roll.

For all I know, perhaps Walt thought on a pure baseball skill vs cost structure, he was giving up far more in Stewart than he was getting in return in Rolen, but this article hints that he was looking for more than just talent and skill level, but needed an example in the locker room that his is how you approach your job, this is how you handle adversity. Honestly, I don't know how you judge a trade on anything beyond the results on the field. All the clubhouse leadership or minor league rankings in the world don't mean a hill of beans if you can't do your #1 job, namely winning baseball games. A trade can look great on paper, but paper doesn't win you anything, performance does, and so far, based upon about half a season worth of ball games, the Reds are winning this trade. I'll happily give up Mike Leaker, Yonder Alonso & Chapman tonight for Joe Schmidt, Joe Schmoe & Joe Schmadt, if Schmidt, Schmoe & Schmadt all turn into hall of famers. I don't really care how much a trade is critized or panned the day it goes down, all that matters is what happens as a result of that trade going forward.

Was Stewart looking like a good prospect? Absolutley, ranked highly by several sources, but never discount a proven, quality major league talent just because you're giving up a prospect. Proven major league talent has shown he belongs, a prospect has done nothing more than proven he belongs in the conversation, nothing more, nothing less. Prospect certainly appeal to that pie in the sky, the grass is always greener in the future outlook that lossing franchises must hold onto while the on the field results suffer. How many prospects have come and gone and been forgotten since 1999? I'll take a legit chance at a winner today over the promise of a winner tomorrow everyday.

edabbs44
05-19-2010, 10:32 AM
Against the rules and done all the time. Baseball is full of wink and a handshake under the table deals. Considering how close those two are, it's more than likely something was discussed, even if there were no rumors of this alleged deal. Remember this deal was done at the deadline with no time to spare. Probably agreed to agree later, and then took their time with the details.

Walt: Scotty, we want to trade for you, but want you for more than 1 and half years.

Rolen: Don't worry. (wink-wink)

Walt: But we can't afford you at your current rate past next year.

Rolen: Again, don't worry. (wink-wink)

This is from PDoc today:


Baker needs players like Rolen in his clubhouse because, current Rol’ notwithstanding, he can have an overly light touch. Clubhouse lieutenants are vital on any team (see: Vaughn, Greg, 1999) but this team was especially needy. Jocketty told me yesterday that the Reds were all but assured of getting Rolen to sign an extension after last season, when they traded for him. Jock also said Rolen would be willing to spread out the cash, as he has done, which allowed the Reds to get Cabrera.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/daugherty/2010/05/19/the-morning-line-519/

jojo
05-19-2010, 10:48 AM
This is from PDoc today:



http://cincinnati.com/blogs/daugherty/2010/05/19/the-morning-line-519/

I kind of cringe when I hear GMs talk like this.

Rolen was a great addition because he significantly upgraded the true talent on the roster IMHO. The effect of the other stuff, starts to get murky. I'm sure others can think I'm wiggsers but Jr/Sweeney at DH was a decision made for similar reasons....

edabbs44
05-19-2010, 10:52 AM
I kind of cringe when I hear GMs talk like this.

Rolen was a great addition because he significantly upgraded the true talent on the roster IMHO. The effect of the other stuff, starts to get murky. I'm sure others can think I'm wiggsers but Jr/Sweeney at DH was a decision made for similar reasons....

Sure, but when you have the talent/leadership/"professional" combo, it's better than when you have just one of the factors. Griffey may have the professional stuff, but the talent left the buidling a while ago.

And I didn't post this here for that reason, more for the Rolen contract extension blurb since it came up previously. I posted the article on the ORG as well for general discussion.

nate
05-19-2010, 11:08 AM
I kind of cringe when I hear GMs talk like this.

Rolen was a great addition because he significantly upgraded the true talent on the roster IMHO. The effect of the other stuff, starts to get murky. I'm sure others can think I'm wiggsers but Jr/Sweeney at DH was a decision made for similar reasons....

This.

The talent upgrade on the team contributes far more to the winning percentage than the corporate culture. The "professionalism" is nice and I'm sure it has an effect but that effect stands in the shadow of talent.

A team of players who can score more runs than they allow = winning record.

lollipopcurve
05-19-2010, 11:19 AM
This.

The talent upgrade on the team contributes far more to the winning percentage than the corporate culture. The "professionalism" is nice and I'm sure it has an effect but that effect stands in the shadow of talent.

A team of players who can score more runs than they allow = winning record.

Of course talent is the most important ingredient. That's why Seattle is no good -- they don't hit at multiple positions, and no chemistry adjustments can make them hit. No one here is arguing that it's intangibles alone that has transformed the Reds.

But to dismiss the effect of a culture change is to betray a limited understanding of human nature. And far too often that effect does get dismissed outright. And when that happens in spite of the fact that players themselves offer testimony to the importance of the leadership of players like Rolen and Cabrera, then it's pure obstinacy (and barely worth arguing over).

Jocketty's been around lots of teams and clubhouses. Do you think he talks about "culture" just because he thinks it sounds good?

edabbs44
05-19-2010, 11:29 AM
This.

The talent upgrade on the team contributes far more to the winning percentage than the corporate culture. The "professionalism" is nice and I'm sure it has an effect but that effect stands in the shadow of talent.

A team of players who can score more runs than they allow = winning record.

I think you are missing something...the talent was already there. Jay Bruce's "talent" didn't increase from last year to this year. Maybe he is improving because it is just normal growth from year to year, or maybe he is improving because of a different type of attitude throughout the organization. Maybe his dedication was lacking and, by watching a guy like Rolen prepare as a ballplayer, that helped him improve his own game.

This team's talent level didn't spike dramatically from last season. The Reds didn't go out and get CC, Teixeira and Burnett. They added a few key pieces and watched some in house guys improve. Getting a better attitude throughout the team (if this is the case) isn't a bad thing.

HokieRed
05-19-2010, 11:30 AM
I liked the Rolen trade a very great deal at the time--and continue to do so--because I considered it to be about a real upgrading in terms of skills and the sign of a recognition that self-respect is critical to a team's success. It's difficult for any organization to respect itself when it knows some people are manifestly unable to handle the responsibilities given to them--and that's how I would describe EE at 3b. As I posted over on ORG, I always liked EE and think this organization did his career a great disservice by not converting him to the outfield several years ago. So, in short, I don't think the adding to competence and changing the culture arguments are in contradiction but rather supplement one another. (Something that could be said also of the process-results argument on another thread).

jojo
05-19-2010, 11:32 AM
Of course talent is the most important ingredient. That's why Seattle is no good -- they don't hit at multiple positions, and no chemistry adjustments can make them hit. No one here is arguing that it's intangibles alone that has transformed the Reds.

But to dismiss the effect of a culture change is to betray a limited understanding of human nature. And far too often that effect does get dismissed outright. And when that happens in spite of the fact that players themselves offer testimony to the importance of the leadership of players like Rolen and Cabrera, then it's pure obstinacy (and barely worth arguing over).

Jocketty's been around lots of teams and clubhouses. Do you think he talks about "culture" just because he thinks it sounds good?

Seattle is something akin to an 85 win true talent team that is struggling because the Ms had a thin margin of error from a position standpoint, some important guys are under-performing their true offensive talent level, most of the gambles with playing time have went wrong, their manager has squirted some gas on the fire through the way he manages the staff, and importantly, Jr/Sweeney make the roster too inflexible to accommodate changes that could help.

I think Jocketty talks about culture for the same reason Bavasi talks about culture-because they think it's really important. When it (culture) trumps true talent level in personnel decisions, it's a process that is fraught with peril.

HokieRed
05-19-2010, 11:34 AM
I'd argue a lasting winning culture is based only on one thing: competence. And I suspect WJ knows that (about Bavasi, I don't know).

kevin w
05-19-2010, 11:46 AM
I'd argue a lasting winning culture is based only on one thing: competence. And I suspect WJ knows that (about Bavasi, I don't know).

See Cardinals, St. Louis

lollipopcurve
05-19-2010, 11:52 AM
I think Jocketty talks about culture for the same reason Bavasi talks about culture-because they think it's really important. When it (culture) trumps true talent level in personnel decisions, it's a process that is fraught with peril.

You want to give an example of how thinking culture is really important translates to "process"?

It's a belief, born from experience, not a process.

jojo
05-19-2010, 11:58 AM
You want to give an example of how thinking culture is really important translates to "process"?

It's a belief, born from experience, not a process.

This has already been illustrated.

Jocketty's quote indicated it was an important part of the process the Reds used when deciding upon Rolen's worth and what they should pay for him. Doesn't it kind of speak directly to the question of why they paid Stewart for him?

Bavasi is the penultimate example of weighing clubhouse culture heavily in his process....

westofyou
05-19-2010, 12:09 PM
Methinks Howard Roarke would have been a terrible baseball man

Homer Bailey
05-19-2010, 01:39 PM
Not trying to add fuel to the debate, I just want to know if anyone knows the Reds updated record since the Rolen trade?

nate
05-19-2010, 01:53 PM
Not trying to add fuel to the debate, I just want to know if anyone knows the Reds updated record since the Rolen trade?

I added this by hand but it looks like they're 56-43 since August 1st of last year.

HokieRed
05-19-2010, 02:00 PM
Rolen returned from the beaning on Aug. 5. so if you take it from that point, it's 56-40,

edabbs44
05-19-2010, 02:00 PM
Not trying to add fuel to the debate, I just want to know if anyone knows the Reds updated record since the Rolen trade?

Just worked it through a complex algo and I came up with a record of "pretty good".

Homer Bailey
05-19-2010, 02:12 PM
Hm. I thought I remember seeing a week or two ago that the Reds were something like 44-22 since the trade. Maybe the stat I saw wasn't just their last 66 games or something, and not specifically since the Rolen trade.

Thanks gentlemen.

edabbs44
05-19-2010, 02:16 PM
Hm. I thought I remember seeing a week or two ago that the Reds were something like 44-22 since the trade. Maybe the stat I saw wasn't just their last 66 games or something, and not specifically since the Rolen trade.

Thanks gentlemen.

Probably since he got back from the DL last year

medford
05-19-2010, 02:27 PM
Perhaps the 44-22 mark is in games Rolen has played in, or started? Obviously he hasn't played every game, not even including DL stints, like the games @ Pittsburgh earlier when he had a minor injury and sat out a couple of losses.

nate
05-19-2010, 02:28 PM
Perhaps the 44-22 mark is in games Rolen has played in, or started? Obviously he hasn't played every game, not even including DL stints, like the games @ Pittsburgh earlier when he had a minor injury and sat out a couple of losses.

That's probably in games that he's played in. My number is the Reds total record since he joined the team.

Caveat Emperor
05-19-2010, 02:34 PM
I think Jocketty talks about culture for the same reason Bavasi talks about culture-because they think it's really important. When it (culture) trumps true talent level in personnel decisions, it's a process that is fraught with peril.

But that's kind of a strawman -- it isn't like Jocketty went out and paid Yonder Alonso to get a judy-hitting catcher with great leadership and intangibles. He paid a starting pitching prospect to get a guy who the baseball people told him could still play good defense (so far: true), had some mileage left with his bat (so far; true), and who he knew from personal experience had the ability to mentor his young players (Bruce, Votto, Stubbs, et. al.) by example.

Culture might be the lead example cited by Jocketty, but the man isn't dumb: he acquired himself a damn good baseball player in addition to a good clubhouse guy.

jojo
05-19-2010, 03:13 PM
But that's kind of a strawman -- it isn't like Jocketty went out and paid Yonder Alonso to get a judy-hitting catcher with great leadership and intangibles. He paid a starting pitching prospect to get a guy who the baseball people told him could still play good defense (so far: true), had some mileage left with his bat (so far; true), and who he knew from personal experience had the ability to mentor his young players (Bruce, Votto, Stubbs, et. al.) by example.

Culture might be the lead example cited by Jocketty, but the man isn't dumb: he acquired himself a damn good baseball player in addition to a good clubhouse guy.

I haven't argued that Jocketty targeted Rolen only because of his clubhouse presence though. I've contrasted the Rolen trade with the current Jr/Sweeney situation which was clearly jamming clubhouse presence into a roster position and with Bavasi who clearly habitually valued chemistry so much he conflated it with true talent.... That said to the extent that the Reds may have overpaid for Rolen, chemistry was likely explains the discrepancy between the "saber" value and the actual value.

I think this basically tells us enough to get us 90% of the way to why the trade happened like it did. It probably also roughly quantifies how much monetary value Jocketty ascribes to chemistry (i.e. the discrepancy illustrated in this post: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2083974&postcount=253) though we don't know how much WAR he'd translate it's effect into (though he clearly thinks its important and thus has a significant impact) and we don't know how much faith the Reds truly had in Stewart's future.

Here's what I'd argue is a reasonable view of the Reds' process on this trade (order does not imply importance):
1) Rolen wanted a trade and it was a natural conversation for Toronto and the Reds to have
2) money issues (EE, Rolen's salary=about $10M and Toronto rightly wanted to be compensated for the "relief" provided for a fair trade)
3) a desire by Jocketty to upgrade the team on the field
4) Jocketty assumed Rolen would provide leadership and he added that to Rolen's value (i.e. Jocketty thinks chemistry has a tangible effect on RS/RA and this effect is worth paying for)
5) The Reds perhaps having enough doubts about Stewart to feel comfortable passing the risk on to Toronto

Really through that prism, it's no wonder that Jocketty thought it was a nobrainer. The people who don't like the trade generally think the odds are pretty good that Stewart is going to be a good major league starting pitcher.

As indicated by my contribution to the multiple threads on this subject, I don't have a problem with the Reds process on this one.

I still cringe when a GM talks about chemistry and clubhouse presence though.

Anyway, IMHO, a lot of the Stewart/Rolen "debate" in multiple threads has basically been recycling the two sides ingrained stances on the issue. I'd suggest the best way to move this discussion forward would be to focus on what value Jocketty actually places on chemistry (i.e. how much WAR he thinks it translates into for example and what he thinks is a proper monetary value to pay for it) and what the Reds actual true feelings were on Stewart's future (i.e. what probability they thought would be associated with his various potential outcomes). That's my two cents for what it's worth (I don't think 2 cents is actually worth two cents anymore is it?)....

HokieRed
05-19-2010, 03:23 PM
I take the clubhouse comment to refer possibly to the other positive of the trade: moving EE off third.

lollipopcurve
05-19-2010, 03:27 PM
I'd suggest the best way to move this discussion forward would be to focus on what value Jocketty actually places on chemistry (i.e. how much WAR he thinks it translates into for example) and what the Reds actual true feelings were on Stewart's future (i.e. what probability they thought would be associated with his various potential outcomes). That's my two cents for what it's worth (I don't think 2 cents is actually worth two cents anymore is it?)....

I started this thread and I'm going to continue to "move the discussion forward" by posting Stewart's results on the field this year. That's far more interesting to me than trying to put a number (WAR) on an unquantifiable (chemistry) or unlock the Reds' thoughts on Zach Stewart's potential circa July 2009 (where would anyone here get that information?).

So, as noted, Stewart had a good outing last night to drop his ERA in a Double AA starting rotation to 6.12.

HokieRed
05-19-2010, 03:49 PM
I applaud your desire, lollipop, to get back on thread. One last comment: moving a 3b who cannot play the position is, for pitchers, not a matter of chemistry but sanity.

jojo
05-19-2010, 04:09 PM
I started this thread and I'm going to continue to "move the discussion forward" by posting Stewart's results on the field this year. That's far more interesting to me than trying to put a number (WAR) on an unquantifiable (chemistry) or unlock the Reds' thoughts on Zach Stewart's potential circa July 2009 (where would anyone here get that information?).

So, as noted, Stewart had a good outing last night to drop his ERA in a Double AA starting rotation to 6.12.

You're moving the discussion forward by restating posts #273 and #295? :cool:

Stewart's progress really doesn't move the discussion forward though.

Homer Bailey
05-19-2010, 04:17 PM
Fay answered for me....

26-11 last year with Rolen in the lineup, and 23-16 (didn't calculate lineup with or without him). 49-27 with Rolen. Not saying that he is directly responsible for the uptick in wins, but man, that is impressive.

TRF
05-19-2010, 04:18 PM
Not trying to add fuel to the debate, I just want to know if anyone knows the Reds updated record since the Rolen trade?

If you go by Aug 1, the Blue Jays are 60-50.

Which means nothing for both teams.

paulrichjr
05-19-2010, 04:43 PM
If you go by Aug 1, the Blue Jays are 60-50.

Which means nothing for both teams.

Which says that EdE has been a great pickup for them? :)

kaldaniels
05-19-2010, 05:07 PM
I just don't think it is possible to evaluate a trade without considering any of the results of a trade. Some in here staked their case the day of the trade and have not been flexible at all in their position.

Some What ifs...(which we will never know)

1) What if the Reds FO accurately scouted Stewart to be not as good as many projected, making him easily expendable

2) What if the Reds FO thought Cincy could truly compete in 2010.

3) What if in real life there was no real/better trade return for Zach Stewart

I'm just saying, who knows...the Reds FO could have perhaps legitimately done their homework on this one...we don't know the behind the scenes details.

TRF
05-19-2010, 05:14 PM
Which says that EdE has been a great pickup for them? :)

well, he homered yesterday. He's coming off a wrist injury that has likely sapped a bit of his power but he's still OPSing higher than a few Reds, Not Rolen though.

And the Blue Jays think enough of him to send Bautista back out to RF. By the end of the year, if the wrist is finally healed his numbers will likely be .280 .360 .470 .830. And he'll probably have his throwing issues still.

Kingspoint
05-19-2010, 07:04 PM
Let us not forget.

We're winning because we're getting OUTSTANDING Starting Pitching. Rolen fits into the Defensive equation there, but it's 1 guy going out every night giving us an outstanding effort....going on 20 straight starts now (with the lone exception of one Homer Bailey mishap). An exceptional 19 of 20 good starts by our Starters. Included in that is an improved Defense. You can't get good starts without good defense.

I don't know how Scott Rolen's "leadership" plays into any part of the Starting Rotation's improvement. That has more to do with Bryan Price's "leadership" than anyone else.....or even Mike Leake's "leadership". It's the fact that the other starters have began pitching like Leake pitches why they are doing so well. (and then there's the stubborn Harang, who wanted to blame the wind on his two gopher pitches the other night...Harang's mental issues are a lot to deal with by anybody....I hope he goes back to what was working for him the three previous starts and listens to those who know better than he does...specifically Ramon Hernandez and Bryan Price).

Kingspoint
05-19-2010, 07:10 PM
Rolen returned from the beaning on Aug. 5. so if you take it from that point, it's 56-40,

Stubbs went on a tear at the time and carried the club, while Dickerson was hot, too.

Kingspoint
05-19-2010, 07:15 PM
What if Leake doesn't turn out to be this stud, and we don't win the Chapman signing?

We could be 5 games under .500 without Leake's leadership, and we'd be wondering where we were going to get our pitching in 2010 and 2011.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion right now if it wasn't for Mike Leake, as we wouldn't be winning.

jojo
05-19-2010, 07:44 PM
How are you defining leadership?

HokieRed
05-19-2010, 07:48 PM
Stubbs went on a tear at the time and carried the club, while Dickerson was hot, too.


I was only responding to a question about what our record was since Rolen's acquisition, not making the case that he's somehow the cause.

Kingspoint
05-19-2010, 08:09 PM
How are you defining leadership?

In Leake's case, by example. The way Bailey and Cueto pitched their last two outings is eerily similar to the way Leake has pitched all year.

jojo
05-19-2010, 08:18 PM
In Leake's case, by example. The way Bailey and Cueto pitched their last two outings is eerily similar to the way Leake has pitched all year.

So leadership is largely a function of good results?

Kingspoint
05-19-2010, 08:36 PM
So leadership is largely a function of good results?

Leadership is measured in a million ways, obviously.

It shows itself, though.

You know it when you see it.

mth123
05-23-2010, 01:29 PM
I hesitate to bump this tired thread back to the top, but I just have to say as one of the primary critics of this deal that Rolen may be proving me wrong. My primary objection to dealing Stewart was using him to save the Reds cash when these young higher thought of pitchers should be used as key ingredients to bring back a TOR starter or middle of the line-up thump. In my estimation at the time, this trade did not accomplish those objectives.

I have to say that Rolen has shown a lot more power than I expected. Today he hit HR number 9 and has an OPS over .900. Since I only expected single digit HR and a .775 OPS for the season, perhaps I underestimated. Had Rolen performed as expected, I'd feel differently. If he continues what he's doing, its a landslide win for the Reds.

GIDP
05-23-2010, 02:27 PM
Edwin has a .998 OPS BTW.

jojo
05-23-2010, 02:34 PM
Thats the funny thing about not being able to crack the lineup. Have an uncharacteristic 7 PAs and your SLG jumps 300 points. :cool:

GIDP
05-23-2010, 02:35 PM
Thats the funny thing about not being able to crack the lineup. Have an uncharacteristic 7 PAs and your SLG jumps 300 points. :cool:

No one should really question Edwins bat.

jojo
05-23-2010, 02:38 PM
No one should really question Edwins bat.

Sure they should. He was much better in GABP than on the road and now he's in a tougher league.

mth123
05-23-2010, 02:42 PM
Sure they should. He was much better in GABP than on the road and now he's in a tougher league.

He'd be a huge upgrade in Seattle as a DH.

I never really objected to dealing EdE. Time for him to move from 3B was an easy call. I'll just never believe that the Reds couldn't have waited it out and gotten Rolen for less.

There was a blurb the other day about Rolen driving to IN to attend one of his kid's events and then flying on his own to join the team in Atlanta. St. Louis is the only other city where that's possible (not Chicago BTW). I really doubt he'd have gone anywhere else.

jojo
05-23-2010, 02:43 PM
He'd be a huge upgrade in Seattle as a DH.

I never really objected to dealing EdE. Time for him to move from 3B was an easy call. I'll just never believe that the Reds couldn't have waited it out and gotten Rolen for less.

There was a blurb the other day about Rolen driving to IN to attend one of his kid's events and then flying on his own to join the team in Atlanta. St. Louis is the only other city where that's possible (not Chicago BTW). I really doubt he'd have gone anywhere else.

Right-handed pull hitters get brutalized in Safeco.

Concerning Cincy and Jasper, it probably made Walt really confident that they could extend him if they could trade for him.

fearofpopvol1
05-23-2010, 05:09 PM
I hesitate to bump this tired thread back to the top, but I just have to say as one of the primary critics of this deal that Rolen may be proving me wrong. My primary objection to dealing Stewart was using him to save the Reds cash when these young higher thought of pitchers should be used as key ingredients to bring back a TOR starter or middle of the line-up thump. In my estimation at the time, this trade did not accomplish those objectives.

I have to say that Rolen has shown a lot more power than I expected. Today he hit HR number 9 and has an OPS over .900. Since I only expected single digit HR and a .775 OPS for the season, perhaps I underestimated. Had Rolen performed as expected, I'd feel differently. If he continues what he's doing, its a landslide win for the Reds.

Make it 10 HRs on the season. Dude is KILLING it. Think of where the Reds would be without Rolen?

reds44
05-23-2010, 05:31 PM
Thats the funny thing about not being able to crack the lineup. Have an uncharacteristic 7 PAs and your SLG jumps 300 points. :cool:
Not being able to crack the lineup? He was hurt.

Kingspoint
05-23-2010, 05:47 PM
Not being able to crack the lineup? He was hurt.

True. He was instantly put in the lineup the minute he was available, and he's done nothing but respond and give the team a lift (OPS of 1.789 as he homered again today).

No matter how well EE does, though, his defense had to be replaced. It's bad enough that the GABP was designed for Junior with a short field to Right, but our pitchers have to know they can let players hit the ball on the ground to any position. If our pitchers have to avoid both flyballs and groundballs that only leaves strikeouts. Last I looked, Nolan Ryan doesn't pitch for the REDS, and we certainly don't have 11 Nolan Ryans on the staff.

Got to have good defense.

jojo
05-23-2010, 05:56 PM
Not being able to crack the lineup? He was hurt.

What difference does the DL make? Those claiming Rolen wouldn't crack the Reds lineup enough weren't giving him a playing time discount for the DL.

The point kinda stands-when two games in a hitter's paradise can wildly swing his slash stats (in this case mostly SLG), it's not telling to evoke a player's OPS.

At least wait a few series after the Jays leave Arizona before channeling scoreboard.

If his OPS is still .998 on say June 11th, that might be interesting.

Kingspoint
05-23-2010, 06:08 PM
It's been a great surprise that Rolen has shown so much power so far this season. I hope he keeps it up. That's the kind of output that can get us to the playoffs.

EE's a good hitter and has always been a good hitter for such a young player. He belongs in the American League, though.

lollipopcurve
05-24-2010, 09:37 AM
Another good outing in AA from Stewart, again on 4 days rest:

6 IP, 5 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 5 K 1 HBP, 2 HR, lots of GB

ERA now at 5.63 after 8 starts, but trending in the right direction.

TRF
05-24-2010, 11:40 AM
What difference does the DL make? Those claiming Rolen wouldn't crack the Reds lineup enough weren't giving him a playing time discount for the DL.

The point kinda stands-when two games in a hitter's paradise can wildly swing his slash stats (in this case mostly SLG), it's not telling to evoke a player's OPS.

At least wait a few series after the Jays leave Arizona before channeling scoreboard.

If his OPS is still .998 on say June 11th, that might be interesting.

apples and oranges. Rolen has a history of chronic back trouble and is 35. EE is 27, entering his production prime years and had a fluke hand injury, that must have healed up pretty nice as he has 7 HR's in 51 AB's. Sure, he's going to level off, and you can't discount the production either player has provided. But comparing them going forward, offensively, EE has much more upside. defensively? he should be in LF.

jojo
05-24-2010, 11:46 AM
apples and oranges. Rolen has a history of chronic back trouble and is 35. EE is 27, entering his production prime years and had a fluke hand injury

EE has had shoulder issues this season.

TRF
05-24-2010, 12:26 PM
EE has had shoulder issues this season.

He's not 35. It hasn't been a chronic thing, and everyone gets hurt once in a while. I'd trust his health going forward more than Rolen's

jojo
05-24-2010, 12:55 PM
He's not 35. It hasn't been a chronic thing, and everyone gets hurt once in a while. I'd trust his health going forward more than Rolen's

Really none of this addresses the original point that 10 PAs does not scoreboard make.

GIDP
05-24-2010, 12:57 PM
I got the impression that it did.

jojo
05-24-2010, 01:24 PM
I got the impression that it did.

How has 10 PAs in Arizona been made telling by discussing EE's wrist and shoulder?

GIDP
05-24-2010, 01:56 PM
How has 10 PAs in Arizona been made telling by discussing EE's wrist and shoulder?

The sample sizes sure didnt matter when it was Stewart struggling or Rolen doing well.

jojo
05-24-2010, 02:19 PM
The sample sizes sure didnt matter when it was Stewart struggling or Rolen doing well.

I'm struggling to understand your position given your last few posts. Are you arguing that sample size really isn't important or are you arguing that it doesn't matter if stats are used correctly during a discussion?

TRF
05-24-2010, 02:23 PM
Honestly, to be fair you have to look at injury and performance. From the performance history standpoint the edge goes to Rolen to continue posting his current numbers for the rest of the year. But he has an injury history that is chronic. His back isn't magically better at age 35 just because he's a Red.

In EE's favor is youth and an interesting upward trend of his numbers. No one thinks his glove is ever going to be adequate, but the minute he was declared healthy, he was put back in the starting lineup and at 3B.

EE may be on a ridiculous hot streak right now, but he's got 3 fewer HR's than Rolen in 80 fewer AB's. He's 7 for his last 19, with 6 of those being HR's. That's an amazing week for any player. For a lot of us, EE's bat was never the problem.

So, if Stewarts early struggles were just that, struggles, (a temporary thing) and EE is healthy, then I'd say Toronto got exactly what they wanted out of the trade.

westofyou
05-24-2010, 02:30 PM
I'm struggling to understand your position given your last few posts. Are you arguing that sample size really isn't important or are you arguing that it doesn't matter if stats are used correctly during a discussion?
methinks he's just arguing

GIDP
05-24-2010, 02:31 PM
I'm struggling to understand your position given your last few posts. Are you arguing that sample size really isn't important or are you arguing that it doesn't matter if stats are used correctly during a discussion?

Im saying everyone was all about the sample size when it fit their argument. Now it doesn't matter. My argument is that some people want to dictate what sample size we are allowed to use.

jojo
05-24-2010, 02:52 PM
Im saying everyone was all about the sample size when it fit their argument. Now it doesn't matter. My argument is that some people want to dictate what sample size we are allowed to use.

That's really not a fair (i.e. accurate) characterization of the position held by the "pro-trade" crowd.

BTW, you won't find a post by me that fits the above narrative that the appropriate sample size arbitrarily depends upon whether the results over that period fits the point one wants to make. I am guilty of arguing that 10 PAs isn't sufficient though...

GIDP
05-24-2010, 03:01 PM
That's really not a fair (i.e. accurate) characterization of the position held by the "pro-trade" crowd.

BTW, you won't find a post by me that fits the above narrative that the appropriate sample size arbitrarily depends upon whether the results over that period fits the point one wants to make. I am guilty of arguing that 10 PAs isn't sufficient though...

No dont get me wrong im just saying a lot of people were loving to cite Stewarts struggle then ignore his 2009 season or dismissed it as much as they could, then cite Rolens surprising power, but then ignore Edwins bat.

Its just very inconsistent, and thats what I meant by my original post of "I got the impression that it did."

Kingspoint
05-24-2010, 10:14 PM
No dont get me wrong im just saying a lot of people were loving to cite Stewarts struggle then ignore his 2009 season or dismissed it as much as they could, then cite Rolens surprising power, but then ignore Edwins bat.



So true.

So true.

Orenda
05-24-2010, 10:38 PM
I just noticed something odd, Edwin has been dropped to 9th in the batting order tonight after being on fire his last 3 games. I know that is unrelated but thought it was worth a mention.

Kingspoint
05-25-2010, 12:07 AM
I just noticed something odd, Edwin has been dropped to 9th in the batting order tonight after being on fire his last 3 games. I know that is unrelated but thought it was worth a mention.

The MLB network rated Toronto as one of the Top-8 teams in Baseball right now. The REDS didn't make the Top-9.

GoReds
05-25-2010, 10:03 AM
The MLB network rated Toronto as one of the Top-8 teams in Baseball right now. The REDS didn't make the Top-9.

HBT has the Reds 6th (Cards 5th) and Toronto not in the top 10.

Neither means anything.

westofyou
05-25-2010, 10:31 AM
HBT has the Reds 6th (Cards 5th) and Toronto not in the top 10.

Neither means anything.

Yep, I have a list too.. it lists coffee on top

lollipopcurve
05-25-2010, 10:32 AM
people were loving to cite Stewarts struggle then ignore his 2009 season or dismissed it as much as they could

I started the thread and called it "Zach Stewart's progress" for a reason -- it's about how Stewart is doing in the here and now, not about last year.

Sea Ray
05-25-2010, 03:03 PM
So, if Stewarts early struggles were just that, struggles, (a temporary thing) and EE is healthy, then I'd say Toronto got exactly what they wanted out of the trade.

If that's the way it works out then I'd say it'll be one of those deals that works out well for both teams

lollipopcurve
05-25-2010, 03:07 PM
If that's the way it works out then I'd say it'll be one of those deals that works out well for both teams

Exactly. The way they draw it up.

Kingspoint
05-25-2010, 04:22 PM
I started the thread and called it "Zach Stewart's progress" for a reason -- it's about how Stewart is doing in the here and now, not about last year.


It's been good his last two starts. Nice to see him show some progress.

lollipopcurve
05-31-2010, 08:39 PM
Stewart falters again in start #9 at AA New Hampshire:

5 IP, 8 H, 5 ER, 4 BB, 6 K (no HRs)

ERA now at 6.02 on the year.

fearofpopvol1
05-31-2010, 09:42 PM
Stewart, to me, is looking more and more like a bullpen arm than a starter. I know, it's too early to fully say that, but if we got Rolen for 2 bullpen arms and EdE, I think we did just fine.

Kingspoint
06-01-2010, 02:27 AM
Stewart falters again in start #9 at AA New Hampshire:

5 IP, 8 H, 5 ER, 4 BB, 6 K (no HRs)

ERA now at 6.02 on the year.

He's as inconsistent as Aaron Harang.

lollipopcurve
06-03-2010, 09:25 AM
In start #10 at AA New Hampshire, Stewart has his 2nd dominant outing of the season:

6 IP, 1 H, 1 ER, 2 BB, 6 K

ERA now at 5.73 on the year.

Benihana
06-03-2010, 10:09 AM
Also worhth mentioning- Josh Roenicke was demoted back to the minors 2 days ago after posting a 4.97 ERA with 11 BBs and 12Ks. Since the trade, he has a major league ERA of 6.23.

lollipopcurve
06-10-2010, 09:00 AM
On 5 days rest, Stewart has a pretty good outing in start #11 at AA New Hampshire:

5.67 IP, 7 H, 2 R (0 ER) 3 BB 4K 1 HBP

ERA slides below 5 to 4.91 on the year.

OnBaseMachine
07-30-2010, 01:09 PM
From Baseball America:


No. 13 ZACH STEWART, RHP, BLUE JAYS

Team: Double-A New Hampshire (Blue Jays)
Age: 23
Why He's Here: 0-0, 0.00, 2 G, 10 IP, 5 H, 0 R, 4 BB, 11 SO
The Scoop: In 2009, Stewart was a constant on the Hot Sheet and in prospect reports thanks to a run as the minors ERA leader (a deadline deal to the Blue Jays didn't hurt either). He's slipped back into the background this season. But that doesn't mean that he should be forgotten. Stewart still has a nasty low-90s sinker that can generate lots of ground balls when he's on. And after a slow start, Stewart has definitely been on recently. He's 6-1, 2.28 since June 1, and he's reminding Blue Jays fans that he's well worth paying attention to, even if he isn't generating a whole lot of headlines.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/prospect-hot-sheet/2010/2610440.html

camisadelgolf
11-15-2010, 04:14 PM
Zach Stewart was just listed as the Blue Jays' #5 prospect by Baseball America. He was their top prospect last year, but BA says they see him as the team's future closer. He is also said to have their best fastball (with Deck McGuire having the organization's best slider).

cinreds21
11-15-2010, 04:54 PM
With the possibility that the Blue Jays will acquire Dan Uggla, I've been lobbying (to another forum) that the Marlins should get Stewy in return. He was so nasty when I saw him in 09. I see him as a starter but I guess no one else agrees with me.

camisadelgolf
11-15-2010, 04:57 PM
With the possibility that the Blue Jays will acquire Dan Uggla, I've been lobbying (to another forum) that the Marlins should get Stewy in return. He was so nasty when I saw him in 09. I see him as a starter but I guess no one else agrees with me.
I've always said I saw him as a reliever, but there has always been a lot of people on the board who disagree with me on that. I think it was dougdirt who said whether Stewart ends up in the rotation or bullpen depends on how well his change-up develops.

Benihana
05-12-2011, 11:24 AM
Through 6 starts (35IP) this season, Stewart has a 3.53 ERA, 1.32 WHIP and 4.8 K/9.

Stewart turns 25 this year and is still pitching (for his third consecutive year) in AA. His numbers have been anything but dominating. He has had a K/BB ratio of less than 2 as a starter for the last two seasons. He has still yet to start a game above AA. Does anyone still think he is a lock for a Cy Young? Does anyone still think this was a bad deal?

(FYI Josh Roenicke has an 8.10 ERA in AAA this season. He turns 29 in August.)

cinreds21
05-12-2011, 12:08 PM
I am surprised.

He was so dominant in 2009. I thought it was a HUGE mistake to trade him.

I was wrong for once. Good job, front office.

dougdirt
05-12-2011, 12:48 PM
Nothing that has happened since the trade changes my opinion of the trade. The Reds overpaid for a good player in Scott Rolen.

Stewart hasn't turned out to be the guy a lot of us thought (and I don't mean us Reds fans, I mean prospect followers and evaluators). The stuff is still there from what I hear, but I haven't seen him pitch in a while so I can't say what exactly is going on.

As for him in AA, the Blue Jays are doing it for a reason and it has nothing to do with his production/talent.

lollipopcurve
05-12-2011, 01:00 PM
As for him in AA, the Blue Jays are doing it for a reason and it has nothing to do with his production/talent.

What is the reason?

Doc. Scott
05-12-2011, 01:04 PM
Doug, you certainly weren't the only one who thought the Reds overpaid considerably for Rolen. But what I remember is you being over-the-top in lauding Stewart because he was tearing through the Reds' system at the time. There's no reason to be in denial or defensive over it. It's just that to date it's gone well for the Reds and not as well for the Jays. Roenicke has lost the handle on how to throw strikes and Encarnacion's bat has been on a steady downward plane (Baseball Prospectus 2011 said he was a "one-tool player", and this year EdE has all of zero homers).

Stewart may make the majors still, of course, but I think it's an important lesson in learning that a player is rarely as good as a hot streak might suggest. It's generally wise to trade players at the peak of their value. (Not that I thought Rolen would be as successful or as healthy as he has been a season and a half out.)

dougdirt
05-12-2011, 01:04 PM
What is the reason?

The Blue Jays want to keep him out of the PCL environment as long as they can. They don't like how the league has hurt some of their younger pitchers confidence in the past. That was from John Farrell in spring training this year.

dougdirt
05-12-2011, 01:07 PM
Doug, you certainly weren't the only one who thought the Reds overpaid considerably for Rolen. But what I remember is you being over-the-top in lauding Stewart because he was tearing through the Reds' system at the time. There's no reason to be in denial or defensive over it. It's just that to date it's gone well for the Reds and not as well for the Jays. Roenicke has lost the handle on how to throw strikes and Encarnacion's bat has been on a steady downward plane (Baseball Prospectus 2011 said he was a "one-tool player", and this year EdE has all of zero homers).

Stewart may make the majors still, of course, but I think it's an important lesson in learning that a player is rarely as good as a hot streak might suggest. It's generally wise to trade players at the peak of their value. (Not that I thought Rolen would be as successful or as healthy as he has been a season and a half out.)

It has little to do with a hot streak and a lot to do with the fact that he has a sinker in the low 90's that can touch 95 as a starter and a plus slider. Pitches he still has. I didn't care much about losing the other two guys. Roenicke is a bullpen arm who doesn't project to close and Encarnacion, while I liked him, was easily worth giving up for Rolen. Trading Stewart straight up for Rolen would have been overpaying in my opinion given Rolen's demand of a trade to a midwest team and how the midwest teams nearly all had locked in 3B at the time except for the Reds and the White Sox, giving them almost no options to make a deal with.

Doc. Scott
05-12-2011, 01:17 PM
It has little to do with a hot streak and a lot to do with the fact that he has a sinker in the low 90's that can touch 95 as a starter and a plus slider. Pitches he still has. I didn't care much about losing the other two guys. Roenicke is a bullpen arm who doesn't project to close and Encarnacion, while I liked him, was easily worth giving up for Rolen. Trading Stewart straight up for Rolen would have been overpaying in my opinion given Rolen's demand of a trade to a midwest team and how the midwest teams nearly all had locked in 3B at the time except for the Reds and the White Sox, giving them almost no options to make a deal with.

Well, I guess no one can say you don't stick to your guns. I continue to watch Stewart and I think he'll make the big leagues, but I strongly doubt he'll become a consistently successful big-league starting pitcher.

lollipopcurve
05-12-2011, 01:18 PM
The Blue Jays want to keep him out of the PCL environment as long as they can. They don't like how the league has hurt some of their younger pitchers confidence in the past. That was from John Farrell in spring training this year.

That's what I figured. But if you ask me, if Stewart is as devastating a prospect as you have at times made him out to be, he'd have no trouble in the PCL.

Guy's a good arm to have in the system, but he's by no means an elite prospect at this point. And I still contend he stands just as good a chance of ending up a reliever as a starter. Time will tell.

camisadelgolf
05-12-2011, 02:06 PM
You can't call something a bad trade based on perceived value unless you have inside information. We have no idea what people would've given up for Stewart, so it's just silly to make presumptions.

So far, it looks like the Reds got the better end of the deal even when you don't include the finances. But here's something I think a lot of us lose sight of: the Reds received Scott Rolen and almost four million dollars. What will that money get you?
The Rangers were ranked 8th in international spending last year at $3.57MM. In almost any year, that's enough money to sign the top international prospect in the world (plus more). If the Reds had sold Stewart for $4MM straight up, I'd say that was a decent deal, but instead, they got the money and a Gold Glove third baseman who gets a lot of credit for completely changing the culture of the clubhouse. The Reds got such a steal that it's ridiculous.

jojo
05-12-2011, 02:10 PM
If the Reds had sold Stewart for $4MM straight up, I'd say that was a decent deal,

Just a quibble in response to isolating this specific point from out of the post in sum- given Stewart's prospect status at the time of the trade, as a commodity, he would've been worth around $13M based upon what other similarly ranked prospects had went on to produce in the majors. Selling him straight up for $4M would've been selling very low.

kaldaniels
05-12-2011, 02:22 PM
Nothing that has happened since the trade changes my opinion of the trade. The Reds overpaid for a good player in Scott Rolen.
What should the Reds have offered that the Jays would have accepted for Rolen? Or were you opposed to trading for Rolen in the first place believing the REds could easily acquire him in the offseason?

Stewart hasn't turned out to be the guy a lot of us thought (and I don't mean us Reds fans, I mean prospect followers and evaluators). The stuff is still there from what I hear, but I haven't seen him pitch in a while so I can't say what exactly is going on.
Is it safe to say scouts were wrong (I know, it is such a dirty word) about Stewart, or at least things are pointing in that direction?

As for him in AA, the Blue Jays are doing it for a reason and it has nothing to do with his production/talent.
I can't believe that for one moment. I'm sorry you may have quoted material to completely back that up, but until I see a complete explanation (not some quick blurb) I just don't believe it. If they thought he was close to the bigs, wouldn't he be in AAA? What does that say about the Jays pitchers currently in AAA?

kaldaniels
05-12-2011, 02:25 PM
Just a quibble in response to isolating this specific point from out of the post in sum- given Stewart's prospect status at the time of the trade, as a commodity, he would've been worth around $13M based upon what other similarly ranked prospects had went on to produce in the majors. Selling him straight up for $4M would've been selling very low.

Would the 13 Million be the average production that all similar prospects to Stewart produced?

dougdirt
05-12-2011, 02:27 PM
I am not going to go through it all again. It has been hashed over 10 times over the last two years. My points haven't and won't change.

jojo
05-12-2011, 02:28 PM
Would the 13 Million be the average production that all similar prospects to Stewart produced?

Ya...pitching prospects.

kaldaniels
05-12-2011, 02:36 PM
I am not going to go through it all again. It has been hashed over 10 times over the last two years. My points haven't and won't change.

Fair enough. The AAA/AA remark is new to me though. If you get a chance, it would be great if you could elaborate on that subject.

jojo
05-12-2011, 02:45 PM
Fair enough. The AAA/AA remark is new to me though. If you get a chance, it would be great if you could elaborate on that subject.

The PCL is a notorious hitter's league. Think Coors field on steroids. Vegas isn't a particularly hospitable place for developing a pitcher. I don't see a need to send a highly thought of young pitcher there per se.

kaldaniels
05-12-2011, 02:52 PM
The PCL is a notorious hitter's league. Think Coors field on steroids. Vegas isn't a particularly hospitable place for developing a pitcher. I don't see a need to send a highly thought of young pitcher there per se.

Interesting. And true. I see Kyle Drabek skipped over AAA as well. Thanks.

Benihana
05-12-2011, 04:05 PM
Yes BUT regardless of what happens in the PCL, shouldn't he be dominating AA in his third go-round?

Travis Wood, to give one example, put up a 1.21 ERA in his second go-round after posting a 7.09 number the year before. He was 22 at the time.

Stewart turns 25 this year and is on his third consecutive tour of AA. Just saying.

jojo
05-12-2011, 04:14 PM
Yes BUT regardless of what happens in the PCL, shouldn't he be dominating AA in his third go-round?

Travis Wood, to give one example, put up a 1.21 ERA in his second go-round after posting a 7.09 number the year before. He was 22 at the time.

Stewart turns 25 this year and is on his third consecutive tour of AA. Just saying.

Who knows what Toronto has him working on? Without knowing the devil in the details, it's tough to state anything definitive and I just don't know enough about their system to speak authoritatively.

But ya, you'd rather see him blowing hitters away with the caveat that stats can be misleading in the minors.

Benihana
05-12-2011, 04:20 PM
Who knows what Toronto has him working on? Without knowing the devil in the details, it's tough to state anything definitive and I just don't know enough about their system to speak authoritatively.

But ya, you'd rather see him blowing hitters away with the caveat that stats can be misleading in the minors.

Putting aside ERA, the K/9 and BB/K ratios are also pedestrian at best.

And it's not like the Blue Jays are stacked with starting pitching. No one in their rotation has an ERA under 4 and Jo-Jo Reyes and Brett Cecil (of the 6.86 ERA) have gotten several starts. If Stewart were anywhere close to major league ready, he'd be in Toronto by now.

REDREAD
05-12-2011, 04:38 PM
Nothing that has happened since the trade changes my opinion of the trade. The Reds overpaid for a good player in Scott Rolen.

Stewart hasn't turned out to be the guy a lot of us thought (and I don't mean us Reds fans, I mean prospect followers and evaluators). The stuff is still there from what I hear, but I haven't seen him pitch in a while so I can't say what exactly is going on.

.

Doug, perhaps Walt and his staff knew more than the prospect followers and evaluators. Or perhaps it was just a well calculated risk.. Walt and his guys obviously thought they'd get more total value out of Rolen than the guys they traded for him.

If Stewart never makes the show, will the Reds still have overpaid? I am not mocking you, but I just wonder.. With the benefit of hindsight, is there any way you are ever going to agree that this was an acceptable trade for the Reds? If there's nothing that can convince you, that's fine.. Again, I am not trying to incite anything.. I am just wondering if there's anything that could justify this trade to you.

REDREAD
05-12-2011, 04:45 PM
Just a quibble in response to isolating this specific point from out of the post in sum- given Stewart's prospect status at the time of the trade, as a commodity, he would've been worth around $13M based upon what other similarly ranked prospects had went on to produce in the majors. Selling him straight up for $4M would've been selling very low.

I am wondering how you came up with the 13 million.. Is this based on $X per WAR or something like that?

I guess I have never seen a precedent where a prospect was thrown into a trade and 13 million came back. Maybe it's happened though. I just can't recall.

I guess I am of the opinion that no matter highly touted a prospect is, he's never worth as much as an established player if you are going to calculate $X per unit of production (WAR or whatever).

Although I guess I could see the arguement if a club thought Zach Stewart was comparable to drafting Strassberg or Texeria when they were drafted.
But I find it hard to believe that Zach was that highly coveted by the Blue Jays.

kaldaniels
05-12-2011, 04:50 PM
One of the subplots, which has been mentioned again over the past few days, to this whole trade that I would love to have proven or debunk right now is the matter of did Rolen demand a trade to a midwest team.

There is a huge difference between asking for and demanding a trade. Rolen going to Jays management and asking for a trade to a Midwestern team hardly gives the Reds a ton of leverage. Some perhaps, but they still would have to pony up some players, otherwise Toronto could just hold on to him.

jojo
05-12-2011, 05:00 PM
I am wondering how you came up with the 13 million.. Is this based on $X per WAR or something like that?

I guess I have never seen a precedent where a prospect was thrown into a trade and 13 million came back. Maybe it's happened though. I just can't recall.

I guess I am of the opinion that no matter highly touted a prospect is, he's never worth as much as an established player if you are going to calculate $X per unit of production (WAR or whatever).

Although I guess I could see the arguement if a club thought Zach Stewart was comparable to drafting Strassberg or Texeria when they were drafted.
But I find it hard to believe that Zach was that highly coveted by the Blue Jays.

It was derived from the WAR prospects produced once in the majors and the going rate for WAR on the open market at the time.

REDREAD
05-12-2011, 05:07 PM
It was derived from the WAR prospects produced once in the majors and the going rate for WAR on the open market at the time.

Ok cool, thanks for responding.

Scrap Irony
05-12-2011, 05:53 PM
It was derived from the WAR prospects produced once in the majors and the going rate for WAR on the open market at the time.

Is that for all pitching prospects or only those who reach the majors, jojo?

jojo
05-12-2011, 06:14 PM
Is that for all pitching prospects or only those who reach the majors, jojo?

I can't remember exactly. I think it was for all pitching prospects ranked similarly by BA.

Actually having dug some of the studies back out, there were several details that I didn't remember perfectly....for instance, the values weren't based upon WAR but rather win shares.

Here's some of the first studies:

http://www.philbirnbaum.com/btn2007-11.pdf

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-bright-side-of-losing-santana/

This is WAR-based:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/draft_picks_and.php

I'm a fan of sky kalkman and he has some interesting things too:
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/20/950254/which-is-better-compensation

Here's his trade value calculator:
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/15/950094/saber-friendly-blogging-101-trade

Here was some back of the napkin calculatin' concerning the Stewart/Rolen trade looking at it from the standpoint of considerations the time of the trade:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2083974&postcount=253

Scrap Irony
05-12-2011, 06:34 PM
So, if I'm reading this correctly (and I may not be), Scott Rolen has given the Reds just under $24 million in value since being traded for.

Zach Stewart is worth around half of that right now. Add in EdE's $5 million value contribution and Rolen's and EdE's salaries (along with the cash given to Cincinnati by Toronto) the past two years-- it all adds up to about a $6 or $7 million dollar plus on the Red sheet.

Is that pretty much correct?

jojo
05-12-2011, 07:12 PM
So, if I'm reading this correctly (and I may not be), Scott Rolen has given the Reds just under $24 million in value since being traded for.

Zach Stewart is worth around half of that right now. Add in EdE's $5 million value contribution and Rolen's and EdE's salaries (along with the cash given to Cincinnati by Toronto) the past two years-- it all adds up to about a $6 or $7 million dollar plus on the Red sheet.

Is that pretty much correct?

As thumbs in the air go, that's about right.

Rolen has given the Reds about 6 WAR (the reds are paying roughly $13-14M for that given his restructured contract) while EE has given the bluejays roughly 1.5 WAR while they're paying him $8M (with the 2012 buyout). Stewart has dropped off of BA's top 100 I believe.

The Reds are getting surplus value from Rolen while EE is causing the Bluejays to go into the hole.

Orenda
05-12-2011, 09:34 PM
As thumbs in the air go, that's about right.

Rolen has given the Reds about 6 WAR (the reds are paying roughly $13-14M for that given his restructured contract) while EE has given the bluejays roughly 1.5 WAR while they're paying him $8M (with the 2012 buyout). Stewart has dropped off of BA's top 100 I believe.

The Reds are getting surplus value from Rolen while EE is causing the Bluejays to go into the hole.

I thought the Reds overpaid at the time; Rolen was oft injured, and represented one of a group of contracts that the Blue Jays were looking to get rid of.

They weren't going to win the AL east with Scott Rolen, Alex Rios, and Vernon Wells and they were able to become more flexible by moving them. So far, the move has worked for both sides imo.

dougdirt
05-13-2011, 05:31 PM
If Stewart never makes the show, will the Reds still have overpaid? I am not mocking you, but I just wonder.. With the benefit of hindsight, is there any way you are ever going to agree that this was an acceptable trade for the Reds? If there's nothing that can convince you, that's fine.. Again, I am not trying to incite anything.. I am just wondering if there's anything that could justify this trade to you.
I am never going to believe that the Reds didn't overpay for Scott Rolen, no matter what happens in the future because what happens in the future has no bearing on the process for which the trade went through.

PuffyPig
05-13-2011, 05:38 PM
Since we don't really know what the market was for Rolen (what other teams had an interest in him, if any?) it's hard to know if we overpaid.

Since the Reds have been a different team from the moment the trade was made, and Stewart's stock has fallen since then, I'm not sure it's really relevant any more, because it's a trade we'd make a thousand times over.

Don't forget we also got a bunch of money in the trade, $4M IIRC.

westofyou
05-13-2011, 05:41 PM
I'm never going to believe that the Reds traded a superstar until he performs like one for longer than the life span of hamster.

jojo
05-13-2011, 06:25 PM
I am never going to believe that the Reds didn't overpay for Scott Rolen, no matter what happens in the future because what happens in the future has no bearing on the process for which the trade went through.

But it wasn't an obvious overpay at the time.

dougdirt
05-13-2011, 06:46 PM
But it wasn't an obvious overpay at the time.

I will disagree with you there.

camisadelgolf
05-13-2011, 08:58 PM
Who would've guessed that a Gold Glove-winning All-Star with an .846 OPS at the time of the trade (Rolen) + millions of dollars would cost a AAAA player (Roenicke), a player with negative value (Encarnacion), and an actual prospect (Stewart)? Let's be real. At no point did the Reds 'overpay'. As Reds fans, we overvalue our own prospects. I remember people around here being upset that the Reds traded away Red Turner and Brandon Waring to obtain Ramon Hernandez.

dougdirt
05-14-2011, 04:08 AM
Who would've guessed that a Gold Glove-winning All-Star with an .846 OPS at the time of the trade (Rolen) + millions of dollars would cost a AAAA player (Roenicke), a player with negative value (Encarnacion), and an actual prospect (Stewart)? Let's be real. At no point did the Reds 'overpay'. As Reds fans, we overvalue our own prospects. I remember people around here being upset that the Reds traded away Red Turner and Brandon Waring to obtain Ramon Hernandez.

Except that no one should have expected Rolen to be an .846 OPS bat over a full season (because he simply hasn't been able to stay healthy for one in a while) or a gold glover (the guy is good, but lets be honest, he wasn't the best defensive 3B in the NL last season). What Rolen was last season shouldn't have been expected, so the fact that he did those things doesn't change anything.

fearofpopvol1
05-14-2011, 04:29 AM
I am never going to believe that the Reds didn't overpay for Scott Rolen, no matter what happens in the future because what happens in the future has no bearing on the process for which the trade went through.

Unless you're able to source and prove what other teams offered or were willing to offer, this is not objective analysis.

Facts are facts and thus far, Rolen has netted a higher WAR number than the players that went to the Blue Jays and until the tides turn on that front, the Reds won the trade. Plus, it's not like there is any sort of conclusive evidence that Stewart is going to be a stud or that Roenicke is going to be either. The Reds went after a player that was a good bet and one that has and will continue to help the team at a position that was previously a weakness. Isn't the goal to try to be at least average or above average at every position? 3B was below average with EdE, Roenicke is not a major leaguer and Stewart is still a question mark and not getting any younger. What's not to like?

I'm willing to bet that Roenicke, EdE and Stewart do not post a total WAR number in Blue Jays' uniforms higher than what Rolen will produce in a Reds one. Assuming that ends up being true, the Reds will not have overpaid. The Reds will only have overpaid if those Blue Jays players do produce WAR above that of Rolen.

mth123
05-14-2011, 07:02 AM
I'm willing to bet that Roenicke, EdE and Stewart do not post a total WAR number in Blue Jays' uniforms higher than what Rolen will produce in a Reds one. Assuming that ends up being true, the Reds will not have overpaid. The Reds will only have overpaid if those Blue Jays players do produce WAR above that of Rolen.

I'm not sure that is the way to look at it. Rolen has been a windfall that has provided tons of value and even those who were against the deal knew that he was a big upgrade from EdE, but that doesn't mean the Reds couldn't have gotten him for less.

If you buy a house for 200K and its value rockets to $500K you're surely happy with the deal. But if you could have bought the same house for $75K, then you still overpaid.

I'm with Doug, Rolen wanted out of Toronto and there was really nowhere else for him to go. His OPS of .840+ last year was probably about 60 points higher than what should have been expected and he was and is a damaged player whose skills have been compromised by injury and isn't the guy that the back of his baseball card says anymore. Under those conditions, giving up Stewart seemed too much to me. Even if the Reds had made the decision that Stewart was a mirage, his value was skyrocketing and he could have been dealt for something else. At the time, he probably had more value than any prospect the Phillies gave for Cliff Lee.

IMO, even the Chicago market was too far from Rolen's home for him to accept a deal there. Since he'd burned his bridge in St, Louis, I think it was Cincy or retirement to be near his family for Rolen. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Rolen asked Walt "get me out of here now" and Walt simply tired of negotiating and made a deal that he knew would be accepted quickly. Rumor at the time was that the Jays wanted Alonso. Had it been Alonso instead of Stewart, I'd have thought it was a fair deal. I just hate giving up highly regarded pitching without getting pitching in return. Intead the Reds got some cash to pay the salary difference and that is what made this an overpayment in my mind. I'm not opposed to selling off assets to help with the budget, but dealing what was, at the time, the best pitching prospect simply to balance the dollars in the deal didn't seem a good idea. I'd have waited until the off-season and added Rolen before the 2010 season when that money to balance the 2009 budget was no longer a factor. Adding him for the end of 2009 was meaningless in the overall plan and I really don't think he'd have willingly played anywhere else.

lollipopcurve
05-14-2011, 08:20 AM
IMO, the only way to objectively evaluate a trade is in the context of players' performance after the trade (and/or, if there's significant $$$ involved, by looking at how the $$$ was deployed post-trade, to the extent that is discernable). Considerations at the time of the trade -- for example, other trades that may have been possible based on perceived (which is not actual) value -- are largely pure speculation with no objective basis. Using those considerations even as post-trade evidence accumulates over entire seasons of play seems to me nothing but stubbornness and a willfull attempt to raise one's own biases above plain fact.

To say that the Rolen trade has been anything but a huge win for the Reds -- regardless of what happens with the guys they let go -- is either ignorance or denial, IMO.

kaldaniels
05-14-2011, 09:46 AM
I'm not sure that is the way to look at it. Rolen has been a windfall that has provided tons of value and even those who were against the deal knew that he was a big upgrade from EdE, but that doesn't mean the Reds couldn't have gotten him for less.

If you buy a house for 200K and its value rockets to $500K you're surely happy with the deal. But if you could have bought the same house for $75K, then you still overpaid.

I'm with Doug, Rolen wanted out of Toronto and there was really nowhere else for him to go. His OPS of .840+ last year was probably about 60 points higher than what should have been expected and he was and is a damaged player whose skills have been compromised by injury and isn't the guy that the back of his baseball card says anymore. Under those conditions, giving up Stewart seemed too much to me. Even if the Reds had made the decision that Stewart was a mirage, his value was skyrocketing and he could have been dealt for something else. At the time, he probably had more value than any prospect the Phillies gave for Cliff Lee.

IMO, even the Chicago market was too far from Rolen's home for him to accept a deal there. Since he'd burned his bridge in St, Louis, I think it was Cincy or retirement to be near his family for Rolen. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Rolen asked Walt "get me out of here now" and Walt simply tired of negotiating and made a deal that he knew would be accepted quickly. Rumor at the time was that the Jays wanted Alonso. Had it been Alonso instead of Stewart, I'd have thought it was a fair deal. I just hate giving up highly regarded pitching without getting pitching in return. Intead the Reds got some cash to pay the salary difference and that is what made this an overpayment in my mind. I'm not opposed to selling off assets to help with the budget, but dealing what was, at the time, the best pitching prospect simply to balance the dollars in the deal didn't seem a good idea. I'd have waited until the off-season and added Rolen before the 2010 season when that money to balance the 2009 budget was no longer a factor. Adding him for the end of 2009 was meaningless in the overall plan and I really don't think he'd have willingly played anywhere else.

I understand simply saying, I think the Reds gave up too much to get Rolen, but it was a good deal for the Reds in the end. Fine. Some had a higher value on Stewart...I get that. But I asked Doug a few months back if he would undo the trade if he could, and he said yes. I doubt you stand with him on that front. And to be honest, I struggle with Doug on that one, for he is one of the more knowedglable ones on here...but I just hope one day he sees the light and realizes this deal was a plus for the Reds.

And I would have not been happy at the time of the deal myself had it been Yonder instead of Stewart.

jojo
05-14-2011, 09:49 AM
Where would Stewart fit in the rotation if that trade was undone?

Puffy
05-14-2011, 11:24 AM
Except that no one should have expected Rolen to be an .846 OPS bat over a full season (because he simply hasn't been able to stay healthy for one in a while) or a gold glover (the guy is good, but lets be honest, he wasn't the best defensive 3B in the NL last season). What Rolen was last season shouldn't have been expected, so the fact that he did those things doesn't change anything.

So, no one could have expected Rolen to remain an .846 bat and a gold glover (which for the lionshare of his career he has been and he was 34 at time) BUT we are allowed to expect that Zach Stewart was a top of the rotation future major league starter and a future Cy Young award winner.

Something seems wrong here, no??

Caveat Emperor
05-14-2011, 12:03 PM
Where would Stewart fit in the rotation if that trade was undone?

Apparently, somewhere between Matt Maloney and Dontrelle Willis.

Meanwhile, Scott Rolen helped give Cincinnati playoff baseball for the first time in over a decade.

dougdirt
05-14-2011, 01:42 PM
So, no one could have expected Rolen to remain an .846 bat and a gold glover (which for the lionshare of his career he has been and he was 34 at time) BUT we are allowed to expect that Zach Stewart was a top of the rotation future major league starter and a future Cy Young award winner.

Something seems wrong here, no??

Over a full season, no one should have expected him to be that good of a bat because he hadn't put together a full season like that for years and he has a history of back and shoulder problems. As for the gold glove.... sure, he won it. But when I hear gold glove defense, I think about it in the terms of being the best, not the guy the managers voted for. Scott Rolen is an above average 3B and was at the time of the trade. He wasn't the best and hasn't been for a while now.

dougdirt
05-14-2011, 01:43 PM
Where would Stewart fit in the rotation if that trade was undone?

That is a pretty good question. Odds are he would probably be in AAA. But, lets note that at the time of the trade, he was the top pitching prospect we had, Mike Leake wasn't yet signed and Travis Wood was the only other prospect showing anything close to signs of life above Low A. The Reds pitching depth kind of exploded on them after that trade, but at the time of it, it wasn't really close to being what it is right now.

Betterread
05-14-2011, 01:50 PM
So, no one could have expected Rolen to remain an .846 bat and a gold glover (which for the lionshare of his career he has been and he was 34 at time) BUT we are allowed to expect that Zach Stewart was a top of the rotation future major league starter and a future Cy Young award winner.
Something seems wrong here, no??
You have a point that is important. And I would add that the probability that Rolen would perform along the lines of his past seasons would have to be higher than the probability of Stewart becoming a TOR ML pitcher. At the point that Stewart was traded, he was a 5 innings-and-done starter-in-training. It was clear to me that he had some significant development to do before he could be a ML starting pitcher. He still has that plus sinker, but he is still learning how to pitch. Just like Homer Bailey (they are the same age). But the difference is Homer Bailey has much better stuff and has had more high-level experience (i.e. trials and errrors) than Stewart. I think the Reds did a great job of using Stewart in a way that would feature his strengths so that he would be a highly valued prospect to other organizations. This trade is evident of that successful approach. If the Reds "loved" Stewart so much, he wouldn't have been traded.

Betterread
05-14-2011, 01:54 PM
That is a pretty good question. Odds are he would probably be in AAA. But, lets note that at the time of the trade, he was the top pitching prospect we had, Mike Leake wasn't yet signed and Travis Wood was the only other prospect showing anything close to signs of life above Low A. The Reds pitching depth kind of exploded on them after that trade, but at the time of it, it wasn't really close to being what it is right now.Do you feel the Reds organization is currently deep with starting pitching talent?

dougdirt
05-14-2011, 02:13 PM
Do you feel the Reds organization is currently deep with starting pitching talent?

Organization, including the majors? Yes. The minors on their own? Not really.

camisadelgolf
05-14-2011, 03:04 PM
Over a full season, no one should have expected him to be that good of a bat because he hadn't put together a full season like that for years and he has a history of back and shoulder problems. As for the gold glove.... sure, he won it. But when I hear gold glove defense, I think about it in the terms of being the best, not the guy the managers voted for. Scott Rolen is an above average 3B and was at the time of the trade. He wasn't the best and hasn't been for a while now.
Apparently the Reds had some scouts who had those expectations for Rolen, and they were right. They probably had expectations for Stewart: once the league sees him multiple times, they'll be able to hit his stuff, so the Reds better deal him while his stock is at an all-time high.

TheBigLebowski
05-14-2011, 03:51 PM
Maybe I work in a different environment than some people who participate here, but in my profession, judgment on work quality is results-based. While it is true that Toronto was not going to compete the year the deal was consummated nor the year after, the fact is, we fleeced them in this deal. In return for Rolen and 4 MILLION DOLLARS, we gave up a guy who is nothing more than organizational fodder in Roenicke (and I will admit, at the time, I hated losing the dude because I saw something in him I really liked), an awful person and terrible baseball player in Edwin and a top prospect in Stewart. However, in my very humble opinion, the only thing tougher in all of sports for scouts to project than a pitching prospect's development and long-term potential is doing the same for a high school offensive lineman to college or a collegiate offensive lineman to the pros.

I don't see how we aren't getting everything we could have wanted out of Rolen. Yes, he has been injury prone - it's not like one could make the argument that he magically got healthy when he arrived here. But his defense has been stellar, he has hit very well, and there is just no question that his "intangibles" factor is real and not imagined. With no Rolen, we do not win the division last year. "But how can you possibly know that???" Can I tell you with any degree of certainty that a perfectly-cooked pork loin won't fall on my head next time I step outside? No, but let's just say I won't be carrying two slices of Texas Toast and a bottle of barbecue sauce next time I let my dogs out back.

The move was a wonderful move - when considered against circumstances as they were at the time and as they are now. Truly a great move by a great GM.

mth123
05-14-2011, 03:58 PM
I understand simply saying, I think the Reds gave up too much to get Rolen, but it was a good deal for the Reds in the end. Fine. Some had a higher value on Stewart...I get that. But I asked Doug a few months back if he would undo the trade if he could, and he said yes. I doubt you stand with him on that front. And to be honest, I struggle with Doug on that one, for he is one of the more knowedglable ones on here...but I just hope one day he sees the light and realizes this deal was a plus for the Reds.

And I would have not been happy at the time of the deal myself had it been Yonder instead of Stewart.

I'd have dealt Yonder and Stewart to the Indians with other spare parts for Cliff Lee and kept him for the 2010 season. In the winter between the 2009 and 2010 seasons I'd have dealt a bag of balls and EdE for Rolen from the Jays because they would have faced dealing him or losing him to retirement.

Put Lee on the 2010 Reds and they may just have been known for something in the post season besides being no hit.

757690
05-14-2011, 04:04 PM
I'm not sure that is the way to look at it. Rolen has been a windfall that has provided tons of value and even those who were against the deal knew that he was a big upgrade from EdE, but that doesn't mean the Reds couldn't have gotten him for less.

If you buy a house for 200K and its value rockets to $500K you're surely happy with the deal. But if you could have bought the same house for $75K, then you still overpaid.

I'm with Doug, Rolen wanted out of Toronto and there was really nowhere else for him to go. His OPS of .840+ last year was probably about 60 points higher than what should have been expected and he was and is a damaged player whose skills have been compromised by injury and isn't the guy that the back of his baseball card says anymore. Under those conditions, giving up Stewart seemed too much to me. Even if the Reds had made the decision that Stewart was a mirage, his value was skyrocketing and he could have been dealt for something else. At the time, he probably had more value than any prospect the Phillies gave for Cliff Lee.

IMO, even the Chicago market was too far from Rolen's home for him to accept a deal there. Since he'd burned his bridge in St, Louis, I think it was Cincy or retirement to be near his family for Rolen. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Rolen asked Walt "get me out of here now" and Walt simply tired of negotiating and made a deal that he knew would be accepted quickly. Rumor at the time was that the Jays wanted Alonso. Had it been Alonso instead of Stewart, I'd have thought it was a fair deal. I just hate giving up highly regarded pitching without getting pitching in return. Intead the Reds got some cash to pay the salary difference and that is what made this an overpayment in my mind. I'm not opposed to selling off assets to help with the budget, but dealing what was, at the time, the best pitching prospect simply to balance the dollars in the deal didn't seem a good idea. I'd have waited until the off-season and added Rolen before the 2010 season when that money to balance the 2009 budget was no longer a factor. Adding him for the end of 2009 was meaningless in the overall plan and I really don't think he'd have willingly played anywhere else.

The fact that Rolen wanted to play closer to home is rather meaningless in determining his trade value at that time. He had no right to demand a trade, let alone demand where he wanted to go.

The Jays could have traded him to any team they wanted to and there was nothing that Rolen could have done, nor would the Jays suffer any blowback from it.

Plus there was nothing stopping the Jays from just keeping him at that point and trading him in the offseason.

mth123
05-14-2011, 04:08 PM
The fact that Rolen wanted to play closer to home is rather meaningless in determining his trade value at that time. He had no right to demand a trade, let alone demand where he wanted to go.

The Jays could have traded him to any team they wanted to and there was nothing that Rolen could have done, nor would the Jays suffer any blowback from it.

Plus there was nothing stopping the Jays from just keeping him at that point and trading him in the offseason.

Sure he did. All he had to do was say trade me close to home or I'm done playing baseball. He's set for life and can walk away from his contract at any time. So the Jays choice was get something or get nothing.

kaldaniels
05-14-2011, 04:13 PM
Sure he did. All he had to do was say trade me close to home or I'm done playing baseball. He's set for life and can walk away from his contract at any time. So the Jays choice was get something or get nothing.

You could say the same for most veterans in the game though. I just don't think it works that way.

757690
05-14-2011, 04:14 PM
Sure he did. All he had to do was say trade me close to home or I'm done playing baseball. He's set for life and can walk away from his contract at any time. So the Jays choice was get something or get nothing.

Well if he said that, I would have called his bluff, because I can't imagine Scott Rolen walking away from baseball just because he has to drive far.

mth123
05-14-2011, 04:19 PM
You could say the same for most veterans in the game though. I just don't think it works that way.

They all could do it. Rolen probably would have done it. How can they stop him from retiring? The only recourse they have is to stop paying his salary. I think Rolen wanted to be close to home more than he wanted the money. The discount he gave the Reds on the extension is pretty good evidence of that.

IMO Rolen's first choice was to play close to home. His second choice was to simply quit playing so he could be close to home. I don't think playing or any other job anywhere far from home was or is an option anymore.

mth123
05-14-2011, 04:20 PM
Well if he said that, I would have called his bluff, because I can't imagine Scott Rolen walking away from baseball just because he has to drive far.

I can't imagine him continuing to play anywhere far away. I guess we'll just disagree.

Scrap Irony
05-14-2011, 04:50 PM
They all could do it. Rolen probably would have done it.

Oh, good God, mth. That makes absolutely no sense. Unless you know Rolen personally or are privy to some heretofore unmentioned information, assuming the man would quit rather than continue playing for Toronto is ridiculous.

He asked for a trade. Toronto management (and Jocketty) made that trade happen. There was no demand, no hold-out, no shenanigans.

That's not Rolen's style.

mth123
05-14-2011, 04:59 PM
Oh, good God, mth. That makes absolutely no sense. Unless you know Rolen personally or are privy to some heretofore unmentioned information, assuming the man would quit rather than continue playing for Toronto is ridiculous.

He asked for a trade. Toronto management (and Jocketty) made that trade happen. There was no demand, no hold-out, no shenanigans.

That's not Rolen's style.

His exits from Philly and St. Louis might indicate his style is to get out when he wants out.

traderumor
05-15-2011, 09:04 AM
That is a pretty good question. Odds are he would probably be in AAA. But, lets note that at the time of the trade, he was the top pitching prospect we had, Mike Leake wasn't yet signed and Travis Wood was the only other prospect showing anything close to signs of life above Low A. The Reds pitching depth kind of exploded on them after that trade, but at the time of it, it wasn't really close to being what it is right now.Maybe it exploded on us, and the Reds knew what kind of depth they had at the time of the deal? You have to include Bailey and Cueto in that depth analysis.

And wow, Zach Stewart is floundering in AA, looking like a below average AAer at 24. All the hand-wringing...

Revering4Blue
05-15-2011, 04:56 PM
I'd have dealt Yonder and Stewart to the Indians with other spare parts for Cliff Lee and kept him for the 2010 season. In the winter between the 2009 and 2010 seasons I'd have dealt a bag of balls and EdE for Rolen from the Jays because they would have faced dealing him or losing him to retirement.

Put Lee on the 2010 Reds and they may just have been known for something in the post season besides being no hit.

Exactly.

Even though he had the Jays over a proverbial barrel, WJ clearly overpaid and blew a major trading chip just to bring Rolen over at the 2009 deadline. Why? So the Reds could finish 4th instead of fifth?

Given that, you bet I'd undo that trade in a heartbeat.

kaldaniels
05-15-2011, 06:51 PM
I like how it is written as a fact that Rolen was gonna retire if he didn't get traded.

Doc. Scott
05-19-2011, 03:20 PM
Couldn't help but notice this bit from a BA Prospect Hot Sheet chat earlier this week:

Clint (BC, Canada): I thought Zack Stewart had a strong finish last year, but this year he seems pretty mediocre for a 24 year old repeating AA. His K rate is down from last year and I heard at the start of the year his velocity was sitting around 88-92mph. Is my hope of seeing him in the Jays starting rotation this year unrealistic?

Ben Badler: I think his future is in middle relief.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/prospect-hot-sheet/2011/2611741.html

camisadelgolf
05-19-2011, 05:35 PM
I refuse to acknowledge the possibility that members of RedsZone my have overestimated the ceiling of a prospect.

kaldaniels
05-19-2011, 09:08 PM
I refuse to acknowledge the possibility that members of RedsZone my have overestimated the ceiling of a prospect.

Well smartypants just because a player doesn't reach his ceiling doesn't mean the all knowing scouts were wrong in projecting a ceiling. They concede nothing! :D

Brutus
05-20-2011, 05:54 PM
Exactly.

Even though he had the Jays over a proverbial barrel, WJ clearly overpaid and blew a major trading chip just to bring Rolen over at the 2009 deadline. Why? So the Reds could finish 4th instead of fifth?

Given that, you bet I'd undo that trade in a heartbeat.

I'd overpay again 100 times out of 100 given how all ends of that trade are shaping up. Why would you want to undo that trade? So the Reds could miss the playoffs again? The trade wasn't made with 2009 in mind, it was done for 2010. Mission accomplished.

I still don't think they overpaid. But if that's the terminology we're using... I'm down.

757690
05-20-2011, 06:04 PM
I doubt anyone could have predicted tHe effect that Rolen had on this team; however, I'm not sure the Reds win the division last year if Rolen didn't play on the team for the last two months of 2009.

I am also convinced that the Rolen trade at any point doesn't happen without a top prospect going to Toronto.

camisadelgolf
05-20-2011, 06:23 PM
The Blue Jays told the Reds that Stewart must be included in the deal. Otherwise, no deal was possible. If the Blue Jays were telling the truth, then the Reds didn't overpay in any way because there wasn't a Rolen on any other team. Sure, there may be better third basemen in the league, but they would cost significantly more in terms of prospects and/or cash.

cinreds21
06-02-2011, 05:01 PM
Josh Roenicke, who was apart of the Rolen Deal, was claimed off waivers by the Colorado Rockies from Toronto on Thursday.

cinreds21
06-14-2011, 02:58 PM
Stewy just has his contract purchased by Toronto. Good for him. I'm happy.

GoReds
06-14-2011, 03:09 PM
Stewy just has his contract purchased by Toronto. Good for him. I'm happy.

How is he doing this year?

cinreds21
06-14-2011, 03:16 PM
How is he doing this year?

4-3 with a 4.39 ERA in 12 Double-A Starts. Not great, but not horrible.

knoonan991
06-14-2011, 03:46 PM
Stewy just has his contract purchased by Toronto. Good for him. I'm happy.

Since Drabek was slated to start on Saturday against Volquez, could it be that Stewart makes his MLB debut in Cincinnati after all?

cinreds21
06-14-2011, 08:43 PM
According to the article on the Blue Jays website, Zach Stewart will start on Thursday against Baltimore.

mdccclxix
06-16-2011, 12:42 PM
Stewart's start is underway on MLB Network right now. 2 K's in the first inning. Ironically, they just highlighted E5 as well, who is "hot" this month.

mdccclxix
06-16-2011, 12:45 PM
And Corey Patterson just roped a single...it's a revival! Amen!

GOYA
06-16-2011, 01:06 PM
Just a quick look at Gameday shows all his pitches are up.

Benihana
06-16-2011, 01:22 PM
Stewart is Sickles' Prospect of the Day:
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/6/16/2226169/prospect-of-the-day-zach-stewart-rhp-toronto-blue-jays#storyjump

Sickles projects him to a #3 or #4 starter. He forgot to mention the part about winning multiple Cy Youngs :dancingcool:

CTA513
06-16-2011, 02:26 PM
7 IP, 7 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 4 K - 86 pitches in his major league debut

JKam
06-16-2011, 02:29 PM
Cy Young here he comes.:lol:

Seriously, he had a nice start today.

Brutus
06-16-2011, 03:37 PM
Cy Young here he comes.:lol:

Seriously, he had a nice start today.

I bet that's the one comment Doug has made that he wishes he had back, if for no other reason than this board hasn't let him hear the end of it lol

dougdirt
06-16-2011, 07:35 PM
I bet that's the one comment Doug has made that he wishes he had back, if for no other reason than this board hasn't let him hear the end of it lol

I still remember the day I said it. I was pretty bummed on the trade. Not the acquisition, but what we paid. Still, I really liked what the Blue Jays had been doing with their pitchers at the time and giving them a premium arm back gave me that comment. I don't care to take it back, though will admit it was made in a moment where I may not have been fully level headed. I don't mind that no one lets it go. We all have our moments. While that one wasn't the best baseball one I have had, my friends won't ever let me live down another comment I once made and it was much worse in terms of them letting me have it about it.

redsmetz
06-17-2011, 01:46 PM
I still remember the day I said it. I was pretty bummed on the trade. Not the acquisition, but what we paid. Still, I really liked what the Blue Jays had been doing with their pitchers at the time and giving them a premium arm back gave me that comment. I don't care to take it back, though will admit it was made in a moment where I may not have been fully level headed. I don't mind that no one lets it go. We all have our moments. While that one wasn't the best baseball one I have had, my friends won't ever let me live down another comment I once made and it was much worse in terms of them letting me have it about it.

Sort of like a family, no?

Kingspoint
06-22-2011, 03:00 PM
It was inevitable that the Scott Rolen signing was going to come back and bite this team in the rearend.

Scott Rolen's career is over. He destroyed this team in last year's playoffs. He's a sinking ship and he's taking the 2011 REDS down with him. How many rallies can he continue to end (or not start or continue) as the #4/#5 hitter?

doug dirt wasn't as wrong as people are trying to make him out to be here.

Rolen had his DeadCat Bounce year for an aging veteran. It's been back to reality since the playoffs last year.

camisadelgolf
06-22-2011, 03:50 PM
Scott Rolen on a bad day is better than a lot of guys on a good day. Since August 1st, 2009:
Winning percentage with Rolen: .584
Winning percentage without Rolen: .486
Over 162 games, that translates to a 95-67 record with Rolen and a 79-83 record without Rolen. Washed up or not, I know I'd rather have Rolen at $7.2MM for both this year and next instead of Encarnacion (2 HRs and paid $2.5MM in 2011), Roenicke (1.533 WHIP in AAA), and/or Stewart (1.969 WHIP in Toronto) right now.

jojo
06-22-2011, 04:11 PM
Bad Rolen is still on pace to be an average player over 600 PAs worth of playing time.

Kingspoint
06-22-2011, 05:17 PM
Bad Rolen is still on pace to be an average player over 600 PAs worth of playing time.

A .717 OPS is "Average" for a 3rd Baseman in the National League expected to produce from the #4 and #5 position, and for someone where half his games are the the GAB?

In this ranking, he's not even in the Top-20. And, does his UZR, at this stage of his career, show that he's at least average, too? His current UZR of 3.0 is tied for the second worst of his career.

Kc61
06-22-2011, 06:11 PM
The problem is not Rolen. The problem is depending on Rolen as your righty power bat.

Rolen is older, he should be a sixth place hitter now. But the Reds lack a fifth place hitter.

Get a left fielder who can hit, move Rolen down in the lineup, problem basically solved.

mth123
06-22-2011, 07:23 PM
The problem is not Rolen. The problem is depending on Rolen as your righty power bat.

Rolen is older, he should be a sixth place hitter now. But the Reds lack a fifth place hitter.

Get a left fielder who can hit, move Rolen down in the lineup, problem basically solved.

:thumbup:

dougdirt
06-22-2011, 07:25 PM
The problem is not Rolen. The problem is depending on Rolen as your righty power bat.

Rolen is older, he should be a sixth place hitter now. But the Reds lack a fifth place hitter.

Get a left fielder who can hit, move Rolen down in the lineup, problem basically solved.

The problem is Rolen though. The guy simply is not hitting, regardless of where he should be hitting in the line up. Coming into today his OBP was .300. That isn't cutting it.

bellhead
06-22-2011, 09:54 PM
The problem is Rolen though. The guy simply is not hitting, regardless of where he should be hitting in the line up. Coming into today his OBP was .300. That isn't cutting it.

I think there is something physically wrong with him but he's gutting it out.

BakoTheTako
06-22-2011, 10:09 PM
The problem is not Rolen. The problem is depending on Rolen as your righty power bat.

Rolen is older, he should be a sixth place hitter now. But the Reds lack a fifth place hitter.

Get a left fielder who can hit, move Rolen down in the lineup, problem basically solved.

How he's playing is a Rolen problem. Where he's hitting is a Baker problem.

nemesis
06-23-2011, 12:50 AM
How he's playing is a Rolen problem. Where he's hitting is a Baker problem.

Spot on. I call it the Griffey Syndrome. Dusty won't disrespect a Vet's spot in the order no matter how bad the Vet hits. I wouldn't be surprised if Rolen himself asked Dusty to move Bruce up in the order. It's just not a move Baker would make on his own. Too much proof otherwise.

kaldaniels
07-05-2011, 11:28 PM
Don't know if it has been mentioned on the site, but Stewart was sent back to AA a week or so ago. 4.86 ERA in 3 big league starts.

mth123
07-06-2011, 01:37 AM
Don't know if it has been mentioned on the site, but Stewart was sent back to AA a week or so ago. 4.86 ERA in 3 big league starts.

That would make him the Reds #3 starter;)