PDA

View Full Version : Zach Stewart's progress



Pages : [1] 2

lollipopcurve
04-22-2010, 03:32 PM
After his first 2 starts in AA in the Blue Jays' system (one good, one disastrous):

W L ERA IP H R ER BB K GB/FB BA against
1 1 7.71 9.1 13 8 8 5 7 0.75 .325

camisadelgolf
04-22-2010, 03:40 PM
Josh Roenicke has been lights out over four appearances in AAA. EE has been mediocre in Toronto so far.

TRF
04-22-2010, 04:11 PM
EE is on the DL, I don't expect him to hit before July honestly. Its a wrist thing. For Stewart and Roenicke, its good to see them having success, even if its a mixed bag for stewart so far. I bet he pitches in TOR at some point this year.

fearofpopvol1
04-22-2010, 04:22 PM
I'd like to see Roenicke and Stewart pitch well at the show before I annoint them as anything. Roenicke pitched great at Louisville too. As did Stewart and AA.

One thing that has shown to be true...Rolen is producing for the Reds at a high level.

Benihana
04-23-2010, 06:22 PM
I'd like to see Roenicke and Stewart pitch well at the show before I annoint them as anything.

You mean like Cy Young? ;)


Roenicke pitched great at Louisville too. As did Stewart and AA.

One thing that has shown to be true...Rolen is producing for the Reds at a high level.

Yep. Good trade. Now let's make more like them.

dougdirt
04-23-2010, 06:47 PM
Yep. Good trade. Now let's make more like them.

It was still a bad trade, though acquiring Rolen was a good idea. I think that is something people seem to misrepresent the side who didn't like the trade with. Scott Rolen was forcing his way to a team in the Midwest and the Blue Jays were making it happen. So that leaves the Cards (already been there, left on bad terms, wasn't going back), Cubs (Aramis Ramirez, they didn't need Rolen), White Sox (they were playing Beckham there, who wasn't going anywhere) and the Reds. So really, we were the only team making bids and gave up at the time our best starting pitching prospect. Bad trade for a good player. Glad to have Rolen as a Red. Still think we gave up too much.

OnBaseMachine
04-23-2010, 06:51 PM
It was still a bad trade, though acquiring Rolen was a good idea. I think that is something people seem to misrepresent the side who didn't like the trade with. Scott Rolen was forcing his way to a team in the Midwest and the Blue Jays were making it happen. So that leaves the Cards (already been there, left on bad terms, wasn't going back), Cubs (Aramis Ramirez, they didn't need Rolen), White Sox (they were playing Beckham there, who wasn't going anywhere) and the Reds. So really, we were the only team making bids and gave up at the time our best starting pitching prospect. Bad trade for a good player. Glad to have Rolen as a Red. Still think we gave up too much.

That's exactly how I feel. I'm thrilled to have Scott Rolen on the Reds but I just wish they could've found a way to keep Zach Stewart.

mth123
04-23-2010, 06:59 PM
It was still a bad trade, though acquiring Rolen was a good idea. I think that is something people seem to misrepresent the side who didn't like the trade with. Scott Rolen was forcing his way to a team in the Midwest and the Blue Jays were making it happen. So that leaves the Cards (already been there, left on bad terms, wasn't going back), Cubs (Aramis Ramirez, they didn't need Rolen), White Sox (they were playing Beckham there, who wasn't going anywhere) and the Reds. So really, we were the only team making bids and gave up at the time our best starting pitching prospect. Bad trade for a good player. Glad to have Rolen as a Red. Still think we gave up too much.

Correct.

Will M
04-23-2010, 07:41 PM
any trades involving prospects can't be fully judged for years after the fact. i could buy the 'we gave up too much' arguement if Stewart develops into a MOR starter or setup man (or better).

lets say that he is just a BOR starter & Roenicke is a AAAA man. add our getting rid of EE. if Rolen keeps up his good play then the trade was good for the Reds.

or maybe Rolen's back prevents him from playing more than 80 games this year. in that case it was a bad trade for the Reds.

or maybe Rolen plays well for the Reds but Stewart becomes a #2 starter for the Jays. then its a bad trade for us.

you can say 'i think it was a bad trade for the Reds' now but you really can't say 'it was a bad trade for the Reds' now. only time will tell.

mth123
04-23-2010, 07:43 PM
any trades involving prospects can't be fully judged for years after the fact. i could buy the 'we gave up too much' arguement if Stewart develops into a MOR starter or setup man (or better).

lets say that he is just a BOR starter & Roenicke is a AAAA man. add our getting rid of EE. if Rolen keeps up his good play then the trade was good for the Reds.

or maybe Rolen's back prevents him from playing more than 80 games this year. in that case it was a bad trade for the Reds.

or maybe Rolen plays well for the Reds but Stewart becomes a #2 starter for the Jays. then its a bad trade for us.

you can say 'i think it was a bad trade for the Reds' now but you really can't say 'it was a bad trade for the Reds' now. only time will tell.

Its not about what he becomes. Its about what else they could have gotten for him at the time. Put me down as one that thinks the Jays were backed into a corner of having to sell and the Reds being the only potential buyer.

Meanwhile, if Stewart was to be dealt, he could/should have been used to address another area of need with possibly a more long term solution.

dougdirt
04-23-2010, 07:47 PM
you can say 'i think it was a bad trade for the Reds' now but you really can't say 'it was a bad trade for the Reds' now. only time will tell.
I think we can say right now that Stewart's value was high and nothing in the future changes his value at the time of the trade.

Will M
04-23-2010, 07:51 PM
Its not about what he becomes. Its about what else they could have gotten for him at the time. Put me down as one that thinks the Jays were backed into a corner of having to sell and the Reds being the only potential buyer.

Meanwhile, if Stewart was to be dealt, he could/should have been used to address another area of need with possibly a more long term solution.

i undertsnad this line of reasoning. this is the same sort of arguement that people who hated "The Trade" make. you may think that Walt sold too cheap on Stewart. i may think the deal was the best he could come up with considering the albatross that went north. we both have an opinion & there is really no way to prove nor disprove either one. we certainly are not privvy to the conversations Walt had with the Jays or any other team.

#1 so we can each have our opinion about what the value of Stewart/Roenicke/EE vs Rolen was.
#2 as to the deal itself whether or not it was good or bad: we have to wait & see how the participants do

mth123
04-23-2010, 07:59 PM
i undertsnad this line of reasoning. this is the same sort of arguement that people who hated "The Trade" make. you may think that Walt sold too cheap on Stewart. i may think the deal was the best he could come up with considering the albatross that went north. we both have an opinion & there is really no way to prove nor disprove either one. we certainly are not privvy to the conversations Walt had with the Jays or any other team.

#1 so we can each have our opinion about what the value of Stewart/Roenicke/EE vs Rolen was.
#2 as to the deal itself whether or not it was good or bad: we have to wait & see how the participants do

Guess I just wouldn't use up my top chip to move the albatross. Use him to get talent that requires his presence in the deal. Meanwhile the talent he did bring back was obtainable another way IMO.

I the albatross couldn't be moved, he would look pretty good on the reds bench instead of Migiel Cairo IMO or maybe they pass on Gomes and play him in LF. He would be a RH option for when Votto sits and could even play 3B when Rolen is out. The Reds really have no RH bench option at this point. The trade upgraded 3B and pretty much every person who didn't like the deal thinks so. But you can upgrade and still overpay at the same time.

Everybody who ever replaced thier clunker auto with a nice new car, that they found later for a lesser price knows the feeling.

Benihana
04-24-2010, 12:48 AM
It was still a bad trade, though acquiring Rolen was a good idea. I think that is something people seem to misrepresent the side who didn't like the trade with. Scott Rolen was forcing his way to a team in the Midwest and the Blue Jays were making it happen. So that leaves the Cards (already been there, left on bad terms, wasn't going back), Cubs (Aramis Ramirez, they didn't need Rolen), White Sox (they were playing Beckham there, who wasn't going anywhere) and the Reds. So really, we were the only team making bids and gave up at the time our best starting pitching prospect. Bad trade for a good player. Glad to have Rolen as a Red. Still think we gave up too much.

I actually can't say I disagree with much of this. I do think that people on this board do sometimes get caught up in hoarding prospects. While it would be nice to still have Stewart, you have to give something to get something. We along with the rest of the talking heads can debate all day as to whether or not we could have gotten Rolen for less, but the fact of the matter is that none of us has any idea. Walt saw an opportunity and pounced. The price may have been high, but in the end the product was worth it. Unlike mth's sweet new car analogy, there aren't many Scott Rolen's to go around that are also available. Sometimes you have to pay up for a scarce resource.

I can also admit when I'm wrong. I did not like the trade at the time, and said so on this very board. I am more than comfortable with it now, and actually would like to see another move like it.

TheNext44
04-24-2010, 02:28 AM
It was still a bad trade, though acquiring Rolen was a good idea. I think that is something people seem to misrepresent the side who didn't like the trade with. Scott Rolen was forcing his way to a team in the Midwest and the Blue Jays were making it happen. So that leaves the Cards (already been there, left on bad terms, wasn't going back), Cubs (Aramis Ramirez, they didn't need Rolen), White Sox (they were playing Beckham there, who wasn't going anywhere) and the Reds. So really, we were the only team making bids and gave up at the time our best starting pitching prospect. Bad trade for a good player. Glad to have Rolen as a Red. Still think we gave up too much.

1) The White Sox have already moved Beckham off of third and signed Teahen to replace him, so I think that they would have gladly tried to get Rolen.

2) The Cardinals might have been willing to take Rolen back, considering that they still haven't found a replacement for him. Yeah, it would have been awkward, but good teams don't let personal crap get in the way of winning, and that is all that was between Rolen and LaRussa. It wasn't like Rolen was a bad influence, he just wanted more playing time. LaRussa's ego probably prevented it, but I don't think we can assume that they didn't make an offer.

3) I flunked Geometry, but I think Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Minnesota and Milwaukee are all still in the Midwest. And pretty much all of them were/are looking for a 3B, and Rolen is an upgrade over what they each currently have.

Truth is, we don't know who was offering what for Rolen at the trading deadline.

I did back then, and still agree with you that Stewart was too high of a price, hated that he was included, and still do. But it might have been the only way to get Rolen, and right now, in hindsight, I am glad that the Reds overpaid.

Kingspoint
04-24-2010, 04:12 AM
Scott Rolen has no defensive range at 3rd Base.

Scott Rolen won't OPS more than .780 when the season is all said and done.

Scott Rolen will fail to start in 30+ games this season.

jojo
04-24-2010, 10:34 AM
Scott Rolen has no defensive range at 3rd Base.

Scott Rolen won't OPS more than .780 when the season is all said and done.

Scott Rolen will fail to start in 30+ games this season.

Scott Rolen will be a huge upgrade.

RedsManRick
04-24-2010, 11:41 AM
Agree iwth you Doug on both points. Rolen was a solid upgrade, but there's no reason for the Reds to have paid what they did. Consider the financial difference, Rolen for EE & Roenicke seems reasonable to me -- adding Stewart was completely unnecessary. Would the Jays really have just held on to Rolen otherwise?

TheNext44
04-24-2010, 01:08 PM
Agree iwth you Doug on both points. Rolen was a solid upgrade, but there's no reason for the Reds to have paid what they did. Consider the financial difference, Rolen for EE & Roenicke seems reasonable to me -- adding Stewart was completely unnecessary. Would the Jays really have just held on to Rolen otherwise?

According to reports, that was the deal, but Stewart was added when Jocketty demanded the money to cover the difference in salaries. So, if you think that Rolen for EE and Roenicke was fair, then just figure that the Reds sold Stewart for around $4M.

As I said before, I think the Reds overpaid, but as a Monday morning QB, I am glad that they did.

bucksfan2
04-24-2010, 01:08 PM
I actually can't say I disagree with much of this. I do think that people on this board do sometimes get caught up in hoarding prospects. While it would be nice to still have Stewart, you have to give something to get something. We along with the rest of the talking heads can debate all day as to whether or not we could have gotten Rolen for less, but the fact of the matter is that none of us has any idea. Walt saw an opportunity and pounced. The price may have been high, but in the end the product was worth it. Unlike mth's sweet new car analogy, there aren't many Scott Rolen's to go around that are also available. Sometimes you have to pay up for a scarce resource.

I can also admit when I'm wrong. I did not like the trade at the time, and said so on this very board. I am more than comfortable with it now, and actually would like to see another move like it.

I liked the trade at the time and I like it even more now. When Rolen is in the lineup he has made a significant difference for the Reds. We are talking about as big of a difference as anyone on the diamond not named Joey Votto makes.

None of us know how if the price was in fact too high. Many have proclaimed it too high without seeing an inning that Stewart has pitched. I do think that anytime you have the opportunity to improve your major league club without distroying your minor league system you have to make that move. And I am in agreement that the Reds need to make anothe big move, soon, before the season turns south in a hurry.

Scrap Irony
04-24-2010, 01:45 PM
I do think that anytime you have the opportunity to improve your major league club without distroying your minor league system you have to make that move.

This.

Prospects are overvalued in today's game, especially by fans who see visions of multiple All-Star games and MVPs in every Tom, Dick, and Yonder who happens to go 300/350/450 in Double A, and bloggers who have the advantage of both anonymity and hindsight.

The paradigm shift toward hoarding prospects at virtually all costs is one which can really hamstring a team that needs to improve at the major league level as well. A look at the Reds over the past decade can show that.

You know what you'll get in Rolen. His play is going to be above average, despite what Kingsport claims. Prospects are a crapshoot that fail. Often. More than often, really

For every Stewart (that may indeed pay off as a great player), there are 25 or 30 Dustin Moesley, Richie Gardener, or Phil Dumatrait. Perhaps Stewart is that rare breed who finds success in the minor leagues after a "spotty" collegiate record.

Benihana
04-24-2010, 04:10 PM
This.

Prospects are overvalued in today's game, especially by fans who see visions of multiple All-Star games and MVPs in every Tom, Dick, and Yonder who happens to go 300/350/450 in Double A, and bloggers who have the advantage of both anonymity and hindsight.

The paradigm shift toward hoarding prospects at virtually all costs is one which can really hamstring a team that needs to improve at the major league level as well. A look at the Reds over the past decade can show that.

You know what you'll get in Rolen. His play is going to be above average, despite what Kingsport claims. Prospects are a crapshoot that fail. Often. More than often, really

For every Stewart (that may indeed pay off as a great player), there are 25 or 30 Dustin Moesley, Richie Gardener, or Phil Dumatrait. Perhaps Stewart is that rare breed who finds success in the minor leagues after a "spotty" collegiate record.

Pretty much where I stand.

jojo
04-24-2010, 04:32 PM
Basically it comes down to this with this ongoing discussion of whether the decision was a good one or not...

One side is basically limited to supposition and very crude estimates of prospect value based upon a little retrospective work that informs the issue.

The other side has established projection systems and sabermetrics from which to base their argument.

The results probably don't inform the actual decision tremendously. I guess I'm arguing that absent a new angle to the argument (or info from the FO), this one has matured about as much as it can.

Brutus
04-24-2010, 04:54 PM
It was still a bad trade, though acquiring Rolen was a good idea. I think that is something people seem to misrepresent the side who didn't like the trade with. Scott Rolen was forcing his way to a team in the Midwest and the Blue Jays were making it happen. So that leaves the Cards (already been there, left on bad terms, wasn't going back), Cubs (Aramis Ramirez, they didn't need Rolen), White Sox (they were playing Beckham there, who wasn't going anywhere) and the Reds. So really, we were the only team making bids and gave up at the time our best starting pitching prospect. Bad trade for a good player. Glad to have Rolen as a Red. Still think we gave up too much.

They improved their ballclub by getting Rolen. By definition, that's a good trade.

dougdirt
04-24-2010, 05:10 PM
They improved their ballclub by getting Rolen. By definition, that's a good trade.

Disagree, because they likely could have improved the ballclub with the exact same player for a lesser price.

GIDP
04-24-2010, 05:12 PM
They improved their ballclub by getting Rolen. By definition, that's a good trade.

thats very simple and silly way to put it.

Trading any minor leaguer for a major leaguer would be viewed as a good trade then. Trading Alonso for Jerry Hairston would be called a good trade.

Brutus
04-24-2010, 05:14 PM
Disagree, because they likely could have improved the ballclub with the exact same player for a lesser price.

We have absolutely no clue of the veracity of that assumption.

Brutus
04-24-2010, 05:14 PM
thats very simple and silly way to put it.

Trading any minor leaguer for a major leaguer would be viewed as a good trade then. Trading Alonso for Jerry Hairston would be called a good trade.

Silly?

Is not the goal of a trade either to improve your club now or improve your club later?

GIDP
04-24-2010, 05:19 PM
Silly?

Is not the goal of a trade either to improve your club now or improve your club later?

Yes, and yes to both parts.

dougdirt
04-24-2010, 05:22 PM
We have absolutely no clue of the veracity of that assumption.

I think we do. Rolen demanded a trade to a team in the Midwest. The Blue Jays said ok, we will trade you to a team in the Midwest. Three of the four teams in the Midwest had no need at all for Rolen. The team that did gave up their only true starting pitching prospect at the time, along with two other players, to acquire him.

Benihana
04-24-2010, 06:10 PM
I think we do. Rolen demanded a trade to a team in the Midwest. The Blue Jays said ok, we will trade you to a team in the Midwest. Three of the four teams in the Midwest had no need at all for Rolen. The team that did gave up their only true starting pitching prospect at the time, along with two other players, to acquire him.

I wasn't aware there were only four teams in the Midwest.

dougdirt
04-24-2010, 06:13 PM
I wasn't aware there were only four teams in the Midwest.

I guess I should have been a little clearer, he wanted a trade close to Indiana. I guess Detroit also could have been tossed in that area as well.

mth123
04-24-2010, 06:14 PM
I wasn't aware there were only four teams in the Midwest.

Rolen is from Jasper, IN. Even the Chicago teams are farther away than he'd like I'd expect. St. Louis and Cincy are by far the closest and since his bridges were burnt in St. Louis, I'd say Cincy is where he wants to be. The Reds had leverage and gave it away to get the $4 Million covered in 2009. They could have simply waited until after the season and the $4 Million would not have been a factor.

Benihana
04-24-2010, 06:41 PM
I guess I should have been a little clearer, he wanted a trade close to Indiana. I guess Detroit also could have been tossed in that area as well.


Stewart is from Jasper, IN. Even the Chicago teams are farther away than he'd like I'd expect. St. Louis and Cincy are by far the closest and since his bridges were burnt in St. Louis, I'd say Cincy is where he wants to be. The Reds had leverage and gave it away to get the $4 Million covered in 2009. They could have simply waited until after the season and the $4 Million would not have been a factor.

And this is the exact kind of conjecture I'm talking about. Rolen wanted to play closer to home, I can accept that. But for you or anyone else to think that meant he would only go to the Reds is complete and total conjecture.

Who is to say that the Jays couldn't trade him to Milwaukee, or Detroit, or Minnesota? Who is to say what those teams (or several others) were willing to give up? You don't know and neither do I. It's that simple.

dougdirt
04-24-2010, 06:45 PM
Well I assume Milwaukee didn't want him given what they had at 3B. Detroit could have been an option. Still, if we think back, Walt basically said that he sold Stewart for the money involved.

mth123
04-24-2010, 06:50 PM
And this is the exact kind of conjecture I'm talking about. Rolen wanted to play closer to home, I can accept that. But for you or anyone else to think that meant he would only go to the Reds is complete and total conjecture.

Who is to say that the Jays couldn't trade him to Milwaukee, or Detroit, or Minnesota? Who is to say what those teams (or several others) were willing to give up? You don't know and neither do I. It's that simple.

Minnesota is farther from Jasper than Toronto. Milwaukee or Chicago maybe, but its about 5 or 6 hours. Detroit is probably 7 or 8. Cincy is less than 3, St. Louis about the same, maybe a little less.

Benihana
04-24-2010, 06:55 PM
Minnesota is farther from Jasper than Toronto. Milwaukee or Chicago maybe, but its about 5 or 6 hours. Detroit is probably 7 or 8. Cincy is less than 3, St. Louis about the same, maybe a little less.

Point remains. You have no idea who Toronto was thinking about trading him to. Therefore, you cannot say that the Reds outbid themselves. Assuming that the Reds were his only possible destination just because they are the 2nd closest city to his hometown is preposterous.

lollipopcurve
04-24-2010, 07:02 PM
Point remains. You have no idea who Toronto was thinking about trading him to. Therefore, you cannot say that the Reds outbid themselves. Assuming that the Reds were his only possible destination just because they are the 2nd closest city to his hometown is preposterous.

Agree completely. It's just rationalizing one's opinion.

GIDP
04-24-2010, 07:04 PM
Point remains. You have no idea who Toronto was thinking about trading him to. Therefore, you cannot say that the Reds outbid themselves. Assuming that the Reds were his only possible destination just because they are the 2nd closest city to his hometown is preposterous.

He had a no trade clause and wanted to be traded near his home.

mth123
04-24-2010, 07:16 PM
Point remains. You have no idea who Toronto was thinking about trading him to. Therefore, you cannot say that the Reds outbid themselves. Assuming that the Reds were his only possible destination just because they are the 2nd closest city to his hometown is preposterous.

He asked for a trade from Toronto to be closer to his family. Cincy and St. Louis are really the only places that qualify. All the others would require a flight to Louisville and a drive and really would take no less time than if he did that from Toronto. I think assuming the other spots would fill the request is a little preposterous.

Brutus
04-24-2010, 08:02 PM
The Blue Jays said they would try to accommodate his request. They did not have to. There were other teams he presumably would have accepted a trade to. And we don't know whether the Blue Jays would have accepted less. Therefore, everything about what Cincinnati gave up as to whether it was more than necessary is simply conjecture.

jojo
04-24-2010, 08:47 PM
Given the latest narrative, it's a really tough sell to argue Walt gave up too much for Rolen. EE and Roenicke? Hardly overpaying. That's closer to genius.

This rehashing really should now be about whether Walt should have asked for more money than he got for Stewart.

mth123
04-24-2010, 09:07 PM
Given the latest narrative, it's a really tough sell to argue Walt gave up too much for Rolen. EE and Roenicke? Hardly overpaying. That's closer to genius.

This rehashing really should now be about whether Walt should have asked for more money than he got for Stewart.

Or waited until the off-season and skipped the whole matter of Money for Stewart.

Benihana
04-24-2010, 09:17 PM
Or waited until the off-season and skipped the whole matter of Money for Stewart.

And be outbid by the White Sox. Sure, why not?

Not to mention, good luck trying to unload Encarnacion's salary on someone to make room for Rolen.

jojo
04-24-2010, 09:21 PM
Or waited until the off-season and skipped the whole matter of Money for Stewart.

If the Reds waited until the off season, the ultimate price they paid for Rolen might have been higher. Other teams could have easily became competitors for Rolen's services as they emerged from their taking stock fall meetings.

Just assuming Cincy was the only possible destination is begging a question that shouldn't be begged.

Did the Reds have some leverage? I think intuitively, the answer is probably they had a bit easier road to working out a trade. That isn't close to the same thing as saying the Reds bid against themselves.

GIDP
04-24-2010, 09:31 PM
Other than him having a no trade clause and wanting to be closer to home.

jojo
04-24-2010, 10:46 PM
Other than him having a no trade clause and wanting to be closer to home.

Boston picked up a third baseman this off season. If supposition carries the day, I suppose Rolen would've restructured his contract in order to coax Boston into trading for him.

mth123
04-24-2010, 11:12 PM
Boston picked up a third baseman this off season. If supposition carries the day, I suppose Rolen would've restructured his contract in order to coax Boston into trading for him.

Except that supposition has no basis. Far Different than a guy with no trade rights saying he wants to be dealt close to home and close to home only means Cincinnati of the available options.

Can't help it if you can't see the difference.

jojo
04-24-2010, 11:23 PM
Except that supposition has no basis. Far Different than a guy with no trade rights saying he wants to be dealt close to home and close to home only means Cincinnati of the available options.

Can't help it if you can't see the difference.

There is no difference.

Toronto: "Well Scott. We really couldn't find a scenario that worked. How would you like to play the final year of your contract with a contender? You might get a ring. But even if no ring, there's a great chance you'll be in a pennant race and be able to increase your value when hitting the market if you play the way we think you can".

Scott: "OK!"

Seriously this notion that it was Cincy all the way and no other way is lets just say as ways go, way overplayed.

mth123
04-24-2010, 11:35 PM
There is no difference.

Toronto: "Well Scott. We really couldn't find a scenario that worked. How would you like to play the final year of your contract with a contender? You might get a ring. But even if no ring, there's a great chance you'll be in a pennant race and be able to increase your value when hitting the market if you play the way we think you can".

Scott: "OK!"

Seriously this notion that it was Cincy all the way and no other way is lets just say as ways go, way overplayed.

But when he went to the Jays and said he didn't want to play there any more he didn't say he wanted to go to a contender. He said he wanted to be close to home. That's not Boston, NY. Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle, LA or even Milwaukee, Chicago or Detroit. Its Cincy and St. Louis.

Seems its a much bigger leap to claim that he'd go somewhere else than it is to claim he'd only go to Cincy. My notion is based on something he actually said. What was your scenario based on again?

Seems the guy took a pay cut and then signed an extension at the lower wage to stay close to home. What about that says increase my value on the open market? He wasn't really concerned about upping the offer from someplace he didn't really want to go anyway.

JayBruceFan
04-24-2010, 11:50 PM
3) I flunked Geometry, but I think Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Minnesota and Milwaukee are all still in the Midwest. And pretty much all of them were/are looking for a 3B, and Rolen is an upgrade over what they each currently have.


Geography

HeatherC1212
04-25-2010, 12:15 AM
While everyone is talking about the what ifs in that trade, what if we had kept Stewart and Roenicke somehow and not made that trade. Maybe they go into the draft and don't take Mike Leake or Brad Boxberger in the first rounds. Maybe they don't sign Aroldis Chapman during the offseason. Maybe we're still stuck watching EE airmail throws to first base. We don't really know anything for sure about how things went down last year. I was a little unsure of the trade at the time but now I'm glad we made it and I'll gladly take Aroldis, Mike, Brad, and Scott being part of the Reds organization. I don't miss watching EE attempt to play third base. :eek:

Are there any updates on how Zach is doing now? I only ask because that's the title of this thread and I don't know when the next start is for him.

Benihana
04-25-2010, 12:24 AM
While everyone is talking about the what ifs in that trade, what if we had kept Stewart and Roenicke somehow and not made that trade. Maybe they go into the draft and don't take Mike Leake or Brad Boxberger in the first rounds. Maybe they don't sign Aroldis Chapman during the offseason. Maybe we're still stuck watching EE airmail throws to first base. We don't really know anything for sure about how things went down last year. I was a little unsure of the trade at the time but now I'm glad we made it and I'll gladly take Aroldis, Mike, Brad, and Scott being part of the Reds organization. I don't miss watching EE attempt to play third base. :eek:

:clap:

jojo
04-25-2010, 01:01 AM
My notion is based on something he actually said. What was your scenario based on again?

The notion that supposition is supposition.

Is your assertion fact or supposition?

dougdirt
04-25-2010, 02:35 AM
While everyone is talking about the what ifs in that trade, what if we had kept Stewart and Roenicke somehow and not made that trade. Maybe they go into the draft and don't take Mike Leake or Brad Boxberger in the first rounds. Maybe they don't sign Aroldis Chapman during the offseason. Maybe we're still stuck watching EE airmail throws to first base. We don't really know anything for sure about how things went down last year. I was a little unsure of the trade at the time but now I'm glad we made it and I'll gladly take Aroldis, Mike, Brad, and Scott being part of the Reds organization. I don't miss watching EE attempt to play third base. :eek:

Are there any updates on how Zach is doing now? I only ask because that's the title of this thread and I don't know when the next start is for him.

The Reds had already drafted Boxberger and Leake when they made that trade.

lollipopcurve
04-25-2010, 11:20 AM
Are there any updates on how Zach is doing now? I only ask because that's the title of this thread and I don't know when the next start is for him.

Hasn't pitched since April 15. Probably health-related, but that's a guess.

Benihana
04-25-2010, 01:57 PM
The Reds had already drafted Boxberger and Leake when they made that trade.

But there is a good chance they wouldn't have signed Chapman. Or at least, that's about as safe of an assumption as assuming that he would only be traded to the Reds, or that the Reds could easily sign him as a FA.

dougdirt
04-25-2010, 02:01 PM
But there is a good chance they wouldn't have signed Chapman. Or at least, that's about as safe of an assumption as assuming that he would only be traded to the Reds, or that the Reds could easily sign him as a FA.

The Reds are only paying Chapman something like $1.5M this season. I don't think it would have stopped them from making the deal. Could be wrong, but I am not sure even the Reds are that cheap. At least not in this kind of deal. It may have stopped them from signing Cairo though.

jojo
04-25-2010, 02:01 PM
But there is a good chance they wouldn't have signed Chapman. Or at least, that's about as safe of an assumption as assuming that he would only be traded to the Reds, or that the Reds could easily sign him as a FA.

That does bring up a point... How important was the cost savings on Rolen for the Reds amateur budget?

Benihana
04-25-2010, 02:08 PM
The Reds are only paying Chapman something like $1.5M this season. I don't think it would have stopped them from making the deal. Could be wrong, but I am not sure even the Reds are that cheap. At least not in this kind of deal. It may have stopped them from signing Cairo though.

My point is that all of these assumptions are pure conjecture.

Who knows...
1. Whether the Reds could have gotten Rolen without giving up Stewart.
2. If the Jays were considering trading Rolen to other teams.
3. If Rolen would have accepted a deal to other teams.
4. If the Reds could have signed Rolen as a FA
5. If they could have done so at the same price, while still having EE still on the payroll.
6. If they would have been able to sign Chapman if none of this had happened.

It's all conjecture, and NO ONE here knows the answers. It wasn't like the KGJ scenario where he publicly demanded to be traded only to the Reds. So instead of playing coulda shoulda woulda, I'm just happy that we have Scott Rolen on this club. If Stewart was the price, so be it. We'll never know if we could have gotten him (and Chapman) for less.

fearofpopvol1
04-25-2010, 02:51 PM
There is no difference.

Toronto: "Well Scott. We really couldn't find a scenario that worked. How would you like to play the final year of your contract with a contender? You might get a ring. But even if no ring, there's a great chance you'll be in a pennant race and be able to increase your value when hitting the market if you play the way we think you can".

Scott: "OK!"

Seriously this notion that it was Cincy all the way and no other way is lets just say as ways go, way overplayed.

I really think this is a good point. Who is to say that Rolen would not have been willing to go to a contender? And then just tried free agency thereafter?

One thing is for sure, as I said in an earlier post...Rolen is a huge upgrade at 3B. We can't properly evaluate this trade until Stewart makes it to the Show and has been there for a while.

GIDP
04-25-2010, 03:50 PM
If they didnt trade for Rolen the sun might not have came up today.

jojo
04-25-2010, 03:55 PM
If they didnt trade for Rolen the sun might not have came up today.

Does that then mean that the sun quit rising for those that think Stewart shouldn't have been traded?

dougdirt
04-25-2010, 03:56 PM
Does that then mean that the sun quit rising for those that think Stewart shouldn't have been traded?
Its cloudy here, but its way too bright for the sun to not be behind the clouds. So no.

GIDP
04-25-2010, 05:12 PM
Does that then mean that the sun quit rising for those that think Stewart shouldn't have been traded?

No it means all these "Chapman wouldnt have been signed" types of comments are just as baseless as me saying the sun wouldnt have came up.

jojo
04-25-2010, 05:15 PM
No it means all these "Chapman wouldnt have been signed" types of comments are just as baseless as me saying the sun wouldnt have came up.

Supposition doesn't make for the strongest argument?

GIDP
04-25-2010, 05:18 PM
If they didnt trade for rolen they might have traded for Grady Sizemore.

jojo
04-25-2010, 05:23 PM
If they didnt trade for rolen they might have traded for Grady Sizemore.

Again, statements like that really aren't helping strengthen the argument that's largely been based upon supposition. I'd think it would be the last point someone would want to bring up (the weakness of supposition as a premise) if a major premise of their argument that the Reds overpaid was Rolen was mostly only going to come to Cincy.

But I'm game.... the sun, sizemore, what other example could further pound another nail?

nate
04-25-2010, 05:28 PM
Supposition doesn't make for the strongest argument?

Don't you love re-runs?

:cool:

GIDP
04-25-2010, 05:29 PM
Again, statements like that really aren't helping strengthen the argument that's largely been based upon supposition. I'd think it would be the last point someone would want to bring up (the weakness of supposition as a premise) if a major premise of their argument that the Reds overpaid was Rolen was mostly only going to come to Cincy.

But I'm game.... the sun, sizemore, what other example could further pound another nail?

Im mimicking pretty much every one of these post so if you have problem with mine maybe you should target others for the answers.

jojo
04-25-2010, 06:36 PM
Im mimicking pretty much every one of these post so if you have problem with mine maybe you should target others for the answers.

Seriously? That's what discussion about this issue is going to become?

This line of banter should be taken private because threads don't need to be cluttered with noise.

GIDP
04-25-2010, 06:37 PM
Seriously? That's what discussion about this issue is going to become?

This line of banter should be taken private in the ORG because threads don't need to be cluttered with noise.

Oh I agree I wish people would stop it also.

jojo
04-25-2010, 06:38 PM
Oh I agree I wish people would stop it also.


Seriously. Private please.

camisadelgolf
04-26-2010, 02:43 AM
Walt Jocketty said the Blue Jays refused to trade Scott Rolen unless the deal involved Zach Stewart. He said he did what he could to not trade Stewart, but as the deadline neared, the Blue Jays refused to budge, so the Reds were forced to give him up to get the guy they wanted. There was also a verbal agreement that an extension with Rolen would be worked out if he were obtained by the Reds, so it's not like the Reds traded one of their top prospects for a rental.

Has it dawned on anyone that Stewart might be very overrated as a prospect?

1. Walt Jocketty is known for selling high on prospects and leaving it up to other organizations to find out that said prospects aren't worthy of the hype.
2. Stewart has a WHIP of 1.324. It's solid, but it's nowhere near elite. In fact, it's Sam LeCure territory.
3. There's a decent chance he will prove to be injury prone.
4. I realize that he's starting for Toronto's AA team, but he's probably going to end up a reliever anyway. He has a mid-90s fastball and a devastating slider, but what else does he have that's worth mentioning?
5. The higher he climbs up in the minors, the more he walks people. For example, he has walked 19 batters in his last 35 innings.

I don't miss EE, I don't miss Roenicke, and I'd rather have Rolen over Stewart. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

dougdirt
04-26-2010, 03:00 AM
He has a mid 90's fastball and a devastating slider..... How much else do you need? He also has an average change up. Stuff wise, thats a #3 starting pitcher at worst, if he can throw the innings to match it. That really is the only thing that should be in question. No clue where the likely injury stuff comes from at all.

Doesn't matter though. He is gone. Best of luck to him.

TheNext44
04-26-2010, 03:12 AM
Geography

Probably a clue as to why I flunked it. :)

TheNext44
04-26-2010, 03:19 AM
Rolen is from Jasper, IN. Even the Chicago teams are farther away than he'd like I'd expect. St. Louis and Cincy are by far the closest and since his bridges were burnt in St. Louis, I'd say Cincy is where he wants to be. The Reds had leverage and gave it away to get the $4 Million covered in 2009. They could have simply waited until after the season and the $4 Million would not have been a factor.

How do you know what he'd consider too far away from home? Maybe I'm wrong, I don't believe that we ever read a direct quote from Rolen as to what he demanded. I only remember a blurb from some beat writers about what they heard through the grapevine. If there is a direct quote, I would be interested in reading it.

Regardless, even if he did say that he wanted to be closer to Jasper, for all we know, he just wanted out of Canada.

lollipopcurve
04-26-2010, 09:45 AM
Stewart will start again Tuesday after having been skipped in the rotation for AA New Hampshire. He gave up 7 runs and 13 baserunners in 4+ innings on April 15, when he was pitching on normal rest, so they may be just managing his workload carefully (or he may have had a minor health issue), who knows. So, he'll be working on 12 days' rest.

bucksfan2
04-26-2010, 09:52 AM
He has a mid 90's fastball and a devastating slider..... How much else do you need? He also has an average change up. Stuff wise, thats a #3 starting pitcher at worst, if he can throw the innings to match it. That really is the only thing that should be in question. No clue where the likely injury stuff comes from at all.

Doesn't matter though. He is gone. Best of luck to him.

Yep. He isn't here anymore and we have another thread that is 6+ pages of Stewart hype. Speculation being thrown out there, wild idea's, Grady Sizemore being brought into the mix, etc. Fact of the matter is Scott Rolen is good, really good. He has been as advertised defensively at 3b and his power is still there. He really is the type of guy who you want in your lineup, not someone else's.

Back to the Stewart argument for a brief moment. As of right now the Reds depth chart at P looks like this:

Harang
Arroyo
Bailey
Cueto
Leake
Chapman
Volquez
Wood
Maloney

Where would Stewart fit? In the minors he wouldn't be ahead of Chapman and its unlikely that he would be ahead of Volquez when he comes off the DL. I do think you give Wood an edge because of handedness considering the Reds don't have a lefty in their rotation. I don't think the Reds are willing to give up on anyone in the starting rotation as of yet and even if they would do something with Harang or Cueto I don't know if Stewart would have gotten the call.

The only place where Stewart would be of help right now is in the pen. But then again you trade bull pen arms for guys like Scott Rolen every day of the week.

GIDP
04-26-2010, 10:00 AM
I think the reds want the 5 best pitchers regardless of handedness.

lollipopcurve
04-26-2010, 10:14 AM
The only place where Stewart would be of help right now is in the pen. But then again you trade bull pen arms for guys like Scott Rolen every day of the week.

Right. It is not a foregone conclusion that Stewart will be a starter.

GIDP
04-26-2010, 10:18 AM
Right. It is not a foregone conclusion that Stewart will be a starter.

Its a foregone conclusion to everyone that favored the trade that he was just a bullpen arm though.

HokieRed
04-26-2010, 10:32 AM
Its a foregone conclusion to everyone that favored the trade that he was just a bullpen arm though.

Not true. I favored the trade strongly and draw no conclusions whatsoever about Stewart except that--whatever the press has released--he was the Jays' real object in the trade.

camisadelgolf
04-26-2010, 10:34 AM
When the trade initially happened, I hated it, but unless Stewart develops into a reliable starter, I'm really happy with it. Even if Stewart develops into one of the game's better closers, I'm happy with it.

lollipopcurve
04-26-2010, 10:36 AM
Its a foregone conclusion to everyone that favored the trade that he was just a bullpen arm though.

Absolutely false. I noted many times that his role -- starter or reliever -- was in question, not determined either way.

GIDP
04-26-2010, 10:44 AM
I remember a huge contingency saying things along the lines of "we got rolen for 2 relievers and a player with out a position"

Paraphrasing and generalizing obviously. There of course was a few who didnt care what we gave up they just wanted Rolen.

camisadelgolf
04-26-2010, 11:00 AM
As I'm sure it's been noted somewhere in this thread, this trade is very reminiscent of the Kearns/Lopez trade. The Reds probably didn't get as much as they could have in terms of the perceived value of the players they gave up, but overall, it appears that the trade has helped the team more than it has hurt it. Sure, a lot more time is needed to know that for sure, but in the meantime, Rolen is a huge upgrade over EE, Roenicke is redundant (Fisher, Ondrusek, Burton, Bray, Del Rosario, Smith, Valiquette, Arredondo, etc.), and Stewart has yet to do much of anything.

GIDP
04-26-2010, 11:14 AM
As I'm sure it's been noted somewhere in this thread, this trade is very reminiscent of the Kearns/Lopez trade. The Reds probably didn't get as much as they could have in terms of the perceived value of the players they gave up, but overall, it appears that the trade has helped the team more than it has hurt it. Sure, a lot more time is needed to know that for sure, but in the meantime, Rolen is a huge upgrade over EE, Roenicke is redundant (Fisher, Ondrusek, Burton, Bray, Del Rosario, Smith, Valiquette, Arredondo, etc.), and Stewart has yet to do much of anything.

Id agree for the most part.

TRF
04-26-2010, 12:39 PM
I know this thread is about Stewart, but how good would Roenicke look in the Reds bullpen right about now?

Rolen has produced this year. no doubt. he's also missed a few games because of his back. Stewart has had a rough start. I thought it was a bad trade as I thought Frazier or Francisco could have stepped into the 3B role, while the Reds kept two high upside pitchers. It also would have allowed EE to go to LF, where he probably belongs.

But it didn't work out that way. So we can keep wringing hands over it, trying to prove to the other side how right we were or we can move on. And considering my post history, this is saying alot.

nate
04-26-2010, 01:03 PM
I know this thread is about Stewart, but how good would Roenicke look in the Reds bullpen right about now?

Based on his career numbers (he hasn't pitched in the big leagues this year,) similar to what Mike Lincoln and Micah Owings have done this season.

Plus Plus
04-26-2010, 04:46 PM
Its a foregone conclusion to everyone that favored the trade that he was just a bullpen arm though.

No, it was a foregone conclusion that he was sort of in limbo as a starter or as a reliever. A converted NCAA reliever with ~90 IP under his belt as a starter is hardly a starting pitching prospect... yet.

dougdirt
04-26-2010, 07:23 PM
No, it was a foregone conclusion that he was sort of in limbo as a starter or as a reliever. A converted NCAA reliever with ~90 IP under his belt as a starter is hardly a starting pitching prospect... yet.

Stewart was a starter 2 out of his 3 years in college. Only in his junior year at Texas Tech did he relieve.

jojo
04-26-2010, 07:24 PM
No, it was a foregone conclusion that he was sort of in limbo as a starter or as a reliever. A converted NCAA reliever with ~90 IP under his belt as a starter is hardly a starting pitching prospect... yet.

I'd put it this way....it was a foregone conclusion that you don't count your chickens before they hatch with pitchers and their roles.....

lollipopcurve
04-28-2010, 02:01 PM
Last night (4/27): Working on 12 days rest, Stewart had an excellent outing --

5IP, 1 hit, 0 runs, 0 BB, 5 K

7GB/3FB

1 excellent start, 1 good, 1 awful.

lollipopcurve
05-03-2010, 02:53 PM
Yesterday (5/2): Working on 4 days rest for AA New Hampshire, Stewart has a rough start.

6IP, 7 hits, 5 ER, 2 BB, 1 K, 1 HBP

11GB/2FB

Of the 7 hits, 4 went for extra bases (2 2b, 1 3B, 1 HR)

In 4 starts, Stewart's ERA stands at 5.75. 13k/7bb.

dougdirt
05-03-2010, 02:58 PM
I am curious as to whats up with the HR rate. Stewart gave up 2 HR's with the Reds in 112.1 innings. This season he has allowed 4 in 20.1 innings.

fearofpopvol1
05-03-2010, 05:19 PM
I am curious as to whats up with the HR rate. Stewart gave up 2 HR's with the Reds in 112.1 innings. This season he has allowed 4 in 20.1 innings.

Walt Jocketty had a crystal ball...clearly. :cool:

Benihana
05-03-2010, 05:44 PM
TINSTAAPP!

We already have four of these guys trying to figure it out at the major league level, with at least two more showing more promise than Stewart in AAA. Nice trade Walt, now make some more just like it.

TRF
05-03-2010, 05:55 PM
TINSTAAPP!

We already have four of these guys trying to figure it out at the major league level, with at least two more showing more promise than Stewart in AAA. Nice trade Walt, now make some more just like it.

He traded two prospect pitchers, one of whom is pitching for the Blue Jays, for a 35 year old 3B that he extended. He signed a 35 yo SS too.

So do you want him to trade for Magglio Ordonez? Sign Jermaine Dye? both, and extend them 3 years? Just asking, cuz I sure don't.

GIDP
05-03-2010, 05:56 PM
This thread might as well just be blown up and thrown in a dump now.

TRF
05-03-2010, 05:59 PM
This thread might as well just be blown up and thrown in a dump now.

nice.

GIDP
05-03-2010, 06:00 PM
nice.

Wasnt really referring to your post, but both of them combined is like lighting a fuse that this thread really didnt need.

TRF
05-03-2010, 06:09 PM
It is a tired argument, so i'll just step aside...

GIDP
05-03-2010, 06:11 PM
It is a tired argument, so i'll just step aside...

I know its hard sometimes to not take the bait. Stepping aside is probably a good idea.

Benihana
05-03-2010, 06:13 PM
He traded two prospect pitchers, one of whom is pitching for the Blue Jays, for a 35 year old 3B that he extended. He signed a 35 yo SS too.

So do you want him to trade for Magglio Ordonez? Sign Jermaine Dye? both, and extend them 3 years? Just asking, cuz I sure don't.

Scott Rolen is one of two professional hitters (and fielders) on this team right now. So yes, I would like more players like him.

For instance, Vladimir Guerrero (who I openly pined for towards the end of last year and this offseason) would look nice in LF right about now. Especially for $6MM on a one year deal. He recently admitted the abundance of Latin players on Texas' roster is what attracted him there, and we clearly have no shortage of Latin players in Cincinnati.

Obviously the key is being able to evaluate which veteran players to go after (as the other side of the equation is being able to evaluate which prospects to trade.) Early results show that Walt may have gotten this one right (much like he did with the Stein/McGwire and Smith/Rolen trades.) Sure he lost the Haren/Mulder trade, but I'll take a 75% success rate on these types of trades any day of the week. Please make some more Walt!

And for the record, he also jettisoned Edwin Encarnacion, a perennial whipping boy and underachiever, in that deal. For someone who is so intent on bashing players like Drew Stubbs every step along the way (not accusing, because I am right there with you) I am not exactly sure who you want to be playing instead of him? I for one would like to see more players that bring the type of professionalism and skill to every at-bat and play in the field that Rolen has so far in a Reds uniform. Finally, as far as the extension goes, it was a good move that gave the Reds more financial flexibility (which they utilized to sign Chapman, btw). Had they traded Stewart and co. for only one year of Rolen, most people around here would have gone bananas. I don't see how you could possibly still be complaining about this move, given how the results have played out so far.

TRF
05-03-2010, 06:29 PM
can't... not... take... bait...

sigh. Not trading for Rolen would have the Reds in an even BETTER position to sign Chapman. It would give the Reds bullpen a shot in the arm as Roenicke or even Stewart could come in to help. It would free 3B for Frazier or Francisco, or even Valaika, who is tear it up at AAA.

Rolen has hit. yes. and he's already missed games due to his CHRONIC back problems. Extending a guy with CHRONIC back problems at age 35 doesn't seem smart to me. As for the slow starts by Frazier and JF, big deal. They've always hit, and they will this year.

Rolen isn't hurting the Red offense or defense when he plays, but if he plays 120 games, I'll be stunned.

BTW, Vlad Guerrero can barely stand much less play LF. I swear I think I could out run him now.

Benihana
05-03-2010, 06:33 PM
can't... not... take... bait...

sigh. Not trading for Rolen would have the Reds in an even BETTER position to sign Chapman. It would give the Reds bullpen a shot in the arm as Roenicke or even Stewart could come in to help. It would free 3B for Frazier or Francisco, or even Valaika, who is tear it up at AAA.

Rolen has hit. yes. and he's already missed games due to his CHRONIC back problems. Extending a guy with CHRONIC back problems at age 35 doesn't seem smart to me. As for the slow starts by Frazier and JF, big deal. They've always hit, and they will this year.

Rolen isn't hurting the Red offense or defense when he plays, but if he plays 120 games, I'll be stunned.

BTW, Vlad Guerrero can barely stand much less play LF. I swear I think I could out run him now.

Josh Roenicke could sure help this pen! Yes sir, the whole 20 innings he has thrown in Toronto since being traded ten months ago, man would we be doing well if we had him! Never mind the fact that he has an ERA over 6 in those 20 innings, we need someone to throw...innings (and he can do that in spades, given all 3 of 'em he's thrown this season! But just look at his career, he has 36 whole innings under his belt, and he's only turning...28!)

And Zach Stewart? The same guy with an ERA over 5 in AA? That guy could be helping the Reds right now?

Are you living on the same planet?

TRF
05-03-2010, 06:37 PM
Josh Roenicke could sure help this pen! Yes sir, the whole 20 innings he has thrown in Toronto since being traded ten months ago, man would we be doing well if we had him! Never mind the fact that he has an ERA over 6 in those 20 innings, we need someone to throw...innings!

And Zach Stewart? The same guy with an ERA over 5 in AA? That guy could be helping the Reds right now?

Are you living on the same planet?

Yeah, because Stewarts small sample of what 20 inning this year means he's washed up. And Roenicke is already in Toronto's pen and pitching well, for his 3 innings so far. And you don't need relievers to throw innings, you need them to bail out starters that don't (less than 6 innings) and to finish games for those that do (more than 6 innings)

BTW, Nick Masset has an 11.45 ERA this year. in 11 innings. guess he's now terrible too.

Benihana
05-03-2010, 06:39 PM
Yeah, because Stewarts small sample of what 20 inning this year means he's washed up. And Roenicke is already in Toronto's pen and pitching well, for his 3 innings so far. And you don't need relievers to throw innings, you need them to bail out starters that don't (less than 6 innings) and to finish games for those that do (more than 6 innings)

BTW, Nick Masset has an 11.45 ERA this year. in 11 innings. guess he's now terrible too.

Finish them out with a 6 ERA? No thanks.

I'm not dismissing these guys as washed up, but to think that they could be helping the Reds more than Rolen is simply delusional.

For the record, Stewart is a year older, a level behind, pitches with the wrong hand, and doing significantly worse in almost every facet of the game than Travis Wood, who is currently 8th or 9th on our organizational starting pitching depth chart, so it's time we put this one to bed.

jojo
05-03-2010, 06:41 PM
I am curious as to whats up with the HR rate. Stewart gave up 2 HR's with the Reds in 112.1 innings. This season he has allowed 4 in 20.1 innings.

I'd give this one more time to see if it's just randomness. They might have him working on something too.

TRF
05-03-2010, 06:45 PM
Finish them out with a 6 ERA? No thanks.

I'm not dismissing these guys as washed up, but to think that they could be helping the Reds more than Rolen is simply delusional.

I'm not sure I can explain this. Rolen is a very good hitter made of glass. He can't stay in a lineup. Last year was the first time he surpassed 110 games played since 2006, and he's already missed a few less that 2 weeks into the season. You don't extend guys like that, but Walt has a soft spot for Rolen.

And if Roenicke, who some view as a future closer, pitches 50+ innings for Toronto this year with a sub 3 ERA and 45+ K's, I think that'll have some value. I think he's up to stay right now.

I think Stewart is a starter until he proves he isn't, and 4 starts doesn't prove it. He's also been mentioned as having closer stuff. That Toronto pitching rotation is looking pretty good, and Roenicke makes the pen better (their pen was getting shelled)

Benihana
05-03-2010, 06:47 PM
can't... not... take... bait...

sigh. Not trading for Rolen would have the Reds in an even BETTER position to sign Chapman. It would give the Reds bullpen a shot in the arm as Roenicke or even Stewart could come in to help. It would free 3B for Frazier or Francisco, or even Valaika, who is tear it up at AAA.

.

Sorry, couldn't walk away since I missed this nugget. Are you really serious?

Edwin Encarnacion would be playing 3B right now if this trade wasn't made. And he'd be taking up $4+MM of payroll. And Chris Valaika will NEVER EVER EVER hit enough to be a starting 3B in the major leagues. Juan Francisco's defense would make people long for EE, and Todd Frazier is almost batting under .100 in AAA, so I don't think that he would be an upgrade at 3B on a competitive team at the moment.

Benihana
05-03-2010, 06:50 PM
I'm not sure I can explain this. Rolen is a very good hitter made of glass. He can't stay in a lineup. Last year was the first time he surpassed 110 games played since 2006, and he's already missed a few less that 2 weeks into the season. You don't extend guys like that, but Walt has a soft spot for Rolen.

And if Roenicke, who some view as a future closer, pitches 50+ innings for Toronto this year with a sub 3 ERA and 45+ K's, I think that'll have some value. I think he's up to stay right now.

I think Stewart is a starter until he proves he isn't, and 4 starts doesn't prove it. He's also been mentioned as having closer stuff. That Toronto pitching rotation is looking pretty good, and Roenicke makes the pen better (their pen was getting shelled)

Well he has never started a game above AA, and right now he is having a very hard time doing it at that level.

If Roenicke pitches 50+ innings, he will more than double his career output. Asking him to do so at a comparable level to what he did in the minors at age 27 is no small expectation.

TRF
05-03-2010, 06:52 PM
Sorry, couldn't walk away since I missed this nugget. Are you really serious?

Edwin Encarnacion would be playing 3B right now if this trade wasn't made. And he'd be taking up $4+MM of payroll. And Chris Valaika will NEVER EVER EVER hit enough to be a starting 3B in the major leagues. Juan Francisco's defense would make people long for EE, and Todd Frazier is almost batting under .100 in AAA, so I don't think that he would be an upgrade at 3B on a competitive team at the moment.

EE is on the DL. Sutton would probably be at 3B. and an 850+ OPS bat plays anywhere (Valaika). And just because Frazier is struggling at the moment doesn't mean he would have at the MLB level. Stubbs certainly was better last year as a Red than he was at AAA. It's amazing how being at the big league level can focus a guy.

Also, if EE wasn't injured there were rumblings of him in LF. it may have been idle chatter, but I would prefer him to Gomes in LF.

nate
05-03-2010, 07:12 PM
I love re-runs.

:cool:

mdccclxix
05-03-2010, 07:14 PM
You're not going to see Stewart struggle this badly for long, he's too good, unless he's hurt.

fearofpopvol1
05-03-2010, 11:01 PM
Not to veer too far off subject, but I don't think Roenicke is anything special.

Benihana
05-04-2010, 01:29 AM
Not to veer too far off subject, but I don't think Roenicke is anything special.

Exactly. He's no different than Ondrusek or Fisher, et al

Benihana
05-04-2010, 01:31 AM
He traded two prospect pitchers, one of whom is pitching for the Blue Jays, for a 35 year old 3B that he extended. He signed a 35 yo SS too.

So do you want him to trade for Magglio Ordonez? Sign Jermaine Dye? both, and extend them 3 years? Just asking, cuz I sure don't.

And for the record, yes, I wouldn't mind seeing Jermaine Dye signed to play LF for the rest of this season.

TRF
05-04-2010, 11:04 AM
And for the record, yes, I wouldn't mind seeing Jermaine Dye signed to play LF for the rest of this season.

there is a reason EVERY team passed on him.

jojo
05-04-2010, 11:10 AM
To be absolutely fair, Dye seems to have passed on several teams as well.

GIDP
05-04-2010, 11:20 AM
Because hes unwilling to accept that he really isnt worth 8 digits anymore.

Benihana
05-04-2010, 11:34 AM
there is a reason EVERY team passed on him.

So I guess you wouldn't have wanted Pedro Martinez last year, either.

Just because a veteran doesn't have a job in April doesn't mean he can't contribute more than what you currently have. My guess is that Dye won't be unemployed for much longer, and there is a good chance he will be better than the flack we are currently running out there for 2/3 of our outfield.

TRF
05-04-2010, 11:41 AM
So I guess you wouldn't have wanted Pedro Martinez last year, either.

Just because a veteran doesn't have a job in April doesn't mean he can't contribute more than what you currently have. My guess is that Dye won't be unemployed for much longer, and there is a good chance he will be better than the flack we are currently running out there for 2/3 of our outfield.

Not at the cost he is demanding. Pedro chose where he wanted to go, but there were no rumors of him to the Yankees or even Red Sox that I remember. I just don't think teams feel Dye will hold up or not be a defensive liability.

camisadelgolf
05-04-2010, 11:56 AM
there is a reason EVERY team passed on him.
Race?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2010/04/jermaine-dye-still-unemployed-and-orlando-hudson-hints-race-is-an-issue/1

jojo
05-04-2010, 12:11 PM
Please, lets not take this thread....THERE

lollipopcurve
05-08-2010, 10:50 AM
Pitching on 4 days rest for the 2nd straight time (following an outing on 12 days rest), Stewart has another clunker for AA New Hampshire:

3 IP, 5 hits, 5 ER, 4 BB, 3 K, 1 HR

Through 5 starts and 23 innings, Stewart's ERA sits at 6.94 with 26 hits, 11 BB and 5 HR allowed.

JaxRed
05-08-2010, 11:03 AM
Almost sounds like he is hurt

Benihana
05-08-2010, 11:39 AM
Sounds like the Homer Bailey of AA.

camisadelgolf
05-08-2010, 01:33 PM
Sounds like he's lacking in command and breezed through the lower minors based on only his stuff.

dougdirt
05-08-2010, 01:53 PM
Sounds like he's lacking in command and breezed through the lower minors based on only his stuff.

Yet with the Reds, he dominated AA and had a 6.8% walk rate. Something is off with him. Just don't know what it is.

lollipopcurve
05-08-2010, 01:56 PM
May be injured. the 12-day layoff was an obvious red flag. TINSTAAPP is a cliche worth remembering, even if Stewart wins the Cy Young award someday.

Benihana
05-08-2010, 08:54 PM
Doesn't matter to me whether he is hurt or it is general ineffectiveness. Either one corroborates TINSTAAPP.

Risk of injury is just as much worth worrying about as risk of ineffectiveness. Stewart is clearly suffering from (at least) one of these problems.

kpresidente
05-09-2010, 09:55 AM
My objection to the trade still stands. I always thought Rolen would be an upgrade, and defended him against other objectors who thought he wouldn't produce, but the point was that I didn't think the Reds would be good enough in the coming few seasons for it to matter. Sure enough, Rolen's playing lights out, and we're sitting at around .500.

In the meantime, our much-vaunted young staff (Bailey, Volquez, and Cueto) are disappointing to say the least, and having another potential starter like Stewart in the pipelines would be a boon. Ditto for the Roenicke and the pen. Nick Massett ain't exactly the superstar everybody thought he was. Carlos Fisher hasn't panned out. In addition, we've got people saying we should trade BP to open up a spot for Frazier (!?), and nobody knows what to do with Francisco. In my world, they would platoon at 3B for years to come. Years when we might actually have all the pieces come together well enough to win something.

klw
05-09-2010, 09:56 AM
TINSTAAPP!
.

TINSTAAPP?
HUH?

puca
05-09-2010, 10:04 AM
TINSTAAPP?
HUH?

There is no such thing as a pitching prospect

lollipopcurve
05-09-2010, 11:30 AM
Only time reveals whether a trade was successful or not. That's how I see it. The early returns favor the Reds on this one. But the story is not over.

camisadelgolf
05-09-2010, 12:41 PM
Yet with the Reds, he dominated AA and had a 6.8% walk rate. Something is off with him. Just don't know what it is.
sss

Benihana
05-09-2010, 01:42 PM
My objection to the trade still stands. I always thought Rolen would be an upgrade, and defended him against other objectors who thought he wouldn't produce, but the point was that I didn't think the Reds would be good enough in the coming few seasons for it to matter. Sure enough, Rolen's playing lights out, and we're sitting at around .500.

In the meantime, our much-vaunted young staff (Bailey, Volquez, and Cueto) are disappointing to say the least, and having another potential starter like Stewart in the pipelines would be a boon. Ditto for the Roenicke and the pen. Nick Massett ain't exactly the superstar everybody thought he was. Carlos Fisher hasn't panned out. In addition, we've got people saying we should trade BP to open up a spot for Frazier (!?), and nobody knows what to do with Francisco. In my world, they would platoon at 3B for years to come. Years when we might actually have all the pieces come together well enough to win something.

I used to think like that too, but now I'm afraid you're dreaming for a day that will never come. You need to have great veterans to supplement some of the young guys. Just look at guys like Bruce and Stubbs, who were both more highly rated prospects than Francisco et. al, and look how long it is taking them to adjust to the big leagues- if they ever do. This is the same reason why you can't count on having a pitching staff of Chapman-Leake-Bailey-Cueto-Volquez. Not all of these guys will pan out, and the chances of them doing it at the same time are even less. Waiting for that to happen instead of proactively seeking to diversify and de-risk your team's exposure to prospects is something that every good GM must do. It is the reason why the 2003 Marlins had several veterans (Pudge, Encarnacion, Hollandsworth, Lowell) to supplement their young talent, and as far as I can tell they are the only team to win it all with mostly youngsters.

The Marlins trade of Ryan Dempster for Juan Encarnacion (who hit .270 with 19HRs and 94 RBIs in '03) prior to their 2003 World Championship season is probably the closest thing to the Stewart-Rolen trade, and the Rolen trade was better once you factor in all the considerations. Dempster had proven a lot more than Stewart at that point, as he was 25 years old and had won 29 games with 380 K's over the previous two major league seasons.

kpresidente
05-09-2010, 02:23 PM
I used to think like that too, but now I'm afraid you're dreaming for a day that will never come. You need to have great veterans to supplement some of the young guys. Just look at guys like Bruce and Stubbs, who were both more highly rated prospects than Francisco et. al, and look how long it is taking them to adjust to the big leagues- if they ever do. This is the same reason why you can't count on having a pitching staff of Chapman-Leake-Bailey-Cueto-Volquez. Not all of these guys will pan out, and the chances of them doing it at the same time are even less. Waiting for that to happen instead of proactively seeking to diversify and de-risk your team's exposure to prospects is something that every good GM must do. It is the reason why the 2003 Marlins had several veterans (Pudge, Encarnacion, Hollandsworth, Lowell) to supplement their young talent, and as far as I can tell they are the only team to win it all with mostly youngsters.

The Marlins trade of Ryan Dempster for Juan Encarnacion (who hit .270 with 19HRs and 94 RBIs in '03) prior to their 2003 World Championship season is probably the closest thing to the Stewart-Rolen trade, and the Rolen trade was better once you factor in all the considerations. Dempster had proven a lot more than Stewart at that point, as he was 25 years old and had won 29 games with 380 K's over the previous two major league seasons.

Yeah, but in your example, the Marlins timed it right. You can make the case Encarnacion was a big part of their Championship. I wouldn't have a problem trading youth for vets if we were close (say, after Votto, Bruce, Alonso, etc and the pitchers get themselves settled) but don't do it early. We were still building, that was clear. So why get Rolen? The Reds always do this. They think they're closer than they are. Then they bring in a Rolen or a Gonzo or a Cordero and it never works out and ends up putting us yet another year behind. That's why the dream never comes, they always end up sabatoging it early. Then a bunch of fans and the FO gets tired of being "patient" and the cycle repeats. End result: 10-strait losing seasons. But patience isn't the problem, the problem is they're never quite patient enough.

Benihana
05-09-2010, 04:40 PM
Yeah, but in your example, the Marlins timed it right. You can make the case Encarnacion was a big part of their Championship. I wouldn't have a problem trading youth for vets if we were close (say, after Votto, Bruce, Alonso, etc and the pitchers get themselves settled) but don't do it early. We were still building, that was clear. So why get Rolen? The Reds always do this. They think they're closer than they are. Then they bring in a Rolen or a Gonzo or a Cordero and it never works out and ends up putting us yet another year behind. That's why the dream never comes, they always end up sabatoging it early. Then a bunch of fans and the FO gets tired of being "patient" and the cycle repeats. End result: 10-strait losing seasons. But patience isn't the problem, the problem is they're never quite patient enough.

Disagree.

You have to trade value to get value. If you wait until half of these guys flame out, they have no trade value. See Homer Bailey as an example. You have to trust your scouts to be able to identify which guys you should trade and which you should keep, before it becomes blatantly obvious. The Marlins have great scouts, and that's why they've been able to do what they have.

Between Frazier, Francisco, Alonso, Heisey, and Stubbs, you may have one All-Star, one regular starter (maybe two), and three reserves. Waiting for all these guys to flourish at the same time is a fruitless exercise. Plus, they have Rolen for three years. If they can't win in that window, they never were going to win with this group.

Will M
05-09-2010, 07:36 PM
Disagree.

You have to trade value to get value. If you wait until half of these guys flame out, they have no trade value. See Homer Bailey as an example. You have to trust your scouts to be able to identify which guys you should trade and which you should keep, before it becomes blatantly obvious. The Marlins have great scouts, and that's why they've been able to do what they have.

Between Frazier, Francisco, Alonso, Heisey, and Stubbs, you may have one All-Star, one regular starter (maybe two), and three reserves. Waiting for all these guys to flourish at the same time is a fruitless exercise. Plus, they have Rolen for three years. If they can't win in that window, they never were going to win with this group.

people tend to think every prospect who does well in AA will carry that success to the bigs. instead the majority do not. its the old adage 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'.

i doubt scouts cost all that much compared to major league salaries & signing bonuses. if i owned a team i'd have a on who to vast army of scouts blanketing the globe. i'd get good ones. then i'd trust them on who to draft/sign, who to keep, who to trade & who to acquire from other teams.

you are 100% right about having to 'sell high'. Heisey's 0-7 in the bigs so far. I susppect that even this teenie sample size has already hurt his trade value.

who to keep:
- guys your scouts say are 'can't miss'. IMO the only player in the Reds minor leagues who fits this description is Chapman.
- guys who project as role players & have minimal trade value. sometimes they do suprise but most of these guys are bench players & middle relievers. think of guys like Hanigan, Rosales, Sutton, Dickerson, Maloney, LeCure, Fisher. by all means throw them in on a deal if someone wants them but usually they have minimal trade value

who to sell to help the major league club:
- top prospects that your scouts don't label as can't miss. if you can fill a need now you pull the trigger. sure the prospect may turn into a solid player but you usually have to trade something to get something. Would I trade Travis Wood or Todd Frazier for a bucket of baseballs? no. Would i trade them for an everyday left fielder if I thought it was the difference between making the postseason or not? yes.

Benihana
05-09-2010, 08:44 PM
people tend to think every prospect who does well in AA will carry that success to the bigs. instead the majority do not. its the old adage 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'.

i doubt scouts cost all that much compared to major league salaries & signing bonuses. if i owned a team i'd have a on who to vast army of scouts blanketing the globe. i'd get good ones. then i'd trust them on who to draft/sign, who to keep, who to trade & who to acquire from other teams.

you are 100% right about having to 'sell high'. Heisey's 0-7 in the bigs so far. I susppect that even this teenie sample size has already hurt his trade value.

who to keep:
- guys your scouts say are 'can't miss'. IMO the only player in the Reds minor leagues who fits this description is Chapman.
- guys who project as role players & have minimal trade value. sometimes they do suprise but most of these guys are bench players & middle relievers. think of guys like Hanigan, Rosales, Sutton, Dickerson, Maloney, LeCure, Fisher. by all means throw them in on a deal if someone wants them but usually they have minimal trade value

who to sell to help the major league club:
- top prospects that your scouts don't label as can't miss. if you can fill a need now you pull the trigger. sure the prospect may turn into a solid player but you usually have to trade something to get something. Would I trade Travis Wood or Todd Frazier for a bucket of baseballs? no. Would i trade them for an everyday left fielder if I thought it was the difference between making the postseason or not? yes.

Exactly. What boggles my mind is the number of posters on here that talk about drafting the BPA regardless of position because you can always trade such a player, yet they still want to hoard every prospect that's worth a dime.

It is not as easy to deal prospects for proven players as many people on this board seem to think. If it were, I have to believe that Walt would have converted Frazier, Alonso and several others who are seemingly blocked at the major league level into useful parts at this point. If these guys have such great value, and the Reds are truly going for it in 2010/2011, then why wouldn't they have been shipped out for a useful LF, C, or P at this point?

The answer is either that these two guys don't have a whole lot of value to other clubs, or that it is very difficult to find an opportunity to trade prospects for above average everyday players.

Putting all of this information together leads to the conclusion that if you have a prospect who has a lot of value but serious question marks (like whether or not he can be a starting pitcher in the major leagues), that same prospect is seemingly low on the organizational depth chart, and you have the opportunity to convert that prospect into an everyday, above average player at the major league level- you do it. Every. Single. Time.

mth123
05-09-2010, 09:05 PM
Exactly. What boggles my mind is the number of posters on here that talk about drafting the BPA regardless of position because you can always trade such a player, yet they still want to hoard every prospect that's worth a dime.

It is not as easy to deal prospects for proven players as many people on this board seem to think. If it were, I have to believe that Walt would have converted Frazier, Alonso and several others who are seemingly blocked at the major league level into useful parts at this point. If these guys have such great value, and the Reds are truly going for it in 2010/2011, then why wouldn't they have been shipped out for a useful LF, C, or P at this point?

The answer is either that these two guys don't have a whole lot of value to other clubs, or that it is very difficult to find an opportunity to trade prospects for above average everyday players.

Putting all of this information together leads to the conclusion that if you have a prospect who has a lot of value but serious question marks (like whether or not he can be a starting pitcher in the major leagues), that same prospect is seemingly low on the organizational depth chart, and you have the opportunity to convert that prospect into an everyday, above average player at the major league level- you do it. Every. Single. Time.

I think the answer that you are overlooking is that trading prospects for proven players involves taking on salary. This team may have had opportunities. Seeing some deals that have gone down would suggest that it can be done if your willing to take on the bucks and the Reds could have easily put together a package that compares. So far the Reds have not been willing with the exception of Rolen. That is my biggest gripe about dealing Stewart. It seems like there were others he could have been dealt for. He was considered a prize pitching prospect rather than a throw in like a Maloney or Lecure would be considered and those prize guys are usually main ingredients in any deal. At the time he was the only one they had and I simply would have dealt him in a deal for something different (Cliff Lee would have been a better target and the Reds could have easily matched that package that Philly gave Cleveland).

Dealing Stewart for Rolen was like firing your only bullet at the angry farmer with the shotgun when the deadly gunslinger is also in your sights. Sure it improves your odds to take out the farmer, but leaves you nothing to address the real problem of the Gunslinger who is after you.

TRF
05-10-2010, 03:07 PM
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect

which, by the way, is crap.

lollipopcurve
05-13-2010, 10:17 AM
Again on 4 days rest, Stewart starts and goes only 3 innings, giving up 2 ER on 4 hits and 3 BB. Of the 4 hits, there was 1 HR and 1 2B.

In 6 starts and 26 innings, his ERA stands at 6.84, with a WHIP of around 1.7 and 6 HRs allowed. 18:14 K/BB. Scuffling.

edabbs44
05-13-2010, 11:48 AM
Again on 4 days rest, Stewart starts and goes only 3 innings, giving up 2 ER on 4 hits and 3 BB. Of the 4 hits, there was 1 HR and 1 2B.

In 6 starts and 26 innings, his ERA stands at 6.84, with a WHIP of around 1.7 and 6 HRs allowed. 18:14 K/BB. Scuffling.

Yeah, he's definitely having a rough go of it. Interesting.

JKam
05-13-2010, 01:24 PM
I wonder if there is some different coaching philosophy in the Toronto system that can possibly explain Stewart's poor performance so far?

edabbs44
05-13-2010, 01:30 PM
I wonder if there is some different coaching philosophy in the Toronto system that can possibly explain Stewart's poor performance so far?

I think popular belief was that they would do better with him.

Tom Servo
05-13-2010, 03:03 PM
Again on 4 days rest, Stewart starts and goes only 3 innings, giving up 2 ER on 4 hits and 3 BB. Of the 4 hits, there was 1 HR and 1 2B.

In 6 starts and 26 innings, his ERA stands at 6.84, with a WHIP of around 1.7 and 6 HRs allowed. 18:14 K/BB. Scuffling.
So he hasn't won a Cy Young yet?

edabbs44
05-13-2010, 03:05 PM
So he hasn't won a Cy Young yet?

Be nice. :)

pedro
05-13-2010, 03:19 PM
which, by the way, is crap.

It's really not crap.

GIDP
05-13-2010, 03:40 PM
Mods having problems today.

Mocking a poster for Cy Young comment and insulting a player with the nick name "thumbs".

ILoveWilly
05-13-2010, 05:11 PM
After all the gnashing of teeth last year over this trade, once again the internet warriors who complained about it get proven dead wrong. I don't care what he does in the future, we got a big time boost from Rolen that has put us into contention TODAY - not hoping to get an average starter 2 years down the line, if that. Of course I've already ready "oh it doesn't matter, he was still undervalued at the time."

Weird that its basically only fans of teams that think they have the next big thing in the works on these deals, while the rest of the baseball world gives a collective 'meh' to the deal. We won out on this, period, and all the haters were wrong. Enjoy your crow.

dougdirt
05-13-2010, 05:23 PM
After all the gnashing of teeth last year over this trade, once again the internet warriors who complained about it get proven dead wrong. I don't care what he does in the future, we got a big time boost from Rolen that has put us into contention TODAY - not hoping to get an average starter 2 years down the line, if that. Of course I've already ready "oh it doesn't matter, he was still undervalued at the time."

Weird that its basically only fans of teams that think they have the next big thing in the works on these deals, while the rest of the baseball world gives a collective 'meh' to the deal. We won out on this, period, and all the haters were wrong. Enjoy your crow.

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.

lollipopcurve
05-13-2010, 05:52 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.

Those guys make a living off touting prospects. Doesn't mean they're right.

dougdirt
05-13-2010, 05:53 PM
Those guys make a living off touting prospects. Doesn't mean they're right.

But probably does mean they know the value of them doesn't it?

lollipopcurve
05-13-2010, 05:57 PM
But probably does mean they know the value of them doesn't it?

No, I don't think so. What they write creates the illusion that they know the value, but what truly establishes the value of the prospect is one of two Ts -- time, which will reveal how good a player the prospect is, or a trade, which shows what kind of talent the prospect can be exchanged for.

dougdirt
05-13-2010, 06:00 PM
No, I don't think so. What they write creates the illusion that they know the value, but what truly establishes the value of the prospect is one of two Ts -- time, which will reveal how good a player the prospect is, or a trade, which shows what kind of talent the prospect can be exchanged for.

I disagree. Trades don't always show the kind of talent the prospects can be exchanged for, only what they were exchanged for in that situation. Surely you don't believe that someone has never been fleeced in a deal before, because according to what you just said, that is the value of the guy at the time, what he was traded for.

TRF
05-13-2010, 06:04 PM
It's really not crap.

It really is. It over simplifies the adage that a pitching prospect is one pitch away from ending his career. Which btw is true for EVERY pitcher. But there isn't one person following baseball that can honestly say Strasburg or Chapman aren't prospects. The biggest difference between the two in terms of value is, and I might be wrong, But I believe the Reds could trade Chapman tomorrow.

And they could get a ransom for him too. And once Strasburg sets foot on a MLB mound next month, the Nats could do the same.

They are prospects. is it a volatile position? sure. Does past success translate? sure and no. But that holds true for all minor leaguers regardless of position.

Now if there were a clever acronym for amateur players regarding sure things, I'd be all over that.

TRF
05-13-2010, 06:06 PM
I disagree. Trades don't always show the kind of talent the prospects can be exchanged for, only what they were exchanged for in that situation. Surely you don't believe that someone has never been fleeced in a deal before, because according to what you just said, that is the value of the guy at the time, what he was traded for.

Didn't the Mets trade Kazmir to the Rays for essentially nothing? I'm with doug on this.

dougdirt
05-13-2010, 06:08 PM
Didn't the Mets trade Kazmir to the Rays for essentially nothing? I'm with doug on this.

Traded for Victor Zambrano.

lollipopcurve
05-13-2010, 06:12 PM
It really is. It over simplifies the adage that a pitching prospect is one pitch away from ending his career. Which btw is true for EVERY pitcher. But there isn't one person following baseball that can honestly say Strasburg or Chapman aren't prospects. The biggest difference between the two in terms of value is, and I might be wrong, But I believe the Reds could trade Chapman tomorrow.

And they could get a ransom for him too. And once Strasburg sets foot on a MLB mound next month, the Nats could do the same.

They are prospects. is it a volatile position? sure. Does past success translate? sure and no. But that holds true for all minor leaguers regardless of position.

Now if there were a clever acronym for amateur players regarding sure things, I'd be all over that.

Sure, there are some prospects who maintain their status all the way through the process of becoming big leaguers to the point they have a lot of success. But the adage does reflect an important reality -- pitching prospects fail/disappoint at a high rate, sometimes precipitously, and it is not as true of position prospects.

lollipopcurve
05-13-2010, 06:23 PM
I disagree. Trades don't always show the kind of talent the prospects can be exchanged for, only what they were exchanged for in that situation. Surely you don't believe that someone has never been fleeced in a deal before, because according to what you just said, that is the value of the guy at the time, what he was traded for.

Put it this way -- the trade gives you an early-look market value, perhaps in more general terms than the particulars of the trade itself (in other words, Kazmir was worth a seemingly durable, established major league starter). Was it a gross underestimation of Kazmir's worth to want that for him? No. The Mets just did a poor job of selecting the starter they'd get in return.

Ultimately, only time will reveal the prospect's true value.

Scrap Irony
05-13-2010, 06:29 PM
No doubt. Guys like Stewart are the reason TINSTAAPP was created. The Chapmans and Strauburgs may become aces, but those that come out of nowhere generally return shortly thereafter.

Stewart's success last season screamed to be taken with a dose of salt. He'd never pitched with those numbers before-- not in college nor in the minor leagues. Now, he's struggling to find his game again.

Doesn't mean he won't be good. It means he wasn't quite as good-- and certainly not as finished-- as those prospect mavens thought he was.

And that's okay, too. I can remember a couple of them insisted the A's got a steal of a deal when they dealt McGuire to St. Louis. It's the nature of the beast, to look at the next great thing rather than appreciate those that have proven in the past what they can do.

Benihana
05-13-2010, 06:41 PM
No doubt. Guys like Stewart are the reason TINSTAAPP was created. The Chapmans and Strauburgs may become aces, but those that come out of nowhere generally return shortly thereafter.

Stewart's success last season screamed to be taken with a dose of salt. He'd never pitched with those numbers before-- not in college nor in the minor leagues. Now, he's struggling to find his game again.

Doesn't mean he won't be good. It means he wasn't quite as good-- and certainly not as finished-- as those prospect mavens thought he was.

And that's okay, too. I can remember a couple of them insisted the A's got a steal of a deal when they dealt McGuire to St. Louis. It's the nature of the beast, to look at the next great thing rather than appreciate those that have proven in the past what they can do.

Well said, couldn't agree more.

HokieRed
05-13-2010, 06:43 PM
It's perfectly possible, as I believe, that the prospects were of great value but that so is Rolen. I'd suggest Cooper and other analysts actually undervalue Rolen--and that, in estimating the trade, they also undervalued the importance of getting EE moved.

GIDP
05-13-2010, 06:53 PM
From my side of the isle is that we just want certain prospects to be valued at the right value. I dont care if guys like Stewarts and Alonsos get traded we just hate seeing them being sold short and the general feeling towards that trade, whether it be by us posters or the prospect sites around the next, was that is what happened.

I have a feeling this is how a lot of people felt during the Nats trade with Kearns. Everyone in that trade might have busted but value wasnt equal from a lot of peoples stand points.

I dont want to derail this thread back into that conversation I just wanted to get my general feeling about the topic of the prospect people and the non prospect people.

dougdirt
05-13-2010, 07:19 PM
It's perfectly possible, as I believe, that the prospects were of great value but that so is Rolen. I'd suggest Cooper and other analysts actually undervalue Rolen--and that, in estimating the trade, they also undervalued the importance of getting EE moved.

And I still argue that the Reds and maybe the White Sox were the only true players for Scott Rolen's services and that means the Reds shouldn't have likely paid market value, much less over market value to acquire him. He was forcing a trade out to the Midwest and the Blue Jays said they would make it happen. The Reds paid a steep price in talent. Moving EE could have been as easy as cutting him. The move was financial just as much as it was about talent and thats a shame.

edabbs44
05-13-2010, 09:11 PM
And I still argue that the Reds and maybe the White Sox were the only true players for Scott Rolen's services and that means the Reds shouldn't have likely paid market value, much less over market value to acquire him. He was forcing a trade out to the Midwest and the Blue Jays said they would make it happen. The Reds paid a steep price in talent. Moving EE could have been as easy as cutting him. The move was financial just as much as it was about talent and thats a shame.

I get what you are saying, but if this were to be true do you really think that Jocketty would have been blind to it and had no idea that this were available? Walt has been in the game for longer than many of us have known what a front office was. He has likely seen every situation a GM could be presented with. He knows what he is doing. I doubt that he had a chance to get Rolen for less.

dougdirt
05-13-2010, 09:50 PM
I get what you are saying, but if this were to be true do you really think that Jocketty would have been blind to it and had no idea that this were available? Walt has been in the game for longer than many of us have known what a front office was. He has likely seen every situation a GM could be presented with. He knows what he is doing. I doubt that he had a chance to get Rolen for less.

I think he overpaid because he wanted Rolen badly and the Blue Jays knew he did.

edabbs44
05-13-2010, 09:59 PM
I think he overpaid because he wanted Rolen badly and the Blue Jays knew he did.

I'm not sure that I could get behind that. If Rolen was truly forcing a trade to the Midwest and Toronto was going to facilitate the move (as you stated), then the Cincy FO would definitely have recognized this and paid what they had to pay to get him. If the White Sox were in the mix then maybe Walt had to offer Stewart. If there wasn't another team in the mix and Toronto was going to respect Rolen's wishes, I seriously doubt Walt outbid himself.

lollipopcurve
05-13-2010, 10:01 PM
I think he overpaid because he wanted Rolen badly and the Blue Jays knew he did.

At this point, it sure doesn't appear he gave up a whole lot.

dougdirt
05-13-2010, 10:03 PM
At this point, it sure doesn't appear he gave up a whole lot.

Even if all three players retire tomorrow, it doesn't change the value that he gave up at the time and could have used to acquire something else.

HokieRed
05-13-2010, 10:07 PM
I just don't agree he overpaid, and that has to do with what I think of Rolen.

GIDP
05-13-2010, 10:19 PM
At this point, it sure doesn't appear he gave up a whole lot.

With all do respect that matters zero.

mac624
05-13-2010, 10:37 PM
Personally, I could care less about anything other than today or this year, and I could also care less if it was a bad trade in the eyes of those that look at values. Fact is, right now, the Reds are a better team with Rolen than they were without him. His ability and attitude have made a huge difference.

As for what was given up, sure, you can what if, speculate, argue, fuss and fight it to death, and I"m sure the "equal value" isn't in the Reds favor, but right now, in the present, when it all really matters most, it's a huge win for the Reds. I'll worry about the future when the future gets here, but I'm glad we got Rolen, because he makes us better. All Stewart and Roenicke give is potential.

camisadelgolf
05-13-2010, 10:39 PM
Walt Jocketty said that the Blue Jays refused to part with Scott Rolen unless the deal included Zach Stewart. Some may call it overpaying, but as of now, it looks like the Reds received more than they gave up, and if you ask me, that doesn't sound like 'overpaying' at all.

dougdirt
05-14-2010, 12:11 AM
Walt Jocketty said that the Blue Jays refused to part with Scott Rolen unless the deal included Zach Stewart. Some may call it overpaying, but as of now, it looks like the Reds received more than they gave up, and if you ask me, that doesn't sound like 'overpaying' at all.

Maybe because the Reds also wanted $4M in the deal, cash.

camisadelgolf
05-14-2010, 12:52 AM
Maybe because the Reds also wanted $4M in the deal, cash.
That, and they insisted that EE be dumped on them.

lollipopcurve
05-14-2010, 09:00 AM
With all do respect that matters zero.

It's all that matters in my book -- you score a trade by how it works out. Not by baseless speculation about what other trades *could* have been made.

lollipopcurve
05-14-2010, 09:06 AM
Even if all three players retire tomorrow, it doesn't change the value that he gave up at the time and could have used to acquire something else.

Completely baseless speculation about what else was possible. In addition, Stewart was likely vastly overvalued by you as a certain future Cy Young winner, when it was clear he had not even established himself as a full-time starter.

Sit back and see how it plays out in reality.

bucksfan2
05-14-2010, 09:40 AM
Even if all three players retire tomorrow, it doesn't change the value that he gave up at the time and could have used to acquire something else.

What else could have been acquired? It has been speculated since the trade deadline last year that Walt gave up too much. You can look at the trade and say that in throwing in Stewart it allowed the Reds to free up some cash (more so with the Rolen restructuring) that facilitated the signing of Champan.

You can't look at trades in a vacuum. I am still surprised about the angst towards this trade after seeing the positive impact Rolen has made. The Reds have been in a losing spiral since 2000 and have seen prospect after prospect flutter once they got to the big league level. Guys like Gruler, Pauley, Howington, etc. all were good prospects that never made it to the big leagues. Now you flip a could be for a bonified above average 3b and a competitive baseball team. Something that wasn't going to happen with Edwin in tow. And to be honest none of us know exactly what was asked, what was Walt's tipping point, and where/or if Rolen demanded to go.

Right now I would trade the entire farm system for a world series championship. Im sick of losing teams and playing for next year. As Reds fans we have been told we are building for the future ever since 2003. Remember that team they were going to build around Jr? and then Dunn? Remember how Brandon Larson was going to be the cornerstone 3b? I want Walt to be a Major League GM, not one too concerned with minor league prospects. Use them as pawns, keep the best ones and flip the others.

HokieRed
05-14-2010, 10:00 AM
I'm pretty weary of even thinking about this trade, but I've one last thought on the matter. I think we forget that trades are about individuals, not currencies. We've got so much good data about prospects anymore that we tend to think of them as fungible quantities--so that we can make a trade here with them or there with them for something like "equivalent value." But that overlooks the specific needs and priorities of the teams involved. I assume Toronto was interested in Zach Stewart--intelligently, it seems to me--not in realizing some quantity "x" regarded as appropriate return for Rolen. Walt, too, had specific objectives, involving specific individuals, and was not simply thinking, "I've got so much surplus value in Stewart, Roenicke, and EE and I need to move it somewhere--I'll try Toronto, then go somewhere else if that fails to produce equivalent or better return." These are illusions caused by our thinking of value always in the convertible terms of money whereas trades take place for specific individuals and in specific circumstances.

edabbs44
05-14-2010, 10:10 AM
Completely baseless speculation about what else was possible. In addition, Stewart was likely vastly overvalued by you as a certain future Cy Young winner, when it was clear he had not even established himself as a full-time starter.

Sit back and see how it plays out in reality.

I agree with Doug on his theory, but I think this is the part of the argument that really rings true. No one here knows what Stewart's true value was at that time. He was a 3rd rd pick in 2008 and had some successful cups of coffee at a few different minor league levels. There were questions as to if he was a starter or reliever. That was the extent of Stewart's resume.

He was valued highly on this board and the future will tell whether the valuation was warranted. But, right now, the potential is increasing that Walt sold high on Stewart and fleeced Toronto. Not only did he get Rolen but also got millions of dollars for guy who may or may not amount to anything. EdE and Roenicke were just party favors.
.

westofyou
05-14-2010, 10:21 AM
Completely baseless speculation about what else was possible. In addition, Stewart was likely vastly overvalued by you as a certain future Cy Young winner, when it was clear he had not even established himself as a full-time starter.

Sit back and see how it plays out in reality.

No doubt, Dave Revering laughs somewhere and says wait....

kpresidente
05-14-2010, 10:40 AM
You guys have to remember what this trade really was when it happened. Remember, Rolen had one year left on his deal, meaning Walt traded 2 prospects for immediate returns. The extension was a totally seperate thing. My objection at the time was that I didn't think Rolen would matter, that we weren't going to win anything anyway. So that's my whole guage right there. A few posts back I noted we were sitting at .500, looking like I was right. Now we're half a game out of first place and I'm looking very wrong. This is one where I hope I was wrong, but it's a young season and seeing the Reds in contention early only to slide late seems like an annual event here.

As far as the prospects go, you guys are setting yourselves up for an "I told you so" by judging Stewart on what he's done to this point. The guy has a career 3.49 FIP, and a 6.66 in 25 innings this season. Which number do you think is really indicative and which is just a small sample?

Now to the extension. That's a whole different ballgame. The problem with the extension is Rolen ends up blocking Frazier and Francisco. So look at the numbers there. Rolen's lights out of course, but at the same time Frazier's got an 1.034 OPS vs LH, and Francisco a .933 vs. RH. If they were one player we'd all be pretty excited about that guy manning 3B for years to come. Now we're thinking "what are we going to do with these guys?"

edabbs44
05-14-2010, 10:50 AM
As far as the prospects go, you guys are setting yourselves up for an "I told you so" by judging Stewart on what he's done to this point. The guy has a career 3.49 FIP, and a 6.66 in 25 innings this season. Which number do you think is really indicative and which is just a small sample?

Absolutely. It is extremely early on, but that 3.49 FIP was also made up of a few small samples. The guy's entire career is a small sample. Fair is fair.

lollipopcurve
05-14-2010, 10:53 AM
As far as the prospects go, you guys are setting yourselves up for an "I told you so" by judging Stewart on what he's done to this point. The guy has a career 3.49 FIP, and a 6.66 in 25 innings this season. Which number do you think is really indicative?

Time will tell. But the unbridled optimism re: Stewart's future would have to be tempered now, wouldn't it? Remember, he's back in AA this year.


Now to the extension. That's a whole different ballgame. The problem with the extension is Rolen ends up blocking Frazier and Francisco. So look at the numbers there. Rolen's lights out of course, but at the same time Frazier's got an 1.034 OPS vs LH, and Francisco a .933 vs. RH. If they were one player we'd all be pretty excited about that guy manning 3B for years to come.

It's my belief that Jocketty and Rolen had discussed Rolen's long-term plans (i.e., his vision of how the last chapter in his career would play out) before the trade happened. There was a report that Jocketty and Rolen were seen in a long conversation during BP, earlier in the season. I feel it's quite possible Jocketty knew he could get Rolen signed beyond 2010, if he wanted to.

You look at the 3B situation now, and there's no way you can say Frazier/Francisco would be holding down the position in some acceptable way. Frazier's not hitting, and Francisco remains a work-in-progress on defense. You wouldn't want to be platooning highly rated prospects like those two anyway, at this point. You can't even say EdE would be gone.

The more data we have post-trade, the more we know about the trade's success or failure.

nate
05-14-2010, 10:56 AM
I know I could look this up but is Stewart starting or relieving this year?

lollipopcurve
05-14-2010, 10:57 AM
I know I could look this up but is Stewart starting or relieving this year?

Starting in AA. At one point, he took a 12-day hiatus between starts/appearances.

camisadelgolf
05-14-2010, 11:21 AM
Fwiw, Rolen and Jocketty had the agreement that a contract extension would be worked out before the trade was made. Not only did an extension happen, it was for well below market value.

Imagine if the Reds didn't make the trade and decided to rely on EE, Cisco, and/or Frazier as the everyday third baseman. Francisco (and his .884 fielding percentage at 3B last year) is on the DL for the next month or two. Todd Frazier has a sub-.700 OPS in AAA, so I have my doubts about him doing well at the Major League level so far in 2010.

Meanwhile, Encarnacion hasn't been healthy, and even when he is healthy, he doesn't produce. Josh Roenicke would merely be unneeded bullpen depth. Zach Stewart would be a nice prospect to have in the system, but with all the pitching depth the Reds have, can't the team live without him?

For anyone who still thinks it wasn't a good trade, here are some questions I have. What could the Reds get for Zach Stewart now? Would you be willing to trade Zach Stewart and his horrible AAA numbers for someone who would end up being the second- or third-best player on your 25-man roster? What if it also meant that you got to dump Edwin Encarnacion's contract?

GIDP
05-14-2010, 11:21 AM
Completely baseless speculation about what else was possible. In addition, Stewart was likely vastly overvalued by you as a certain future Cy Young winner, when it was clear he had not even established himself as a full-time starter.

Sit back and see how it plays out in reality.

Doug never said future Cy Young in the same fashion as you guys claim he did. He did say something similar though.

westofyou
05-14-2010, 11:23 AM
Time will tell. But the unbridled optimism re: Stewart's future would have to be tempered now, wouldn't it? Remember, he's back in AA this year.


IIRC it was said that if he was a Red he'd be the best pitcher in the starting rotation, hyperbole is hard to forget when it's thrown around so carelessly.

GIDP
05-14-2010, 11:26 AM
It's all that matters in my book -- you score a trade by how it works out. Not by baseless speculation about what other trades *could* have been made.


Seriously what happens after the trade really doesnt matter much. Trading 1 dollar for .75 cents then the other guy losing the dollar bill some how doesnt mean you made a good trade.

GIDP
05-14-2010, 11:28 AM
IIRC it was said that if he was a Red he'd be the best pitcher in the starting rotation, hyperbole is hard to forget when it's thrown around so carelessly.

I dont really remember this, and ive been in a lot of these threads on this topic.

westofyou
05-14-2010, 11:30 AM
Seriously what happens after the trade really doesnt matter much.

Right, that deal to get Joe Morgan didn't do squat for the Reds in the 70's, when the Yankees got Maris from the A's nothing ever came from that after the deal was done.

kpresidente
05-14-2010, 11:31 AM
You look at the 3B situation now, and there's no way you can say Frazier/Francisco would be holding down the position in some acceptable way. Frazier's not hitting, and Francisco remains a work-in-progress on defense. You wouldn't want to be platooning highly rated prospects like those two anyway, at this point. You can't even say EdE would be gone.

The more data we have post-trade, the more we know about the trade's success or failure.

Talking about the extension and Frazier/Francisco, I mean 2011 and beyond.

Right now, I'd imagine EE would be playing third. He's hurt, so we can't say what he'd be doing to this point, but if you take his career .790 OPS vs. Rolen current .840 it's not that big of a difference. And defensively, Encarnacion's career UZR/150 is actually better (-13.2) than Rolen's current (-15.4).

And then there's Roenicke, who's pitched well enough, and if he were with the Reds, we probably never would never have seen Ondrusek or Fisher, and how much have those guys hurt us?

So even if you ignore Stewart (which is unfair, I think) and just focus on the other two, how much has Rolen really added? Not much, I'd say.

edabbs44
05-14-2010, 11:37 AM
Seriously what happens after the trade really doesnt matter much. Trading 1 dollar for .75 cents then the other guy losing the dollar bill some how doesnt mean you made a good trade.

That is true. But the issue is that we may think that it was a dollar that was traded but those involved may have known it was bunk.

Cedric
05-14-2010, 11:39 AM
Right, that deal to get Joe Morgan didn't do squat for the Reds in the 70's, when the Yankees got Maris from the A's nothing ever came from that after the deal was done.

Exactly. The value of a trade IS all about predicting if that dollar loses it's value. That's the point in trading high or low on someone.

GIDP
05-14-2010, 11:39 AM
Right, that deal to get Joe Morgan didn't do squat for the Reds in the 70's, when the Yankees got Maris from the A's nothing ever came from that after the deal was done.

Are you just trolling me? When trading guys what matters is at the time of the trade. If for some reason one of the players falls off the face of the earth it doesnt devalue them until that happens.

I know you guys seriously cant be suggesting that you can go back and have revisionist history in trades? Aaron Harang wasnt even the guy the Reds thought was the prize of the Jose Guillen trade, but did it work out for us? Yes. If Oakland knew what they knew now about Harang would they have ever made that trade? No I'm guessing they probably wouldnt have.

nate
05-14-2010, 11:41 AM
Right, that deal to get Joe Morgan didn't do squat for the Reds in the 70's, when the Yankees got Maris from the A's nothing ever came from that after the deal was done.

Yeah but neither of those guys won the Cy Young award!

:cool:

GIDP
05-14-2010, 11:43 AM
Exactly. The value of a trade IS all about predicting if that dollar loses it's value. That's the point in trading high or low on someone.

Thats right, but you guys are ignoring that the trading 1 dollar for .50 cents still is a bad trade at any time. If for some reason you trade 1 dollar for .50 cents and all the quarters in the world get wiped out and for some reason your 2 quarters turn out to be worth 100 bucks it doesnt change the fact that the trade wasnt good at the time. It might be good now but you still didnt get a dollars worth, if you did you might have 200 bucks.

just because Stewart might not be pitching well now doesnt change the fact that at the time of the trade he was. You cant go back in time and say well "in the future Stewart wont pitch well in AA for Toronto so the deal looks good to me". And thats what a lot of you are trying to do now.

camisadelgolf
05-14-2010, 11:44 AM
Seriously what happens after the trade really doesnt matter much. Trading 1 dollar for .75 cents then the other guy losing the dollar bill some how doesnt mean you made a good trade.
What if the 75-cent stock stays 75 cents but the dollar stock's value goes down to 50 cents? In that case, you were fortunate to sell when you did, regardless of what kind of value you could have had.

GIDP
05-14-2010, 11:46 AM
That is true. But the issue is that we may think that it was a dollar that was traded but those involved may have known it was bunk.

Its certainly possible, but we kinda know more of the story now and that was Stewart was basically "sold" so Toronto would send cash.

edabbs44
05-14-2010, 11:50 AM
Its certainly possible, but we kinda know more of the story now and that was Stewart was basically "sold" so Toronto would send cash.

http://www.cretafarms.com/retail/products/images/bologna.jpg

HokieRed
05-14-2010, 11:56 AM
What if the 75-cent stock stays 75 cents but the dollar stock's value goes down to 50 cents? In that case, you were fortunate to sell when you did, regardless of what kind of value you could have had.


This is, of course, true but, in another way, the whole "value" analogy is not really appropriate. The stock analogy would only work if there was liquidity in the market so that it was really true that, if you didn't spend your dollar on Scott Rolen, you could spend it somewhere else. Trades are about individuals, not values, something we've forgotten because we've mystified ourselves with all the information we now have about prospects' supposed "values."

GIDP
05-14-2010, 12:03 PM
This is, of course, true but, in another way, the whole "value" analogy is not really appropriate. The stock analogy would only work if there was liquidity in the market so that it was really true that, if you didn't spend your dollar on Scott Rolen, you could spend it somewhere else. Trades are about individuals, not values, something we've forgotten because we've mystified ourselves with all the information we now have about prospects' supposed "values."

The whole package can be valued. I think we are getting off topic though. We did see the market value for other prospects during the trade deadline also. We had values to go off of in teh Victor Martinez trade, the Cliff Lee trade. Both of which said we could probably have gotten one of those 2 guys if we threw in another prospect. I think im going to back out for a while so this thread can get back on some other topic.

lollipopcurve
05-14-2010, 12:08 PM
Are you just trolling me? When trading guys what matters is at the time of the trade. If for some reason one of the players falls off the face of the earth it doesnt devalue them until that happens.

You can make a judgment about a trade when it happens based on how much you as a bystander like the trade.

You can make a judgment about how successful a trade is only after enough time has passed that you see how it has affected the teams involved.

krm1580
05-14-2010, 12:17 PM
Here is the thing. People want to be optimistic about their prospects and as such they tend to focus on a prospect's ceiling especially when things are going well. I mean there is a reason people are more excited about Aroldis Chapman than Matt Maloney despite their similar AAA number right?

At the time of the deal Stewart was percieved to have a high ceiling. He had big stuff and was an extreme groundball pitcher, both of which play very well in GAB. Throw in the fact that he was moving quickly through the system that at the time had no good power arms at the upper levels and it was pretty easy to see why people were high on him. I think I evaluate prospects pretty fairly and I know he was a guy I was very high on mainly because I focused on his upside.

TRF
05-14-2010, 01:26 PM
IIRC it was said that if he was a Red he'd be the best pitcher in the starting rotation, hyperbole is hard to forget when it's thrown around so carelessly.

It was said that he'd be the best SP prospect in the org. He probably was the day he left, so that really wasn't a reach.

edabbs44
05-14-2010, 02:17 PM
Just ran through a bunch of pages from the Rolen trade thread. Many lessons to be learned from that one...wow. A fun read if anyone wants to laugh.

dougdirt
05-14-2010, 02:33 PM
Fwiw, Rolen and Jocketty had the agreement that a contract extension would be worked out before the trade was made. Not only did an extension happen, it was for well below market value.

I doubt this is true, because well, its against baseball's rules. If the extension were agreed upon, it would have been done as part of the trade.

TheNext44
05-14-2010, 04:16 PM
I doubt this is true, because well, its against baseball's rules. If the extension were agreed upon, it would have been done as part of the trade.

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)

GIDP
05-14-2010, 04:19 PM
Ok I was dragged back in, if you are of the stance that you think they broke the rules prior to that deal and communicated that he would be extended, then you have to assume that Rolen told him that he was forcing a trade and wanted to be in the midwest.

pedro
05-14-2010, 04:30 PM
Talking about the extension and Frazier/Francisco, I mean 2011 and beyond.

Right now, I'd imagine EE would be playing third. He's hurt, so we can't say what he'd be doing to this point, but if you take his career .790 OPS vs. Rolen current .840 it's not that big of a difference. And defensively, Encarnacion's career UZR/150 is actually better (-13.2) than Rolen's current (-15.4).

And then there's Roenicke, who's pitched well enough, and if he were with the Reds, we probably never would never have seen Ondrusek or Fisher, and how much have those guys hurt us?

So even if you ignore Stewart (which is unfair, I think) and just focus on the other two, how much has Rolen really added? Not much, I'd say.


I can't believe anybody at this point would even question what a huge upgrade Rolen has been over EE.

westofyou
05-14-2010, 05:19 PM
I can't believe anybody at this point would even question what a huge upgrade Rolen has been over EE.

EE has barely played due to injuries, has 210 pa's and this line .237/.300/.435 , 10 e's in 51 games. Rolen meanwhile has this line as a Red .270/.353/.447 and 4 e's in 68 games started.

Then of course you'd have to include all the stuff he adds as a vet compared to the stuff EE added as a stiff.

But hey that's not much...

GIDP
05-14-2010, 05:23 PM
A lot of us thought Edwin should have been tried in left, or even 2nd but that wouldnt happen since I dont think he could be demoted. His bat has fallen off though.

pedro
05-14-2010, 05:24 PM
A lot of us thought Edwin should have been tried in left. His bat has fallen off though.

And a lot of us thought he ought to have been tried for embezzlement.

mdccclxix
05-14-2010, 05:25 PM
Don't forget, EE raised his hands in joy when he got traded. The dude was done in Cincinnati, perhaps truly did have a bad attitude.

It seems like Rolen is a bit more slump proof, doesn't it?

pedro
05-14-2010, 05:27 PM
In general I don't think it's a good idea to move guys who aren't good "baseball players" around the diamond. EE was a good athlete but not a very good baseball player.

GIDP
05-14-2010, 05:28 PM
And a lot of us thought he ought to have been tried for embezzlement.

:rolleyes:

pedro
05-14-2010, 05:29 PM
:rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want. His head and heart were just not in the game, despite his obvious talents.

westofyou
05-14-2010, 05:30 PM
A lot of us thought Edwin should have been tried in left, or even 2nd but that wouldnt happen since I dont think he could be demoted. His bat has fallen off though.

Right because his footwork at 2nd would have been stellar.

edabbs44
05-14-2010, 05:31 PM
A lot of us thought Edwin should have been tried in left, or even 2nd but that wouldnt happen since I dont think he could be demoted. His bat has fallen off though.

He'd probably remind us a lot of Edwin at 3B, except just a little further back on the field.

GIDP
05-14-2010, 05:33 PM
Right because his footwork at 2nd would have been stellar.

His issue was throwing the ball. I didnt say it would have worked but its just something I said I would have maybe tried him at.

Cyclone792
05-14-2010, 05:36 PM
I can't believe anybody at this point would even question what a huge upgrade Rolen has been over EE.

I liked Encarnacion, but each time he would appear to flash serious promise, something would happen that would disappoint and set him back. Similarly, I also was cautiously optimistic on Stewart and would rather have seen the Reds keep him if at all possible, but thus far he hasn't done anything to warrant anybody missing him.

Scott Rolen, meanwhile, had always been one of my favorite non-Reds. I'm not a person who dives too much into "little things" or "intangibles" but Scott Rolen plays baseball how I prefer to see ballplayers play. In short, the guy just does everything well, and I love that in a player.

Despite not having great speed, he's one of the best baserunners I've ever seen in terms of moving from first to third on singles, scoring from second on singles, etc. Quite a few years ago I remember seeing some statistics that tried to quantify that type of baserunning, and not surprisingly Rolen's name was always amongst the leaders. It also hasn't surprised me that I'm seeing guys like Votto and Bruce take a similar approach on the bases as Rolen, especially since Rolen was acquired. There's value in that type of stuff somewhere.

FWIW, I'm not buying the UZR numbers for Rolen this year. He's arguably one of the greatest defensive third basemen ever, and while his range has declined somewhat due to age, he's still flashing leather over there that I haven't seen from a Reds third baseman in I don't know how long.

The Reds made that trade to fix a perceived weakness at third base, a weakness I probably agree existed, and they targeted a guy who would be able to help in a whole bunch of ways. So far, I have to believe the trade has worked out exactly how the Reds hoped when they made the deal. Moving forward, so long as Rolen remains healthy and on the field, I have to believe the trade will work out exactly how the Reds hoped.

There isn't a question in my mind, the Reds are a better team right now in 2010 due to that trade.

GIDP
05-14-2010, 05:36 PM
Roll your eyes all you want. His head and heart were just not in the game, despite his obvious talents.

Ok.

pedro
05-14-2010, 05:43 PM
His issue was throwing the ball. I didnt say it would have worked but its just something I said I would have maybe tried him at.

I don't understand how you can think that a guy who is incapable of making good throws from third would be able to make many of the throws required to play second base such as turning a DP or going up the middle and throwing across his body. That just doesn't make sense to me. I think moving him to second would have been an incredibly bad idea. I'd venture to guess the Reds did too and that's why they never tried it. Left field makes more sense but I don't think the Reds liked his makeup as a player and that's why they cut bait.

pedro
05-14-2010, 05:44 PM
I liked Encarnacion, but each time he would appear to flash serious promise, something would happen that would disappoint and set him back. Similarly, I also was cautiously optimistic on Stewart and would rather have seen the Reds keep him if at all possible, but thus far he hasn't done anything to warrant anybody missing him.

Scott Rolen, meanwhile, had always been one of my favorite non-Reds. I'm not a person who dives too much into "little things" or "intangibles" but Scott Rolen plays baseball how I prefer to see ballplayers play. In short, the guy just does everything well, and I love that in a player.

Despite not having great speed, he's one of the best baserunners I've ever seen in terms of moving from first to third on singles, scoring from second on singles, etc. Quite a few years ago I remember seeing some statistics that tried to quantify that type of baserunning, and not surprisingly Rolen's name was always amongst the leaders. It also hasn't surprised me that I'm seeing guys like Votto and Bruce take a similar approach on the bases as Rolen, especially since Rolen was acquired. There's value in that type of stuff somewhere.

FWIW, I'm not buying the UZR numbers for Rolen this year. He's arguably one of the greatest defensive third basemen ever, and while his range has declined somewhat due to age, he's still flashing leather over there that I haven't seen from a Reds third baseman in I don't know how long.

The Reds made that trade to fix a perceived weakness at third base, a weakness I probably agree existed, and they targeted a guy who would be able to help in a whole bunch of ways. So far, I have to believe the trade has worked out exactly how the Reds hoped when they made the deal. Moving forward, so long as Rolen remains healthy and on the field, I have to believe the trade will work out exactly how the Reds hoped.

There isn't a question in my mind, the Reds are a better team right now in 2010 due to that trade.

I agree whole heartedly.

GIDP
05-14-2010, 05:46 PM
I just said it would be worth a shot. His issue was throwing across the diamond almost like he over thought it. I dont want to be a huge issue just saying I thought it was worth a look.

The view of Edwin as a person is fine with me. I dont care im just talking about maybe trying to find other places for him to play. Its not that big of a topic.

pedro
05-14-2010, 05:49 PM
I just said it would be worth a shot. His issue was throwing across the diamond almost like he over thought it. I dont want to be a huge issue just saying I thought it was worth a look.

The view of Edwin as a person is fine with me. I dont care im just talking about maybe trying to find other places for him to play. Its not that big of a topic.

I'm not knocking him as a person or suggesting he's stupid. He never seemed like a jerk or anything and I don't know the guy. Some guys are just more mentally aware on the field than others and EE just wasn't one of those guys.

GIDP
05-14-2010, 05:57 PM
I'm not knocking him as a person or suggesting he's stupid. He never seemed like a jerk or anything and I don't know the guy. Some guys are just more mentally aware on the field than others and EE just wasn't one of those guys.

I didnt think you mean it like that either.

kaldaniels
05-14-2010, 06:00 PM
2 Things that people talk about as fact but really aren't

1) What teams were truly in on a Rolen deal last year (and if you take the word of a big league GM at 100 percent you're misguided)

2) What Zach Stewart's true worth was in late 2009

camisadelgolf
05-14-2010, 09:32 PM
I doubt this is true, because well, its against baseball's rules. If the extension were agreed upon, it would have been done as part of the trade.
TheNext44 already covered it, but another scenario is this: Scott Rolen approached the Blue Jays and said he wanted to go back to a team in the Midwest. He may have also mentioned that he wouldn't extend a deal with the Jays, but he was open to doing an extension with either the Reds, White Sox, or some other team. The Reds aren't allowed to ask Rolen about that, but if the Blue Jays reveal that part to the Reds, is it technically breaking a rule?

kpresidente
05-15-2010, 10:14 AM
Uh, huh. Forget what the numbers say. Numbers lie. Rolen's been so much better because, well, you know, I didn't like EE. He didn't try. He didn't talk to the media enough. And, you know, it's not scoring more runs than the other guy that wins games, it's how hard you try, and if you, you know, love the game and stuff, that's what really matters.

HAHA!


but Scott Rolen plays baseball how I prefer to see ballplayers play

Dusty would be proud.

HokieRed
05-15-2010, 10:22 AM
TheNext44 already covered it, but another scenario is this: Scott Rolen approached the Blue Jays and said he wanted to go back to a team in the Midwest. He may have also mentioned that he wouldn't extend a deal with the Jays, but he was open to doing an extension with either the Reds, White Sox, or some other team. The Reds aren't allowed to ask Rolen about that, but if the Blue Jays reveal that part to the Reds, is it technically breaking a rule?


I think this is a good reading of what perhaps happened but it would seem to me that no revealing needed even to be done--what you suggest just seems implicit in Rolen's desire for the trade. I suspect nothing needed to be said.

Plus Plus
05-15-2010, 12:37 PM
Uh, huh. Forget what the numbers say. Numbers lie. Rolen's been so much better because, well, you know, I didn't like EE. He didn't try. He didn't talk to the media enough. And, you know, it's not scoring more runs than the other guy that wins games, it's how hard you try, and if you, you know, love the game and stuff, that's what really matters.

HAHA!



Dusty would be proud.

EE is terrible at baseball and Rolen is very good. Even a cursory look at their numbers will display that vividly. I'm not sure if there is anything more to be discussed between the two players beyond that.

pedro
05-15-2010, 04:34 PM
Uh, huh. Forget what the numbers say. Numbers lie. Rolen's been so much better because, well, you know, I didn't like EE. He didn't try. He didn't talk to the media enough. And, you know, it's not scoring more runs than the other guy that wins games, it's how hard you try, and if you, you know, love the game and stuff, that's what really matters.

HAHA!



Dusty would be proud.


Just because you don't agree doesn't give you license to act like a jerk. It doesn't bring anything to the conversation.

Further, numbers don't even back up your argument. EE has been bad for the last two years.

GIDP
05-15-2010, 04:55 PM
and I cant get into the ORG because im "confrontational"

:(

jojo
05-15-2010, 08:08 PM
Uh, huh. Forget what the numbers say. Numbers lie. Rolen's been so much better because, well, you know, I didn't like EE. He didn't try. He didn't talk to the media enough. And, you know, it's not scoring more runs than the other guy that wins games, it's how hard you try, and if you, you know, love the game and stuff, that's what really matters.

HAHA!



Dusty would be proud.

Rolen is on pace to be about 1.5 to 2 WAR better than EE over 600 PAs this season and that's with Rolen having a UZR that is significantly worse than his usual defensive value.

Those that disagree with the trade have to look at other aspects to argue against it..

Redhook
05-16-2010, 09:07 AM
I can't believe anybody at this point would even question what a huge upgrade Rolen has been over EE.

I agree, it is mindboggling. Rolen, although aging, is a first-class professional baseball player. EE is horrendous defensively and an offensive enigma. EE just doesn't have "it" when it comes to baseball. At various times, he just looks like he's on vacation out there. I'm so happy EE isn't on the Reds anymore.

kpresidente
05-16-2010, 10:27 AM
Rolen is on pace to be about 1.5 to 2 WAR better than EE over 600 PAs this season and that's with Rolen having a UZR that is significantly worse than his usual defensive value.

Those that disagree with the trade have to look at other aspects to argue against it..

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.

kpresidente
05-16-2010, 11:02 AM
Just because you don't agree doesn't give you license to act like a jerk. It doesn't bring anything to the conversation.

Further, numbers don't even back up your argument. EE has been bad for the last two years.

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.

GIDP
05-16-2010, 11:20 AM
Rolen and Edwins bats are pretty equal, or they were up until this year.

Scrap Irony
05-16-2010, 11:27 AM
Two straight years of sub-replacement level offensive production-- even in small sample sizes-- means he's far less likely to project to his offensive numbers. His glove, if anything, has gotten worse. Meanwhile, his price tag rose substantially.

Encarnacion has gotten worse the more he's been subjected to major league pitching. That happens (Willie Greene says hi.)

jojo
05-16-2010, 11:40 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.

If comparing true talent, throw out the "on pace" if the point is to be fair and unbiased...

Using projected UZR for defense and projected wOBA for offense, EE qwould be projected to be a 1.7 WAR player and Rolen a 3.7 WAR player over 600 PAs worth of playing time.

A 2 WAR difference is kind of huge.

camisadelgolf
05-16-2010, 11:56 AM
Don't underestimate defense. EE is easily one of the worst defensive third basement in MLB while Rolen is one of the best (or at least above-average); that makes a huge difference.

westofyou
05-16-2010, 12:13 PM
and I cant get into the ORG because im "confrontational"

:(

Yawn

Hoosier Red
05-16-2010, 12:33 PM
It's all that matters in my book -- you score a trade by how it works out. Not by baseless speculation about what other trades *could* have been made.

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.