Nice Rolen article.. anyone regret the trade now?

[REDREAD]

First nice article on Rolen, yes it's fluff, but still a good read

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/sports/baseball/02rolen.html


“You know W.W.J.D., what would Jesus do? Here, it’s what would Scott do?” Reds outfielder Jonny Gomes said. :lol:

I don't expect Rolen to finish the season leading the league in HR, but he's been a great middle order of the batter.

In contrast, Zach Stewart is off to a rocky start. At AA: 6.02 ERA, 43IP, 48 hits allowed, 19 BB allowed. Sure, he will probably get better, but he's not looking like a sure thing right now.

Thought I'd add a poll to see what the board thinks of the trade now.. Not to rub it in or anything, just curious..

[Falls City Beer]

Don't regret this trade. Of course not.

Not acquiring a starter in the offseason, though. That one hurts.

[Degenerate39]

Don't regret this trade. Of course not.

Not acquiring a starter in the offseason, though. That one hurts.

Chapman?

[Falls City Beer]

Chapman?

Well, I was thinking a starter for this season.

[REDREAD]

Well, I was thinking a starter for this season.

It would be nice, but considering that the Reds were commited to Arroyo and Harang unless they wanted to give them away, that only leaves 3 slots.

Bailey was out of options, Ceuto pretty much has to be in the rotation too.
I'm glad there was a slot for Leake.

I guess they could've put Homer in the pen.. but IMO, it's worth letting Homer take the 5th slot to see if he's worth keeping beyond this year.. Part of the pain of a rebuilding year.

I was hoping for an OFer and a bullpen arm this offseason, but I guess Walt ran out of money. Hernandez and Caberra are looking like good moves so far.

Really, investing payflex in Rolen seems pretty smart right now. I can live with Homer if it means being able to get Rolen.

[RedsManRick]

I love this quote from Gomes:

He’s 6-5, 250, and he looks right through you when he wants to. It’s kind of like when you’re 8 years old and you disappoint your dad.

[Ghosts of 1990]

If he stays healthy he could play our Greg Vaughn from 1999 in 2010... or is Greg Vaughn-Johnny Gomes 2010? Votto would be Casey from 1999. BP is Pokey. There's a few parts different from 1999, more pitching I think. Not as good of a bullpen. But Someone has to be Greg Vaughn don't they? Veteran who kind of has a resurgence huge year that wasn't counted on

[RedsManRick]

If he stays healthy he could play our Greg Vaughn from 1999 in 2010... or is Greg Vaughn-Johnny Gomes 2010? Votto would be Casey from 1999. BP is Pokey. There's a few parts different from 1999, more pitching I think. Not as good of a bullpen. But Someone has to be Greg Vaughn don't they? Veteran who kind of has a resurgence huge year that wasn't counted on

Definitely Rolen as Vaughn. Bruce as Cameron. I'm going to go with Gomes as Da Meat Hook.

[Reds1]

was this poll put on before or after the 2 HR night. :)

I want to know who said no and why!

[RedEye]

If he stays healthy he could play our Greg Vaughn from 1999 in 2010... or is Greg Vaughn-Johnny Gomes 2010? Votto would be Casey from 1999. BP is Pokey. There's a few parts different from 1999, more pitching I think. Not as good of a bullpen. But Someone has to be Greg Vaughn don't they? Veteran who kind of has a resurgence huge year that wasn't counted on

I can see the Rolen-Vaughn comparison in terms of leadership, but I think Votto and BP are different personalities (and much better overall players) than Casey and Pokey.

[Falls City Beer]

was this poll put on before or after the 2 HR night. :)

I want to know who said no and why!

Because it's not a move he would have made. It has nothing to do with results.

[wolfboy]

If he stays healthy he could play our Greg Vaughn from 1999 in 2010... or is Greg Vaughn-Johnny Gomes 2010? Votto would be Casey from 1999. BP is Pokey. There's a few parts different from 1999, more pitching I think. Not as good of a bullpen. But Someone has to be Greg Vaughn don't they? Veteran who kind of has a resurgence huge year that wasn't counted on

Not to nit-pick, but Vaughn was fresh off of a career high .960 OPS and 50 HR. They were counting on Vaughn, no doubt.

[edabbs44]

I think I voted undecided by mistake...I'm a yes. No brainer.

[fearofpopvol1]

was this poll put on before or after the 2 HR night. :)

I want to know who said no and why!

I did and it was an accident. I'm a HUGE fan of the trade.

[RedEye]

I voted undecided. Of course I'm happy the trade seems to be working out, but I'm not ready to make any grand pronouncements just yet. I will say, though, that moving Rolen to the cleanup spot (and BP out of it) really made this whole lineup look a lot better.

[Caveat Emperor]

It struck me tonight, watching Votto and Rolen converse on the bench, that the two of them seem to be very similar ballplayers. Couldn't ask for a better CI combo right now.

[RedEye]

It struck me tonight, watching Votto and Rolen converse on the bench, that the two of them seem to be very similar ballplayers. Couldn't ask for a better CI combo right now.

Yes, they both have a certain sangfroid that gives the lineup a gravity in the middle. Seriously.

[Will M]

I voted undecided. Of course I'm happy the trade seems to be working out, but I'm not ready to make any grand pronouncements just yet. I will say, though, that moving Rolen to the cleanup spot (and BP out of it) really made this whole lineup look a lot better.

not only has Rolen played great but Phillips has been a much much better hitter in the #2 spot than he was batting cleanup.

[dougdirt]

Loved acquiring Scott Rolen. Still believe we overpaid to get him given the circumstances.

[VR]

If Stewart was putting up the same #'s as last year, I still would have loved it.

Scott Rolen is what this team has needed for 10 years. On top of that, he can hit and field.

[fearofpopvol1]

Loved acquiring Scott Rolen. Still believe we overpaid to get him given the circumstances.

If Stewart ends up being a bust, did we overpay? If he becomes only a reliever did we overpay?

[WebScorpion]

Nice feel good article Redread, Thx! :thumbup:

[thatcoolguy_22]

I voted no because the thread title and poll question are different. I was saying "No- I do not regret the trade." Instead I said, "No- I'm not glad they made the trade."

Very tricky.

Great move by WJ. Trading prospect pitchers for proven major leaguers.

[RFS62]

If Stewart was putting up the same #'s as last year, I still would have loved it.

Scott Rolen is what this team has needed for 10 years. On top of that, he can hit and field.



Exactly right. He's been one of my favorite players for years. I was thrilled when we got him, and a lot of it had to do with his leadership qualities.

Anyone still think we didn't need an attitude adjustment over the last few years?

[RedsBaron]

I was wrong. I really questioned the wisdom of the trade at the time, given Rolen's age and injury history, and my belief that the Reds were not likely to be a contender in 2010. The trade obviously appears to have been a great move.

[Razor Shines]

I voted no because the thread title and poll question are different. I was saying "No- I do not regret the trade." Instead I said, "No- I'm not glad they made the trade."

Very tricky.

Great move by WJ. Trading prospect pitchers for proven major leaguers.

I did the same thing.

[redsmetz]

This probably is a good place to insert this tidbit. I found this on the St. Louis paper's sports blog from Bernie Miklasz:


I was thinking about the impact Scott Rolen has made on the Cincinnati Reds since Walt Jocketty acquired him last July 31. We know that Rolen still has the slick glove. And that his professionalism has been a positive and necessary influence in the Reds’ clubhouse. The surprise is the increase in Rolen’s power; he’s 9th in the NL at .549. It seems that Rolen — after all of those shoulder issues — has slowly regenerated his power. The trending supports that. In his final season as a Cardinal (2007), Rolen slugged .398. First season in Toronto, the slugging % was .431. And last season with Toronto-Cincinnati, Rolen slugged .455. So it’s been increasing. Will it last? Hard to say, but again, the arrow is pointing up. Here’s all you need to know about Rolen’s value to the Reds: since he put on their uniform, the Reds are 57-30 (.655) when he plays, and they’re 54-27 (.667) when he has at least two at-bats in a game.

[Always Red]

This probably is a good place to insert this tidbit. I found this on the St. Louis paper's sports blog from Bernie Miklasz:

this too:


"Rolen's healthy," Cardinals manager Tony La Russa said. "He's an outstanding player when he's healthy. Their manager has probably gotten more out of him than I did. I know that's true."

http://cnati.com/cincinnati-reds/rolen-makes-himself-at-home-002056/

Interesting that LaRussa can't say the name "Dusty" at the same time he is giving him a compliment!

[durl]

I'm very happy with the trade. I got to the point where I realized that EE was living off "potential" that never materialized.

But I have to be honest and say that I didn't envision Rolen to be the leader of the team, as the article seems to imply. I'm not sure why I felt that way, though. Last year, Phillips seemed to be the "leader" but I've never seen him in the leadership role. Going by what Gomes said, Rolen has the qualities that you want in a leader, especially the quality of leading by EXAMPLE.

What I think is really cool is that a guy like Gomes, who you'd think would have more of a rebel attitude, responds to a player like Rolen.

This could be a really great season.

[IowaRed]

I was wrong. I really questioned the wisdom of the trade at the time, given Rolen's age and injury history, and my belief that the Reds were not likely to be a contender in 2010. The trade obviously appears to have been a great move.

beginning in 2005, when Rolen would have been turning 30 he has played in 56,142, 112, 115, and 128 games.

Based on what RedsBaron says and the fact that we are about 50 games into the season, I'm going to wait for a final judgement on the trade

[bucksfan2]

I'm very happy with the trade. I got to the point where I realized that EE was living off "potential" that never materialized.

How many times have wee seen players live off of "potential" or "good peripherals" never to see them materialize into good MLB numbers? Its a GM's job to know when to cut bait and quite hoping.


But I have to be honest and say that I didn't envision Rolen to be the leader of the team, as the article seems to imply. I'm not sure why I felt that way, though. Last year, Phillips seemed to be the "leader" but I've never seen him in the leadership role. Going by what Gomes said, Rolen has the qualities that you want in a leader, especially the quality of leading by EXAMPLE.

There was a quote in Remember the Titans that went something like "attitude reflects leadership". I think you really see that on good teams. When BP declared himself the leader of the team I was very skeptical. You don't declare yourself a leader, you become a leader. From and outsiders point of view Rolen has brought leadership and a professional attitude towards the game of baseball. He leads by actions not but word of mouth. While I think the Rolen effect has taken upon a new life of its own, I can't discount the effect he has in the lineup. Granted his play has been outstanding (although he did boot an RBI double in last nights game).

[Cedric]

beginning in 2005, when Rolen would have been turning 30 he has played in 56,142, 112, 115, and 128 games.

Based on what RedsBaron says and the fact that we are about 50 games into the season, I'm going to wait for a final judgement on the trade

He could never play another game and it was still a great trade.

[Falls City Beer]

He could never play another game and it was still a great trade.

Indeed. This is one of the rare times when it's unequivocal who came out on top in a trade.

[RedEye]

If Stewart ends up being a bust, did we overpay? If he becomes only a reliever did we overpay?

I think you are conflating two different conversations here:

1) Whether the Reds overpaid at the time of the deal (yes, I think they absolutely did).
2) How the trade works out in the long run (we absolutely don't know for sure yet).

[edabbs44]

I think you are conflating two different conversations here:

1) Whether the Reds overpaid at the time of the deal (yes, I think they absolutely did).
2) How the trade works out in the long run (we absolutely don't know for sure yet).

I'm thinking that the "overpay" campers may want to rethink whether or not Cincy actually "overpaid". If the price to get Rolen and $$ was Stewart, Roenicke and EdE, then they paid the market price.

The other way that you can look at it is maybe Walt sold high on a guy who was having a few nice months in the minors.

[redsfan30]

He could never play another game and it was still a great trade.

Exactly.

I'd be willing to bet that 10 years from now, nobody will have ever heard of Zach Stewart or Josh Roenicke (can't remember the spelling).

Jocketty has talked time and time again of "changing the culture" around this team and under guys like Rolen, Cabrera and Gomes you can see it for your own eyes. Consider the culture officially changed.

This team certainly may not make the playoffs, but anyone who says this team isn't different than all the other "hot starts" just isn't paying attention or is holding on to the pessimistic past.

Scott Rolen has quickly become my favorite Red.

[Mario-Rijo]

Regret, hmm not yet, hopefully not at all. There's a good chance I won't regret it at all, in fact not sure we can now. But was it a good deal or not, I think it was unwise to give up what we did and I always will. You can't tell me that what we gave up for an expensive injury plagued 3B was "fair", no way no how. If Rolen comes over and continues to be injured he's not only not productive but not leading anything (guys don't follow someone on the DL), wpw could it have been a catastrophe. Huge gamble by Walt and lucky for him so far it's panning out. But he has played enough, been productive enough and given these young guys a great example to go by for good. So though it wasn't worth it at the time of the deal, it is worth it now and it will continue to pay dividends for quite a long time now. Be even better if we can keep him relatively healthy for the rest of the season and into a postseason. If he does all of that I can live with however Stewart and company progress.

But again poor use of resources on Walts part at the time but I can give him a pass since it has worked. But I can't vote as the poll doesn't really express how I feel about the deal.

[Cedric]

Regret, hmm not yet, hopefully not at all. There's a good chance I won't regret it at all, in fact not sure we can now. But was it a good deal or not, I think it was unwise to give up what we did and I always will. You can't tell me that what we gave up for an expensive injury plagued 3B was "fair", no way no how. If Rolen comes over and continues to be injured he's not only not productive but not leading anything (guys don't follow someone on the DL), wpw could it have been a catastrophe. Huge gamble by Walt and lucky for him so far it's panning out. But he has played enough, been productive enough and given these young guys a great example to go by for good. So though it wasn't worth it at the time of the deal, it is worth it now and it will continue to pay dividends for quite a long time now. Be even better if we can keep him relatively healthy for the rest of the season and into a postseason. If he does all of that I can live with however Stewart and company progress.

But again poor use of resources on Walts part at the time but I can give him a pass since it has worked. But I can't vote as the poll doesn't really express how I feel about the deal.

So Walt had no vision? Just hoping to get lucky and all that?

Doesn't really seem like something a veteran GM would do. Any trade has a risk/reward factor. I don't think the risk was very high considering the middling talent we were giving up. Fans always overvalue their own prospects.

[lollipopcurve]

Fans always overvalue their own prospects.

This is the blind spot we all have, but some of us have learned it's there.

[Cedric]

This is the blind spot we all have, but some of us have learned it's there.

Zach Stewart was mentioned seriously as TOR talent in that trade thread.

[redsfan30]

Zach Stewart was mentioned seriously as TOR talent in that trade thread.

I believe Cy Young's name was tossed out as well.

I loved this trade before Scott Rolen ever put on a Reds uniform. I'm so tired of playing the prospect game that NEVER pans out. How many "saviors" has this team had at AA over the past 10 years? How many have stepped foot on the field at Great American Ball Park? Maybe Stewart pans out....probably he doesn't. But what this team was doing for the past 10 years wasn't working and not a soul could argue that.

It was time for a different direction.

[RedEye]

Zach Stewart was mentioned seriously as TOR talent in that trade thread.

And, by many accounts, he was a TOR talent at the time of the deal.

Obviously, the value of different commodities changes over time. Next month, Rolen could throw out his back and Stewart could throw four complete-game shutouts in the high minors and be on the verge of a promotion. Heck, don't forget that EdE has also begun to pay some dividends for Toronto now, too--and he's likely going to be around a few more years than Rolen will given their ages.

All I'm saying is that for the long-term assessment of this type of deal, you have to wait a few years. I don't know what is going to happen with this deal. Arroyo for Wily Mo? I didn't like it at the time, but I think we can lay that one to rest by now--the Reds rocked out. "The Trade"? I think that one turned out how neither camp expected--almost every player involved save FeLo has turned into a complete and utter washout (Kearns and Harris still seem to have some life too, I suppose, but not much).

[Sea Ray]

I'm so tired of playing the prospect game that NEVER pans out. How many "saviors" has this team had at AA over the past 10 years? How many have stepped foot on the field at Great American Ball Park? Maybe Stewart pans out....probably he doesn't. But what this team was doing for the past 10 years wasn't working and not a soul could argue that.

It was time for a different direction.

It is nice to see a few prospects make it to GABP. This franchise developed one decent starting pitcher since Tom Browning (Tomko) and now we have the likes of Homer, Leake, Cueto and LeCure contributing to a winning baseball team. That's more than they developed in the previous quarter of a century. The Bowden era had very few 1st rd picks make it to the majors, in the 6 yrs since he left we've had 4 picks make it (Leake, Bruce, Bailey and Stubbs) and the other two have a good chance of making in to the majors (Alonso, Mesoraco). These numbers tell us a lot about why things are looking up at GABP these days

[Sea Ray]

Heck, don't forget that EdE has also begun to pay some dividends for Toronto now, too--and he's likely going to be around a few more years than Rolen will given their ages.



I'd be very surprised if Toronto kept EE next year. Currently he's their third highest paid player and he will be eligible for salary arbitration after this year. If they don't re-sign him then that tells us something about how much they value him. The Reds value Rolen enough that they did re-sign him. Think Toronto will do the same?

[RedEye]

It is nice to see a few prospects make it to GABP. This franchise developed one decent starting pitcher since Tom Browning (Tomko) and now we have the likes of Homer, Leake, Cueto and LeCure contributing to a winning baseball team. That's more than they developed in the previous quarter of a century. The Bowden era had very few 1st rd picks make it to the majors, in the 6 yrs since he left we've had 4 picks make it (Leake, Bruce, Bailey and Stubbs) and the other two have a good chance of making in to the majors (Alonso, Mesoraco). These numbers tell us a lot about why things are looking up at GABP these days

What he said. There are also so many other complementary players on the verge of meaningful contributions--Heisey, Frazier, Francisco, Maloney, Ondrusek, etc. etc. It really is refreshing compared to years past.

[Caveat Emperor]

The other way that you can look at it is maybe Walt sold high on a guy who was having a few nice months in the minors.

Which is something the Reds have consistently failed to do over the course of the so-called "Lost Decade" -- there exists a long and undistinguished history of minor leaguers who set the world on fire only to cool off (see: Smitherman, Stephen) before any value was mined, were bitten by the injury bug (see: Gardner, Richie and Pauley, Thomas) or hit the big leagues and washed out (see: Larson, Brandon).

Jocketty understands that minor leaguers are there to help you build a winning ballclub -- either by progress through your system and contributing or by being dealt for other players who can contribute. The only surefire way to ruin a team is to deal off players compulsively for marginal talent or to horde players obsessively. It's a lesson many of us who follow the organization closely (and, by extension, become attached to the prospects) could take to heart.

[VR]

Which is something the Reds have consistently failed to do over the course of the so-called "Lost Decade" -- there exists a long and undistinguished history of minor leaguers who set the world on fire only to cool off (see: Smitherman, Stephen) before any value was mined, were bitten by the injury bug (see: Gardner, Richie and Pauley, Thomas) or hit the big leagues and washed out (see: Larson, Brandon).

Jocketty understands that minor leaguers are there to help you build a winning ballclub -- either by progress through your system and contributing or by being dealt for other players who can contribute. The only surefire way to ruin a team is to deal off players compulsively for marginal talent or to horde players obsessively. It's a lesson many of us who follow the organization closely (and, by extension, become attached to the prospects) could take to heart.

Great points CE. This organization's biggest problem might be too many quality prospects nearing the majors. Or it can be there biggest strength, if they have the hutzpah to trade some of them for key pieces like Rolen.

[RedEye]

I'd be very surprised if Toronto kept EE next year. Currently he's their third highest paid player and he will be eligible for salary arbitration after this year. If they don't re-sign him then that tells us something about how much they value him. The Reds value Rolen enough that they did re-sign him. Think Toronto will do the same?

Actually, I doubt Toronto has made up their minds about EE right now. He had an injury-shortened season last year and I don't think they'd base their decision on an aberration like that. If he starts hitting, I suppose he could be a good fit for an AL team in need of a DH, right?

Anyway, that was just an example within my larger point that it is still very early to judge the long-term consequences of this deal. Yes, it has worked out better for the Reds so far than I expected--I'll grant that--but there are a lot of loose ends still to tie up.

[dougdirt]

If Stewart ends up being a bust, did we overpay? If he becomes only a reliever did we overpay?

Absolutely we did. It doesn't matter what happens after the trade happens, only what you had value wise when it was made. You can make bad decisions that work out. If I bought Google right out of the shoot but paid $175 for it when everyone else was paying $100, I still made money to this point in time, but I still overpaid for it.

[westofyou]

Absolutely we did. It doesn't matter what happens after the trade happens, only what you had value wise when it was made. You can make bad decisions that work out. If I bought Google right out of the shoot but paid $175 for it when everyone else was paying $100, I still made money to this point in time, but I still overpaid for it.

Nothing could be further from the truth, nothing.

You trade to obtain value, you don't only measure value in prospects upsides.

[RedEye]

Absolutely we did. It doesn't matter what happens after the trade happens, only what you had value wise when it was made. You can make bad decisions that work out. If I bought Google right out of the shoot but paid $175 for it when everyone else was paying $100, I still made money to this point in time, but I still overpaid for it.

Good analogy. This is pretty much my position as well.

[dougdirt]

Nothing could be further from the truth, nothing.

You trade to obtain value, you don't only measure value in prospects upsides.

It has nothing to do with prospects upsides, it has to do with just about everyone in the baseball writing world thinking the Reds overpaid at the time of the trade. Everyone liked adding Rolen, but everyone also though the Reds overpaid for it. Keith Law. Everyone at Baseball America. John Sickels. All agreed the Reds paid too much for Rolen (including Stewart in the deal).

Given what the Mariners gave up for Cliff Lee, we could have gotten him for Stewart and Alonso and maybe a lower level guy.

I fully believe the Reds overpaid at the time of the trade and nothing is going to ever change that. I also was glad to have Scott Rolen on my team the day the trade was made. Nothing will change that either.

[pedro]

Absolutely we did. It doesn't matter what happens after the trade happens, only what you had value wise when it was made. You can make bad decisions that work out. If I bought Google right out of the shoot but paid $175 for it when everyone else was paying $100, I still made money to this point in time, but I still overpaid for it.

I have a feeling that the only people valuing "google" at $175 in this analogy were the ones who weren't doing the shopping.

Stewart's potential value was never as high IMO as some folks here would like to believe, despite the chorus of naysayers among the SABRE friendly journalism community who take so much joy in taking pot shots at the Reds.

[RedEye]

you don't only measure value in prospects upsides.

No one is making such an absolutist claim here. There are many types of value in trades. It's just that at the time of the trade, a lot of us thought he paid too much in terms of one type of value. And I think the jury is still deliberating about whether on not that is the case long-term.

[westofyou]

It has nothing to do with prospects upsides, it has to do with just about everyone in the baseball writing world thinking the Reds overpaid at the time of the trade. Everyone liked adding Rolen, but everyone also though the Reds overpaid for it. Keith Law. Everyone at Baseball America. John Sickels. All agreed the Reds paid too much for Rolen (including Stewart in the deal).

Given what the Mariners gave up for Cliff Lee, we could have gotten him for Stewart and Alonso and maybe a lower level guy.

I fully believe the Reds overpaid at the time of the trade and nothing is going to ever change that. I also was glad to have Scott Rolen on my team the day the trade was made. Nothing will change that either.

Everyone eh?

Hyberbole follows that trade like a tail follows a dog

[westofyou]

No one is making such an absolutist claim here.
Really?

[Brutus]

Absolutely we did. It doesn't matter what happens after the trade happens, only what you had value wise when it was made. You can make bad decisions that work out. If I bought Google right out of the shoot but paid $175 for it when everyone else was paying $100, I still made money to this point in time, but I still overpaid for it.

The point of an investment is to make money, is it not? The point of a trade is to get better either now or later, is it not?

Forget value. The goal of a trade is to improve your ball club. If you acquire a player that helps you and trade a player that winds up not helping someone else, then it's a good trade. The results should and do matter. You can't only look at 'perceived' value as the basis of a trade. That's silly.

If you paid $100 instead of $175 for Google but the company goes bankrupt, it doesn't matter that you bought for a good rate. You still lose money.

[VR]

I think the element that hasn't been factored is that the trade was more about relieving themselves from Encarnacion as it was about acquiring Rolen.

[dougdirt]

The point of an investment is to make money, is it not? The point of a trade is to get better either now or later, is it not?

Forget value. The goal of a trade is to improve your ball club. If you acquire a player that helps you and trade a player that winds up not helping someone else, then it's a good trade. The results should and do matter. You can't only look at 'perceived' value as the basis of a trade. That's silly.

If you paid $100 instead of $175 for Google but the company goes bankrupt, it doesn't matter that you bought for a good rate. You still lose money.

Sure, but what if I took my $75 saved (Stewart) and added some more of my money (say Alonso and Sulbaran or something similar) and got Cliff Lee (or some company you want to keep for the stock example), while also still having my google stock (Rolen)?

[edabbs44]

Sure, but what if I took my $75 saved (Stewart) and added some more of my money (say Alonso and Sulbaran or something similar) and got Cliff Lee (or some company you want to keep for the stock example), while also still having my google stock (Rolen)?

I'm thinking that Walt paid what was needed to get Rolen. I'm pretty sure that he wasn't outfoxed by Toronto.

[bucksfan2]

Absolutely we did. It doesn't matter what happens after the trade happens, only what you had value wise when it was made. You can make bad decisions that work out. If I bought Google right out of the shoot but paid $175 for it when everyone else was paying $100, I still made money to this point in time, but I still overpaid for it.

I don't think you would hear one investor complaining about getting into Google at $175. I don't know of any investor who would be mad at almost tripling his money.

And no you didn't overpay. There are many more factors to consider than just saying "so and so overpaid for Google".

[westofyou]

Sure, but what if I took my $75 saved (Stewart) and added some more of my money (say Alonso and Sulbaran or something similar) and got Cliff Lee (or some company you want to keep for the stock example), while also still having my google stock (Rolen)?

You might have dumped that @Home stock and WordPerfect stock too.

[Brutus]

Sure, but what if I took my $75 saved (Stewart) and added some more of my money (say Alonso and Sulbaran or something similar) and got Cliff Lee (or some company you want to keep for the stock example), while also still having my google stock (Rolen)?

You are still operating under a likely faulty assumption that Stewart could have been spared and the Reds still fetching Rolen. That wasn't likely to happen. The Blue Jays said a few times after the fact that they wouldn't have made the trade without Stewart included.

[dougdirt]

I don't think you would hear one investor complaining about getting into Google at $175. I don't know of any investor who would be mad at almost tripling his money.

And no you didn't overpay. There are many more factors to consider than just saying "so and so overpaid for Google".

So you wouldn't be bothered by the fact that you paid more for something than everyone else was because you still made money even though everyone else made a lot more?

[lollipopcurve]

The point of an investment is to make money, is it not? The point of a trade is to get better either now or later, is it not?

Forget value. The goal of a trade is to improve your ball club. If you acquire a player that helps you and trade a player that winds up not helping someone else, then it's a good trade. The results should and do matter. You can't only look at 'perceived' value as the basis of a trade. That's silly.

If you paid $100 instead of $175 for Google but the company goes bankrupt, it doesn't matter that you bought for a good rate. You still lose money.

Nice.

These days it's all about sounding authoritative in the instant. The more opinionated you are about something at the moment it happens, the more credence is bestowed upon you. "Time will tell" has been replaced by "time to tell." Doesn't make folks right -- in fact, it tends to makes them wrong -- but perception becomes reality, so there you go....

On the Rolen trade, the returns at the moment give the Reds a big win. The Jays are doing fine, too, though the trade's value for them is in the medium and long term, and so far neither Stewart nor Roenicke is making positive progress. EdE flashed for a while, as he often did in Cincy, but he's back down around .230 with the usual defensive problems, so it's unlikely Toronto sees him as a true asset.

[Patrick Bateman]

To me, most of the complaints were based around Stewart being dealt. There was always different opinions on him. As of now, he can't get AA hitters out. Guy is almost 24, and probably has a future as a reliever.

The actual contract for Rolen was a good buy assuming the return for him wasn't too high. Those that held the opinion that Stewart had major top 3 rotation potential aren't going to like the trade.

But based on how he has performed since he left the Reds organization, isn't it possible that there was a serious misvaluation of his talents when he was a Red? Is it possible that the bulk of MLB didn't consider him to be much of a stud? In that case, at the time of the trade, there's probably a very good chance that the Reds or much of MLB saw the Reds trading anything more than a few suspects for a good contract of a bonafide MLB starter. At the time, with everything we know, that would have arguably been a great trade without even getting into the whole results debate.

This is likely just a case of people having different opinions on prospect's future. There is so much noise in evaluating prospects that it's easy to see why there are different viewpoints. In this case, it's clear the Reds weren't in love with him, and as of now, they are looking pretty cool.

[Always Red]

These days it's all about sounding authoritative in the instant.
The more opinionated you are about something at the moment it happens, the more credence is bestowed upon you.

yep, repeated for emphasis.

And if you can get enough people to agree with you, then you can always be right.

[bucksfan2]

So you wouldn't be bothered by the fact that you paid more for something than everyone else was because you still made money even though everyone else made a lot more?

But at what cost? It looks like Google's IPO was around $100. Its my understanding that it is difficult to get in on the initial stages of an IPO. I may be wrong but I am assuming that. Lets say you like the company and its business model but you don't know how it will do as a public traded company. You also have the tech bubble collapse in the back of your mind and wanted to see how the stock reacted during its initial stages of trading.

NO I wouldn't be mad that I got the stock at $175 instead of $100 because there was a REASON behind it. Maybe I decided to take away some risk and buy an option on Google. At the same time I think I would be a little more upset with myself if I didn't sell the stock when it got to $600+ than worrying about a "so called" premium I paid in the beginning. Heck as a savy investor I would have taken that extra $75/share and pored it into a solid, dividend earning stock named Citi Bank or Bank of America.

One thing that you are assuming is the Reds could have gotten Rolen for much less. They aren't the only team playing in the Midwest and the Blue Jays didn't have to trade Rolen. Would you rather have paid a premium on Rolen ($175/share) or miss out on him all together (no Google stock)? It is very possible that the J.P. Ricciardi wasn't going to trade Rolen to the Reds without getting Stewart in return. He wasn't going to do it in the days leading up to the deadline, the day of the deadline, or before the start of 2010. If you want something sometimes you have to pay an apparent premium for it.

[pedro]

You might have dumped that @Home stock and WordPerfect stock too.

Yup, and AA pitching prospects more than often turn into webvan, not google.

[TheNext44]

My grandfather always said that if you can afford something and it makes you happy, it's worth it.

The Reds acquiring Scott Rolen makes me happy. The Reds could afford to lose what they gave up to get him. Ergo, the trade was worth making.

[Brutus]

My grandfather always said that if you can afford something and it makes you happy, it's worth it.

The Reds acquiring Scott Rolen makes me happy. The Reds could afford to lose what they gave up to get him. Ergo, the trade was worth making.

Well said. The hand-wringing over losing a guy that doesn't even have a consensus of TOR starter, No. 3 starter or reliever is unnecessary in getting someone that currently is one of the best 3B in the entire majors.

[BearcatShane]

This one time, the Reds traded Zach Ward for Kyle Lohse. People were upset. Where is Zach Ward now?

Some might say what does that trade have to do with this one and that would be correct, but my point is less than 25% of 1st round picks make it to the show, I wonder what the percentage is on sandwhich and 2nd round picks? The Reds thought they could trade a prospect that might or might not make it for a proven player who at worse provided a decent bat and glove and great leadership for a couple years, thay wanted the 2010 Reds to get better and learn from a pro. Mission accomplished.

[dougdirt]

Yup, and AA pitching prospects more than often turn into webvan, not google.

It doesn't matter what they turn into, it matters what you could have turned them into at the time. The Reds did turn Zach Stewart into about $4M cash. They could have turned him into (along with Alonso and a lesser peice) into Cliff Lee, while still getting Rolen.

[edabbs44]

It doesn't matter what they turn into, it matters what you could have turned them into at the time. The Reds did turn Zach Stewart into about $4M cash. They could have turned him into (along with Alonso and a lesser peice) into Cliff Lee, while still getting Rolen.

I have a feeling what you are going to say, but can you expand on the bolded part above?

[westofyou]

It doesn't matter what they turn into, it matters what you could have turned them into at the time. The Reds did turn Zach Stewart into about $4M cash. They could have turned him into (along with Alonso and a lesser peice) into Cliff Lee, while still getting Rolen.

yeah and if my aunt had nads she'd be my uncle, woulda, coulda, shoulda, don't mean squat.

Must be hard for you to say you could have been wrong, i'd suggest it become less so, it's a BIG part of life.

[dougdirt]

yeah and if my aunt had nads she'd be my uncle, woulda, coulda, shoulda, don't mean squat.

Must be hard for you to say you could have been wrong, i'd suggest it become less so, it's a BIG part of life.

Well if your aunt was born with nads, then sure. But that isn't close to a good analogy to the situation being discussed. The Reds likely could have had both Rolen and Cliff Lee if they wanted them. All it would have taken was money to pay them. Instead, they sold Zach Stewart for $4M.

I am out of this topic though. I believe what I believe. You can believe what you want. No one is changing their standpoint.

[pedro]

Well if your aunt was born with nads, then sure. But that isn't close to a good analogy to the situation being discussed. The Reds likely could have had both Rolen and Cliff Lee if they wanted them. All it would have taken was money to pay them. Instead, they sold Zach Stewart for $4M.

Oh please.

You really ought to be a GM then because you're wasting your time on the intranets.

[medford]

I did and it was an accident. I'm a HUGE fan of the trade.

I'm in the same boat. Advice for future polls: have the poll questin follow the same line as the thread title, ie the thread title was do you regret the rolen trade now? but the poll title was do you approve of the trade, yes or no.

I hit no, thinking I was responding to the thread title.

advice for future poll takers: read the actual question of the poll so you can properly respond :)

You can change my no to a yes.

[westofyou]

Well if your aunt was born with nads, then sure. But that isn't close to a good analogy to the situation being discussed. The Reds likely could have had both Rolen and Cliff Lee if they wanted them. All it would have taken was money to pay them. Instead, they sold Zach Stewart for $4M.

I am out of this topic though. I believe what I believe. You can believe what you want. No one is changing their standpoint.

You're a crack up Doug

[BearcatShane]

So is Walt Jocketty dumb or something? Is he not a capable GM? If Walt could of gotten Rolen and kept Stewart why didn't he?

[dougdirt]

So is Walt Jocketty dumb or something? Is he not a capable GM? If Walt could of gotten Rolen and kept Stewart why didn't he?

Because the team didn't want to pay Rolen $4M last year.

[BearcatShane]

Because the team didn't want to pay Rolen $4M last year.

Right. So they basically sold Stewart for 4 million dollars?

[dougdirt]

Right. So they basically sold Stewart for 4 million dollars?

Essentially, yes.

[TheNext44]

Well if your aunt was born with nads, then sure. But that isn't close to a good analogy to the situation being discussed. The Reds likely could have had both Rolen and Cliff Lee if they wanted them. All it would have taken was money to pay them. Instead, they sold Zach Stewart for $4M.

I am out of this topic though. I believe what I believe. You can believe what you want. No one is changing their standpoint.

Let's assume you are correct, that Stewart was included to only make the money work. That means that Jocketty really couldn't have acquired Rolen without including Stewart, because he wouldn't have even been able to get his own owner to sign off on it, without the money being right.

In this day and age, teams don't trade players, they trade contracts. Money, unfortunately has more to do with trades than talent these days. If money was the reason why Stewart was included, that means that he absolutely had to be included for the deal to happen. It's sucks, but that's the way it is today.

[edabbs44]

The Reds likely could have had both Rolen and Cliff Lee if they wanted them. All it would have taken was money to pay them. Instead, they sold Zach Stewart for $4M.

In your scenario, you would have to assume more than a few things. Which is troublesome.

[edabbs44]

Essentially, yes.

Where does this come from?

[BearcatShane]

Essentially, yes.

Right. In my opinion Stewart at best becomes a great setup man or above average closer that might make it to a couple All Star Games. And Jocketty was able to sell him for 4 million dollars. Thats executive of the year stuff right there folks.

[RedEye]

Really?

Really.

[westofyou]

Where does this come from?

Assumptionville, it's a big city in the state of "I'd have done this" unfortunatley it's nowhere close to reality.

[Boss-Hog]

Let's keep this discussion going without letting matters get personal between posters, please.

[pedro]

Right. In my opinion Stewart at best becomes a great setup man or above average closer that might make it to a couple All Star Games. And Jocketty was able to sell him for 4 million dollars. Thats executive of the year stuff right there folks.

I tend to agree.

When someone sells high and the stock crashes he's called a genius, not a moron because a bunch of other folks thought the stock was more valuable than it turned out to be.

Now maybe Stewart's price climbs back up. Who knows? But right now it looks like Jocketty sold high.

[Puffy]

To me, most of the complaints were based around Stewart being dealt. There was always different opinions on him. As of now, he can't get AA hitters out. Guy is almost 24, and probably has a future as a reliever.

The actual contract for Rolen was a good buy assuming the return for him wasn't too high. Those that held the opinion that Stewart had major top 3 rotation potential aren't going to like the trade.

But based on how he has performed since he left the Reds organization, isn't it possible that there was a serious misvaluation of his talents when he was a Red? Is it possible that the bulk of MLB didn't consider him to be much of a stud? In that case, at the time of the trade, there's probably a very good chance that the Reds or much of MLB saw the Reds trading anything more than a few suspects for a good contract of a bonafide MLB starter. At the time, with everything we know, that would have arguably been a great trade without even getting into the whole results debate.

This is likely just a case of people having different opinions on prospect's future. There is so much noise in evaluating prospects that it's easy to see why there are different viewpoints. In this case, it's clear the Reds weren't in love with him, and as of now, they are looking pretty cool.

Absolutely. Maybe, just maybe, Walt Jocketty knows what he is doing and knows which prospects to keep and which he feels he can trade. In all his trades the one true superstar that he traded away to get value was Danny Haren. But that balances out when you look at how he acquired Adam Wainwright for JD Drew. But look at what he gave up for McGwire, for Edmonds, for Larry Walker, for Rolen the first time. He has consistently given up the right guys (highly thought of guys at the time) for good players.

This wasn't Jocketty's first rodeo.

[edabbs44]

I tend to agree.

When someone sells high and the stock crashes he's called a genius, not a moron because a bunch of other folks thought the stock was more valuable than it turned out to be.

Now maybe Stewart's price climbs back up. Who knows? But right now it looks like Jocketty sold high.

Yep yep. Also, Stewart got a little roughed up after the trade, I wonder if his stock would have been as high in December as it was in July.

[Scrap Irony]

With all this talk of Lee, why is no one mentioning that Jocketty wanted Rolen?

It's Rolen that's been the leader (according to the team) of a turnaround that is making Cincinnati a pretty popular pick for the Wild Card. It's Rolen that, right now, has the BEST numbers of any 3B in the National League (with possible apologies to Ryan Zimmerman). It's Rolen that restructured his deal so that Jocketty had enough wiggle room to grab Chapman, Cabrera, and Gomes (at least in part).

Screw the hypothetical Lee, man.

Rolen makes the deal a good one.

[Mario-Rijo]

So Walt had no vision? Just hoping to get lucky and all that?

Doesn't really seem like something a veteran GM would do. Any trade has a risk/reward factor. I don't think the risk was very high considering the middling talent we were giving up. Fans always overvalue their own prospects.

I didn't say he didn't have any vision. I assume he expected a solid though unspectacular bat who defended well and would give these guys some much needed guidance (in his opinion). His bat has played much better than what anyone in their right mind should have expected and so far he hasn't spent a ton of time on the DL. If he starts finding himself on the DL often people will change their tune again to "shouldn't have made that deal", especially if Stewart starts getting it back together again. I don't believe he is middling talent as a matter of fact his talent is definitely not middling (perhaps his skill level isn't on par yet) and at the time his worth was more than most who got dealt for better at the same time. If he was being overvalued it wasn't by the fans so much as the "experts". Guys get drafted early on potential, they acquire value on their potential and he had plenty of potential at the time so I think some here are undervaluing him just because it suits their argument.

Personally I was hoping they would have done a deal with Seattle for Beltre or waited until last offseason and signed him (if they wanted too much in prospects). But Rolens leadership qualities got him the gig and it is a trade that so far has worked out fine for Walt but it definitely had/has risk.

[OnBaseMachine]

I love me some Scott Rolen and I like that Dusty is giving him some days off to keep him fresh but does he have to sit him in every day game? Last Sunday, Dusty rested three of the starting eight position players and the Reds ended up getting shutout in 10 innings. Fast forward to today and he's resting Rolen and another starter, and that doesn't include the catcher. Again, I'm glad to see Dusty giving Rolen days off but I don't think he needs to rest him during every day game. The Reds play another day game on Thursday which means Rolen will be out of the lineup in two of the next five games.

IMO, the Reds don't have the depth to rest two and three starters on the same day. It hurt them last Sunday. Hopefully today is a different story.

Edit - I'd like to see the Reds go out and acquire a guy like Russell Branyan who can fill in at 3B when Rolen needs a day off.

[Degenerate39]

YouTube - Proud Dusty (Rolen on the River) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mpx1QD6SbA)

[Big Klu]

I love me some Scott Rolen and I like that Dusty is giving him some days off to keep him fresh but does he have to sit him in every day game? Last Sunday, Dusty rested three of the starting eight position players and the Reds ended up getting shutout in 10 innings. Fast forward to today and he's resting Rolen and another starter, and that doesn't include the catcher. Again, I'm glad to see Dusty giving Rolen days off but I don't think he needs to rest him during every day game. The Reds play another day game on Thursday which means Rolen will be out of the lineup in two of the next five games.

IMO, the Reds don't have the depth to rest two and three starters on the same day. It hurt them last Sunday. Hopefully today is a different story.

Edit - I'd like to see the Reds go out and acquire a guy like Russell Branyan who can fill in at 3B when Rolen needs a day off.

Not only are the Reds playing a day game after a night game today, but they also have a flight after the game. Today is a good day to give Rolen a day off. Obviously, it's also a good day to give Hernandez a day off. I'm a little surprised that Gomes is off today, but the Reds have some depth in the outfield, and it also improves the OF defense for a flyball pitcher (Arroyo).

[Ron Madden]

The Reds seem to have come out on the best end of the deal.

I love Scott Rolen, my main concern was Rolens health. I thought trading for a 34 year old third baseman with a bad back was a mistake. I was wrong about that, Rolen has been able to play almost everyday.

[fearofpopvol1]

I love me some Scott Rolen and I like that Dusty is giving him some days off to keep him fresh but does he have to sit him in every day game? Last Sunday, Dusty rested three of the starting eight position players and the Reds ended up getting shutout in 10 innings. Fast forward to today and he's resting Rolen and another starter, and that doesn't include the catcher. Again, I'm glad to see Dusty giving Rolen days off but I don't think he needs to rest him during every day game. The Reds play another day game on Thursday which means Rolen will be out of the lineup in two of the next five games.

IMO, the Reds don't have the depth to rest two and three starters on the same day. It hurt them last Sunday. Hopefully today is a different story.

Edit - I'd like to see the Reds go out and acquire a guy like Russell Branyan who can fill in at 3B when Rolen needs a day off.

I am totally fine with Rolen having the day off today. I am fine with Hernandez too. BUT...as for Gomes having the day off, how about Heisey getting a start instead of Nix?

[WebScorpion]

With his home run yesterday, Scott moved into a tie for the NL lead in HR! :eek:

He's making Jocketty look good. :thumbup:

[Sea Ray]

Actually, I doubt Toronto has made up their minds about EE right now. He had an injury-shortened season last year and I don't think they'd base their decision on an aberration like that. If he starts hitting, I suppose he could be a good fit for an AL team in need of a DH, right?

Anyway, that was just an example within my larger point that it is still very early to judge the long-term consequences of this deal. Yes, it has worked out better for the Reds so far than I expected--I'll grant that--but there are a lot of loose ends still to tie up.

Well now that Toronto has DFA'd EE, one of those loose ends just got tied up.

[REDREAD]

Absolutely we did. It doesn't matter what happens after the trade happens, only what you had value wise when it was made. You can make bad decisions that work out. If I bought Google right out of the shoot but paid $175 for it when everyone else was paying $100, I still made money to this point in time, but I still overpaid for it.

The problem with assigning value "At the time" is that it's purely subjective.

Some people were convinced that Stewart was a lock for being a #1 starter at the time of the trade. I don't agree, but I can respect that opinion. Those people are never going to be convinced that the Reds paid market value for Rolen.

IMO, Walt Jocketty certainly didn't see Stewart that way. I doubt Toronto did earlier. IIRC, Stewart was a reliever his last year in college, started a while in the low minors and was briefly in AAA as a reliever (for either showcasing or a possible call up last year). He's got potential, but I'm far from convinced that his value was even as high as Scott Williamson's value in 1998 (when Williamson was in AAA). Now in all fairness, I have not seen Stewart pitch, so perhaps I am undervaluing him.

[kaldaniels]

Would anyone still go back in time and undo this deal, or can RZ be in 100 percent argeement that this was a good move - resultswise - for the Reds.

[OnBaseMachine]

Congrats to Scott Rolen on his 300th career HR tonight. Future Hall of Famer.

[VR]

Congrats to Scott Rolen on his 300th career HR tonight. Future Hall of Famer.

Great interview after the game....a bit choked up about his parents being there.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

I have mentioned this before (a month or so ago), but I like my crow. It's yummy.

I admit, that I was one of the few that posted (over and over again) my dislike for the trade when it went down.

I thought they gave up too much, at the time. I still think they did, but I love the fact that Rolen is a Red and if that was the only way to get him, I'll take it.

One of favorites. Ever.

[TRF]

I thought the Reds overpaid. No way did I see Rolen hopping in the wayback machine, travelling to 2004 and playing like this.

I love that he's a Red and am fuming inside that Lindner/Allen didn't free up the money when JimBo went after him.

[OnBaseMachine]

I have mentioned this before (a month or so ago), but I like my crow. It's yummy.

I admit, that I was one of the few that posted (over and over again) my dislike for the trade when it went down.

I thought they gave up too much, at the time. I still think they did, but I love the fact that Rolen is a Red and if that was the only way to get him, I'll take it.

One of favorites. Ever.

Same here. I've always been a Scott Rolen fan (even when he was a Cardinal) and always wanted him in a Reds uniform. I'm thrilled to finally have him here. My only complaint with the trade was including Zach Stewart in the deal but Rolen's play this season has helped ease that pain. He's playing like a MVP right now. He deserves to make the All-Star team.

[Ron Madden]

I have mentioned this before (a month or so ago), but I like my crow. It's yummy.

I admit, that I was one of the few that posted (over and over again) my dislike for the trade when it went down.

I thought they gave up too much, at the time. I still think they did, but I love the fact that Rolen is a Red and if that was the only way to get him, I'll take it.

Add my name to the list because I'm in the same boat as BuckeyeRedleg.

[GAC]

I don't think it was wrong for people to question the acquisition of Rolen AT THE TIME, nor do they need to be eating crow, because their logic was based on some pretty sound reasoning that a majority on here would agree with.... you have an aging, mid-30s player whose injury-proneness and age was forcing (limiting) his playing time to around 115-120 games/season over the last few years, and whose skills were starting to show some decline.

He's playing rejuvenated here in Cincy. Great! But even those that may have supported the trade had no idea whatsoever he'd be performing like he has so far, because his current performance goes against most logic. ;)

[LincolnparkRed]

"Fletch: It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man. "

I think GAC has it pegged, you didn't have to like it then and you don't have to say you're wrong now, when the main piece of the trade has rediscovered skills that he appeared to have lost somewhere after 2004.

[Raisor]

I like Scott Rolen. He's cool.

go reds.

[kaldaniels]

"Fletch: It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man. "

I think GAC has it pegged, you didn't have to like it then and you don't have to say you're wrong now, when the main piece of the trade has rediscovered skills that he appeared to have lost somewhere after 2004.

If Zack Stewart was in Toronto with a 2.00 ERA I find it very doubtful that those who didn't like the trade would allow those who did like it to say "well Zach discovered skills" so I wasn't wrong. Sorry if I'm not politically correct but the fact is Stewart was way overvalued by many here. I didn't expect Rolen to have 17 HR now either, but I thought he would be a huge upgrade, which he is.

[bucksfan2]

If Zack Stewart was in Toronto with a 2.00 ERA I find it very doubtful that those who didn't like the trade would allow those who did like it to say "well Zach discovered skills" so I wasn't wrong. Sorry if I'm not politically correct but the fact is Stewart was way overvalued by many here. I didn't expect Rolen to have 17 HR now either, but I thought he would be a huge upgrade, which he is.

I think when debates get polarized with two sides and very little in between outcomes end up like this. Even after Rolen has been great this season people are hanging on "the Reds paid too much" in regards to the trade. Regarding trades today, one side must win and one side must lose. There is very little, if any, middle ground.

[Ltlabner]

There are two sides of the coin, the theoretical and the reality.

In theory, trading a promising prospect, a fringy prospect and a MLB player who's never quite figured it out (but could) for a good but aging player with a history of injuries and numbers in decline didn't make a lot of sense. Especially considering the money involved and the screams of the team as to how poor they were.

I don't think those of us opposed to the concept of the deal were that out in left field, nor could you make a really strong case for the deal based on the theory of it. And since all you can discuss in days after a trade is the theory of it...well....you make your opinions based on it and move forward.

The reality is Walt is talented at bringing in guys from the dustbin that make you say "huh?" but ultimately give you a couple of years of great service. Based on his experience in general and directly with Rolen he was willing to take the gamble that the reality would be better than the theory.

Fortunatley Walt is graded on reality and thus far those of us who didn't like the concept of the deal have been proven wrong. His bet has paid off. Now, Rolen could sprain is back tomorrow and Stewart and the other guys could start putting up HOF numbers. Then we'll have a different reality to discuss. But until then, while the deal made little sense on paper, it's come through in spades for the Reds.

[VR]

I absolutely loved it....because it got rid of EE and brought in a strong character that could be a good leader for the younger Reds. The culture in Cincy had to change, and this should be looked at as a keystone move to enable that. The MVP caliber play is only gravy, I would have never guessed he had that in him for even a 1/2 season.

I still think the Jays can 'win' as well if Stewart and Roenicke get righted. Rolen wasn't a right fit for them...and they were able to evaluate EE quickly enough to not invest too much in him being 'the guy'.

[Sea Ray]

If Zack Stewart was in Toronto with a 2.00 ERA I find it very doubtful that those who didn't like the trade would allow those who did like it to say "well Zach discovered skills" so I wasn't wrong. Sorry if I'm not politically correct but the fact is Stewart was way overvalued by many here. I didn't expect Rolen to have 17 HR now either, but I thought he would be a huge upgrade, which he is.

I don't know if you're politically correct or not but I see it the way you do

[Scrap Irony]

What Jocketty should receive credit for (and those that panned the trade probably overlooked or were dead wrong about) isn't just that Rolen would be a fairly huge upgrade to EdE, but that the Reds were close enough to competing to need him.

How many posts were dedicated not to the trade particulars, but that the Reds dealt for an old guy? A bunch.

[westofyou]

CYA mode for the torch and pitchfork crowd.

The ballpark is a workplace and the Reds needed some culture change in the workplace, sometimes cost is not always the deciding factor to any transaction.

This is one of those times I believe.

[fearofpopvol1]

Rolen is being rewarded with the night off tonight.

[Ron Madden]

What Jocketty should receive credit for (and those that panned the trade probably overlooked or were dead wrong about) isn't just that Rolen would be a fairly huge upgrade to EdE, but that the Reds were close enough to competing to need him.

How many posts were dedicated not to the trade particulars, but that the Reds dealt for an old guy? A bunch.

I was worried about trading for a third baseman in his mid 30's with a bad back, declining offensive numbers who averaged 128 games played a season over the past few years while being paid 11MM per season.

Right now I'm glad Rolen is a Cincinnati Red. :thumbup:

But I'm not ashamed of myself for having doubts. :)

[OnBaseMachine]

Nice piece from Aaron Boone on Scott Rolen and the Reds:


With pitching help on the horizon (Edinson Volquez and Homer Bailey coming back from injury) and Aroldis Chapman working his way through the minors as he transitions to the bullpen, the Reds are in great position to continue to contend for the NL Central crown. And though a young nucleus of arms and bats continues to thrive in Cincinnati, it's hard to imagine where Baker's club would be without the impressive all-around play of Scott Rolen.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/notebook/_/page/bbtn100630/baseball-tonight-clubhouse?campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines

[Sea Ray]

In my mind it was a good trade even if Rolen only put up mediocre numbers. The fact he's giving us an MVP season just makes it a slam dunk.

[Cyclone792]

Just read this below from J.P. Ricciardi regarding last year's Rolen trade. It's kind of funny looking back, but one would hope that deal wouldn't have fallen through due to a fax machine ...

http://espn.go.com/mlb/notebook/_/page/bbtn100702/baseball-tonight-clubhouse


Last year, Scott Rolen told me he wanted to be traded because his family didn't like living in Toronto. The Cincinnati Reds showed a strong interest in him from the beginning. For three weeks, we went back and forth with Cincinnati, and the deal finally got done close to the deadline.

Actually, it was almost too close to the deadline. As we were trying to send all the details to the commissioner's office, the fax machine stopped working. Here I am, kicking the fax machine, and screaming at Rolen's agent, saying, "Send the agreement again!" (Rolen had to sign off on the deal because of his no-trade clause.) It took us about five tries to finally get the fax through. We got it into the commissioner's office with less than a minute to spare.

[bucksfan2]

Just read this below from J.P. Ricciardi regarding last year's Rolen trade. It's kind of funny looking back, but one would hope that deal wouldn't have fallen through due to a fax machine ...

http://espn.go.com/mlb/notebook/_/page/bbtn100702/baseball-tonight-clubhouse

I have always thought that Ricciardi loves the attention. I would be shocked had this deal not gone down because of a fax machine. If JP was so incompetent I would have hoped Walt would have called into the commissioners office for an extension.

[Always Red]

from the article:


I always thought the whole dance between general managers was a waste of everybody's time.

This could be one reason why he is no longer a GM.

Being GM probably requires a bit of a poker faced approach. Sometimes the dance is required, in order not to show your entire hand, I would think.

[medford]

I'm surprised they actually use a fax machine and don't email pdfs of the documents back and forth. Seems a lot more efficient and less worries of having something "break down"

[westofyou]

I'm surprised they actually use a fax machine and don't email pdfs of the documents back and forth. Seems a lot more efficient and less worries of having something "break down"

They have to have signatures, which means they would have to scan them and generate the pdf, the fax machine is a one step method, while the former is multi.

[Brutus]

They have to have signatures, which means they would have to scan them and generate the pdf, the fax machine is a one step method, while the former is multi.

I have a digital copy of my signature stored as a PNG file that I simply insert into a document before creating a PDF. Then I'm able to email or fax by email the document I want (with my signature in place). Once the signature is saved after the first time, I can recreate the process quickly and efficiently.

It's pretty easy these days.

[JaxRed]

They have to have signatures, which means they would have to scan them and generate the pdf, the fax machine is a one step method, while the former is multi.

Not if you have a good scanner..... Ours will scan, create a pdf and send an email, all at once.

[westofyou]

I have a digital copy of my signature stored as a PNG file that I simply insert into a document before creating a PDF. Then I'm able to email or fax by email the document I want (with my signature in place). Once the signature is saved after the first time, I can recreate the process quickly and efficiently.

It's pretty easy these days.

True, but you have to have someone suggest the technology, set it up, and maintain it and this is MLB I suspect there still might be some mimeograph papers in some offices being used.

I've seen numerous businesses use old technolgy to do stuff that can be done easier if you know (and care) how to do it.

Problem is most folks are comfy with the tasks they have mastered, and thus continue to go to the well.

[kaldaniels]

Oh it is so on...

Email/PDF vs Fax Machine...

WHO YOU GOT?

[RedsManRick]

from the article:



This could be one reason why he is no longer a GM.

Being GM probably requires a bit of a poker faced approach. Sometimes the dance is required, in order not to show your entire hand, I would think.

A recent ESPN survey of managers said that many don't like dealing with Jocketty because he plays his cards so close to his vest and refuses to commit to anything. I can see him holding out to the last second himself.

[westofyou]

Oh it is so on...

Email/PDF vs Fax Machine...

WHO YOU GOT?

I hate fax machines myself, I'm pro electronic signature and email.

Oh and Rolen can pick it at 3rd better than any Red (even Buddy Bell) in the 3 deacdes plus that I've watched them

[VR]

I hate fax machines myself, I'm pro electronic signature and email.

Oh and Rolen can pick it at 3rd better than any Red (even Buddy Bell) in the 3 deacdes plus that I've watched them

And for those of you who didn't get to witness Mr. Bell....he was a ball pickin machine over at third. For a guy as big as Rolen to be as nimble as he is as an infielder is crazy. Watch the DP again from yesterday.....it was anything but easy, yet he lunchpailed it for the game saving play.

[Homer Bailey]

Not bumping this to discuss the merits of the trade, because one month certainly hasn't changed my opinion of the trade, but check out Rolen's numbers this month:

.250/.312/.369/.681

Seems to me that he's been fouling back a lot of pitches that he usually crushes, and his power has diminished significantly, as he has 2 home runs total between July and August in 131 AB's.

Is anyone a little worried that he's getting a bit worn down? He's played in 107 of the Reds 130 games. Is that too many? Thoughts?

[RollyInRaleigh]

He looks a little tired at the plate, but he is a competitor and has been through it before. His defense at third is still top notch and I really look for him to finish strong down the stretch. Just hope he stays healthy.

[Caveat Emperor]

Is anyone a little worried that he's getting a bit worn down? He's played in 107 of the Reds 130 games. Is that too many? Thoughts?

Pretty much the same conclusion I've reached. I think he's clearly fatiguing down the stretch. I don't know what the remedy is, other than to hope that the Reds can put some sort of cushion between themselves at St. Louis that allows them to start resting guys like Rolen ahead of the post-season.

[RedsManRick]

http://c0013474.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/x2_286dd29

[Roy Tucker]

Pretty much the same conclusion I've reached. I think he's clearly fatiguing down the stretch. I don't know what the remedy is, other than to hope that the Reds can put some sort of cushion between themselves at St. Louis that allows them to start resting guys like Rolen ahead of the post-season.

I think Dusty is trying to rest him but its difficult when you're in a pennant race. He was going to sit the last game of this past Giants series but then game 3 turned into an almost-must win for the Reds and into the lineup goes Rolen.

[15fan]

Oh and Rolen can pick it at 3rd better than any Red (even Buddy Bell) in the 3 deacdes plus that I've watched them

I'll toss another name out there. Just because.

Tony Fernandez in 1994. He only logged 762 innings at 3rd in 94, but made 2 errors in 222 chances at the hot corner.

With Larkin at short, good things happened for the Reds when the opponents hit balls to the left side of the IF that year.

[bucksfan2]

I don't know if Rolen is tired per say or just in somewhat of a funk. Players ebb and flow throughout the entire season. There are very few players that can keep it going day in day out. Rolen may need a rest or may just need to hit himself out of a funk. Either way I am not too worried about it.

[nate]

I don't know if Rolen is tired per say or just in somewhat of a funk. Players ebb and flow throughout the entire season. There are very few players that can keep it going day in day out. Rolen may need a rest or may just need to hit himself out of a funk. Either way I am not too worried about it.

Yep. Hitting is a tide.