PDA

View Full Version : Reds named 'Organization of the Year' by Baseball America



mbgrayson
12-01-2012, 01:42 AM
I was just reading through my new issue of Baseball America (December 11, 2012), and I see that the Reds have been named the 'Organization of the Year' for 2012 by Baseball America Magazine. I can't find a link yet, and I will post it when I find it.

The main thrust of the article is how many of their starters the Reds have drafted and developed themselves. A nice read.

gilpdawg
12-01-2012, 01:58 AM
And Redszone named them "Worst Organization Ever." :D

Tom Servo
12-01-2012, 02:19 AM
And Redszone named them "Worst Organization Ever." :D
They should be more like the Marlins and Pirates. :evil:

lollipopcurve
12-01-2012, 07:33 AM
The main thrust of the article is how many of their starters the Reds have drafted and developed themselves.

I've been waiting for the mainstream baseball media (meaning the outlets that cover the bogs, not BA itself) to acknowledge this. You'd think that when a small/mid market team wins 97 games and goes to the playoffs the "experts" would pick up on it. But there seems to be a blind spot in the media when it comes to seeing what has made the Reds team they are.

edabbs44
12-01-2012, 09:15 AM
Great FO performance for the past few years. Couldn't be happier.

M2
12-01-2012, 09:57 AM
The Reds are doing a lot of things right these days. What's really impressive is how quickly the system restocked after the Latos trade. It's been three decades since the Reds could boast a farm system that was this prolific.

traderumor
12-01-2012, 10:12 AM
Ironic considering just last winter, before the Latos trade, there was the ongoing joke in various forms of WJ being asleep at the switch, that Dusty is an ignoramous, and hiring Bavasi would be the end of the free world. And that from people who seem like they know what they're talking about ;) Did I leave out the rants about Buckley's drafting weaknesses?

WMR
12-01-2012, 10:15 AM
Dusty IS a bit of an ignoramus.

Can't wait till they win a playoff series.

westofyou
12-01-2012, 10:53 AM
Dusty IS an ignoramus.

Can't wait till they win a playoff series.

Nah he's not

Roy Tucker
12-01-2012, 11:05 AM
Castellini made all the difference in the world. He cares, he's involved, he's passionate, and he's good at what he does. The losing really did stop.

Makes me realize how disconnected and removed Lindner was. Nothing against the guy, but the Reds were just a minor bauble in his crown.

westofyou
12-01-2012, 11:10 AM
Castellini made all the difference in the world. He cares, he's involved, he's passionate, and he's good at what he does. The losing really did stop.

Makes me realize how disconnected and removed Lindner was. Nothing against the guy, but the Reds were just a minor bauble in his crown.

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42397)

Salvador Dali

WMR
12-01-2012, 11:17 AM
Nah he's not

I would love to see this Reds team if they were set up to absolutely maximize their potential.

I do think Castellini is a pretty great owner and a thousand times better than Lindner, obviously. I just want to see the Reds win a WS and I think Dusty is a detriment to that.

Sea Ray
12-01-2012, 11:19 AM
That's good to see. This organization does deserve credit for the team they fielded as almost all of the major parts were either home grown or acquired with home grown talent (like Phillips and Latos)

That's pretty amazing in this day and age

kaldaniels
12-01-2012, 11:23 AM
When bemoaning this decision or that decision, keep this thread in mind for some perspective guys.

Caveat Emperor
12-01-2012, 11:35 AM
Dusty IS a bit of an ignoramus.

Can't wait till they win a playoff series.

Dusty's like a crazy uncle -- you might look at him and wonder what the hell makes him tick or how he's survived this long, but at the end of the day everyone likes having him around and he's still family.

757690
12-01-2012, 11:50 AM
Dusty's like a crazy uncle -- you might look at him and wonder what the hell makes him tick or how he's survived this long, but at the end of the day everyone likes having him around and he's still family.

Great analogy.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-drunk-uncle/1371747/

_Sir_Charles_
12-01-2012, 01:38 PM
Ironic considering just last winter, before the Latos trade, there was the ongoing joke in various forms of WJ being asleep at the switch, that Dusty is an ignoramous, and hiring Bavasi would be the end of the free world. And that from people who seem like they know what they're talking about ;) Did I leave out the rants about Buckley's drafting weaknesses?

:beerme:

traderumor
12-01-2012, 02:13 PM
Dusty IS a bit of an ignoramus.

Can't wait till they win a playoff series.
That's funny, because I heard the same thing about Sparky and the now legendary BRM "not being able to win the big one" until they won it in 1975. True, they had won a playoff series, but folks weren't satisfied and needed the ring to prove them sponge worthy.

I didn't understand then, and knowing a lot more than I did as a 10 year-old, I don't understand now. I guess some just prefer to be critical, even when it involves cognitive dissonance to do so.

Bill
12-01-2012, 04:42 PM
Dusty managing the Reds seems to be the source of cognitive dissonance for many folks.

Superdude
12-01-2012, 06:26 PM
Ironic considering just last winter, before the Latos trade, there was the ongoing joke in various forms of WJ being asleep at the switch, that Dusty is an ignoramous, and hiring Bavasi would be the end of the free world. And that from people who seem like they know what they're talking about ;) Did I leave out the rants about Buckley's drafting weaknesses?

I remember ragging on Jocketty there for a while. In retrospect, he pretty much shifted the whole organizational mindset from talent accumulation to winning. Dusty and all, I'd say the team's in pretty good hands for the time being.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 07:22 AM
Ironic considering just last winter, before the Latos trade, there was the ongoing joke in various forms of WJ being asleep at the switch, that Dusty is an ignoramous, and hiring Bavasi would be the end of the free world. And that from people who seem like they know what they're talking about ;) Did I leave out the rants about Buckley's drafting weaknesses?

Considering that prior to last winter Jocketty hadn't made any significant successful moves for several years the "asleep at the switch" analogy was spot on. Maybe he was just waiting for the right time to strike. But to say Jocketty built the club was way off. Prior to last year the only true feather in his cap was the signing of Aroldis Chapman (and even that one was risky, when you take the $30 million into consideration for a middle reliever, didn't truly justify itself until 2012 when Chapman became an elite closer.) Jocketty inherited a great foundation and waited a long time until he felt the time was right to juggle some pieces and take a shot at a championship. When he finally woke up and took action his moves worked like a charm.

Dusty is an ignoramus when it comes to lineup construction and in-game strategy. Some of the most basic tenets of modern baseball are over his head. Fortunately for the Reds Dusty's people skills are outstanding.

Bryan Price is the unsung hero who has really put the Reds over the top in my opinion.

edabbs44
12-03-2012, 07:34 AM
Considering that prior to last winter Jocketty hadn't made any significant successful moves for several years the "asleep at the switch" analogy was spot on. Maybe he was just waiting for the right time to strike. But to say Jocketty built the club was way off. Prior to last year the only true feather in his cap was the signing of Aroldis Chapman (and even that one was risky, when you take the $30 million into consideration for a middle reliever, didn't truly justify itself until 2012 when Chapman became an elite closer.) Jocketty inherited a great foundation and waited a long time until he felt the time was right to juggle some pieces and take a shot at a championship. When he finally woke up and took action his moves worked like a charm.

Dusty is an ignoramus when it comes to lineup construction and in-game strategy. Some of the most basic tenets of modern baseball are over his head. Fortunately for the Reds Dusty's people skills are outstanding.

Bryan Price is the unsung hero who has really put the Reds over the top in my opinion.

Jocketty hired Price in 2009. Jocketty also didn't trade the farm for the rental of Cliff Lee or others, which allowed for the later acquisition of Latos.

Many moves are made possible by previous moves and non-moves. Everything cannot be viewed purely at that moment.

To say that he was asleep at the switch is embarrassing. It is obvious that he would've made moves if they were there at the time.

gilpdawg
12-03-2012, 08:06 AM
To say that he was asleep at the switch is embarrassing. It is obvious that he would've made moves if they were there at the time.
This. It isn't fantasy baseball. It's real easy for us to say " let's trade this guy for this guy" it's another thing to actually do it. There are a lot of moving pieces to that job and it's more than any of us can realize.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

traderumor
12-03-2012, 08:24 AM
Considering that prior to last winter Jocketty hadn't made any significant successful moves for several years the "asleep at the switch" analogy was spot on. Maybe he was just waiting for the right time to strike. But to say Jocketty built the club was way off. Prior to last year the only true feather in his cap was the signing of Aroldis Chapman (and even that one was risky, when you take the $30 million into consideration for a middle reliever, didn't truly justify itself until 2012 when Chapman became an elite closer.) Jocketty inherited a great foundation and waited a long time until he felt the time was right to juggle some pieces and take a shot at a championship. When he finally woke up and took action his moves worked like a charm.

Dusty is an ignoramus when it comes to lineup construction and in-game strategy. Some of the most basic tenets of modern baseball are over his head. Fortunately for the Reds Dusty's people skills are outstanding.

Bryan Price is the unsung hero who has really put the Reds over the top in my opinion.Yet, they've just blindly stumbled their way to division crowns with 90+ win seasons for 2 of the last 3 years. I hope your evaluator for whatever job you do is more fair in their assessment of your performance.

It's OK to think that a leader isn't doing his job the way you would do it, but to call anyone an ignoramous who clearly can manage a team (three different ones) to the playoffs, no mean feat, and to say a GM is asleep at the switch based on "no significant moves until," yet that GM has constructed a winning program, that's just plain disingenuous and reveals a level of ignorance from the one holding that opinion.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 08:30 AM
Jocketty hired Price in 2009. Jocketty also didn't trade the farm for the rental of Cliff Lee or others, which allowed for the later acquisition of Latos.

Many moves are made possible by previous moves and non-moves. Everything cannot be viewed purely at that moment.

To say that he was asleep at the switch is embarrassing. It is obvious that he would've made moves if they were there at the time.

If a GM does not make moves it is fair to ask if he is not making moves on purpose or if he is simply unable to get the job done. I am not a critic of Walt Jocketty right now, but I can clearly see why some people were prior to last year. He failed to improve the team for a stretch of several years in a row. If you can't see why that is a problem then you weren't paying attention. I don't buy the excuse that there were no opportunities available to him. Other teams were able to create ways to improve their teams while Jocketty was sitting on his hands. A good GM is able to find ways to improve the team on a regular basis, especially when they inherit a loaded farm system. I think Jocketty did a great job in 2012, but that followed several seasons where his performance was suspect. Hopefully he can remain active and continue to find and acquire upgrades.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 08:40 AM
Yet, they've just blindly stumbled their way to division crowns with 90+ win seasons for 2 of the last 3 years. I hope your evaluator for whatever job you do is more fair in their assessment of your performance.

It's OK to think that a leader isn't doing his job the way you would do it, but to call anyone an ignoramous who clearly can manage a team (three different ones) to the playoffs, no mean feat, and to say a GM is asleep at the switch based on "no significant moves until," yet that GM has constructed a winning program, that's just plain disingenuous and reveals a level of ignorance from the one holding that opinion.

Thanks for the personal insult. I don't think calling someone ignorant is worthy of the standards of the Old Red Guard.

It wasn't me who started the Jocketty is asleep at the switch bandwagon. I was just pointing out that it was not an unreasonable topic after someone said it was.

As I have said before, I think Jocketty has done a good job in the last 12 months. I also think he inherited a very strong farm system and a stellar core of young major league players. This team was bound for excellence before Jocketty took over. He did not build this team into a contender all by himself. I think most reasonable people understand that.

If you believe Jocketty did such a great job prior to 2012 then maybe you can explain the moves he made that built this team into a winner. The key components were all here when he took over with the exception of Chapman. Prior to 2012 the acquisition of Chapman was the only unquestionably good player move he had made in several years. I can certainly see why some people saw fit to question Jocketty's job performance (or lack of performance). One good move in several years is clearly quite dubious, especially when there were some glaring holes in the lineup and plenty of trading chips available and plenty of other teams finding ways to fill their holes while Jocketty couldn't.

Jocketty did a great job in 2012. I think most everyone agrees on that.

RedlegJake
12-03-2012, 08:51 AM
This. It isn't fantasy baseball. It's real easy for us to say " let's trade this guy for this guy" it's another thing to actually do it. There are a lot of moving pieces to that job and it's more than any of us can realize.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I agree. It would have been real easy for Asleep-at-the-wheel Jocketty to ruin this team with panic driven deals. I think he's steered a great course balancing now while keeping a decent looking farm for the future. He and Cast make a good team. After decades of Marge-Lindner and a string of GMs like Jimbo and OB (giving a pass to Murray and Wayne as ok but not in synch with their owners) how can you fault what Walt has done. World Series? Well anymore that's a crapshoot and does NOT say a thing to me except a team got hot and lucky at the right time. Get to the playoffs year after year and the Series will happen. Walt' s job is build a team that gets them in it. Then its on the players 100%. Well, along with some luck/momentum whatever you want to call it. To me the division title outright is the great accomplishment. The playoffs and Series are high drama and ultimate pinnacle but its like a dessert after the main meal. Extended playoffs dilutes the real value of the results to most serious baseball-holics. We want it, crave it, curse the chase all the while knowing the pure meaning of the best vs the best began being diluted in 1969. Even the single tier system was pure enough though. Now a 50/50 team can get hot and end up winning it all. So for me, Walt has done his job. Lets see if he addresses OBP at all this winter. A leadoff bridge and a cleanup answer. That would be doing his job even if the choices aren't what fans clamor for. Maybe it won't be Fowler and Willingham or a like starry combo. Maybe its a platoon mate for Stubbs and re-upping Ludwick. Whatever works. Ludwick taught me to wait for the season to unfold before screaming. But I wonder who the dickens Walt's naysayers would pick? I think maybe they just want a GM who is more exciting. More trades. More moves just to have an exciting OFFseason.

Superdude
12-03-2012, 09:09 AM
If a GM does not make moves it is fair to ask if he is not making moves on purpose or if he is simply unable to get the job done. I am not a critic of Walt Jocketty right now, but I can clearly see why some people were prior to last year. He failed to improve the team for a stretch of several years in a row. If you can't see why that is a problem then you weren't paying attention. I don't buy the excuse that there were no opportunities available to him. Other teams were able to create ways to improve their teams while Jocketty was sitting on his hands. A good GM is able to find ways to improve the team on a regular basis, especially when they inherit a loaded farm system. I think Jocketty did a great job in 2012, but that followed several seasons where his performance was suspect. Hopefully he can remain active and continue to find and acquire upgrades.

There's something to be said for sitting back and letting a good thing happen. I'm not giving him credit for inheriting a great core, but can you really argue that Jocketty hasn't played that hand extremely well? Whether he's actively improving the team or not, Jocketty seems to get the big picture better than any GM we've had in a long time.

REDREAD
12-03-2012, 09:15 AM
Considering that prior to last winter Jocketty hadn't made any significant successful moves for several years the "asleep at the switch" analogy was spot on. Maybe he was just waiting for the right time to strike. But to say Jocketty built the club was way off. Prior to last year the only true feather in his cap was the signing of Aroldis Chapman .

I think Rolen has to be considered a great move.

Yep. And another thing to consider.. After the Reds won the division in 2010, there was a lot of young talent to sort out. The Reds used 2011 to sort some of that out. Now true, they possibly missed the opportunity to "sell high" on some guys, but at the same time, they didn't foolishly count on Travis Wood to be an ace going forward or make other assumptions. They kept Janish around and bought in Valdez in case Cozart fell flat on his face.

Honestly, the slower deliberate style really paid off, as opposed to grabbing every available pitcher off possible and throwing them against the wall, hoping they'd stick.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 09:20 AM
There's something to be said for sitting back and letting a good thing happen. I'm not giving him credit for inheriting a great core, but can you really argue that Jocketty hasn't played that hand extremely well? Whether he's actively improving the team or not, Jocketty seems to get the big picture better than any GM we've had in a long time.

I can roll with the argument that Jocketty has done a good job because he didn't screw up a good thing. He inherited a very good situation and he didn't mess it up.

Jocketty gets the credit because he was in charge when a long rebuilding project that was well underway when he took over finally came to fruition during his tenure.

To me it is overly simple to claim that Jocketty is a great GM because the Reds won 97 games in 2012. You have to look a lot deeper to determine the true reasons why the team has developed so well. Jocketty is only one cog in that machine, and some other cogs were more instrumental than he.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 09:23 AM
I think Rolen has to be considered a great move.

Yep. And another thing to consider.. After the Reds won the division in 2010, there was a lot of young talent to sort out. The Reds used 2011 to sort some of that out. Now true, they possibly missed the opportunity to "sell high" on some guys, but at the same time, they didn't foolishly count on Travis Wood to be an ace going forward or make other assumptions. They kept Janish around and bought in Valdez in case Cozart fell flat on his face.

Honestly, the slower deliberate style really paid off, as opposed to grabbing every available pitcher off possible and throwing them against the wall, hoping they'd stick.

I like Scott Rolen, but the trade to acquire him doesn't look like a great move at all. The trade paid off well for a couple months immediately after the trade, but since then it has been a huge steal for the Blue Jays. I would generously consider that trade a wash for the Reds.

dfs
12-03-2012, 09:28 AM
I like Scott Rolen, but the trade to acquire him doesn't look like a great move at all. The trade paid off well for a couple months immediately after the trade, but since then it has been a huge steal for the Blue Jays. I would generously consider that trade a wash for the Reds.

I am tempted to agree, but then....

then I look at the ....elan with which the reds have played defense since that trade, the pride that not just the thirdbasmen, but all the players seem to take in what they do with the leather.

That doesn't happen with Edwin here. I think Rolen was more valuable to the organization than his hitting line shows.

REDREAD
12-03-2012, 09:29 AM
I like Scott Rolen, but the trade to acquire him doesn't look like a great move at all. The trade paid off well for a couple months immediately after the trade, but since then it has been a huge steal for the Blue Jays. I would generously consider that trade a wash for the Reds.

I guess it depends on the definition of a great trade.

I am assuming you mean EdE's new found power, years later?
There's no way EdE would've been around this club long enough to blossom into that hitter (and he would've probably never blossomed here).

Rolen played a very key role in the 2010 division title. IMO, that makes it a great trade.

The way I see it, it's like the 1999 Guzman trade.. Even though we missed the playoffs, Guzman was a big contributor when we were contending.. Even though BJ Ryan had some good years for Baltimore, still a great trade for the Reds. (Baltimore fans would probably consider that a steal as well).

I guess I'm ok with both teams winning a trade.

mdccclxix
12-03-2012, 09:35 AM
My realization over the last year has been that between Walt and his amazing staff and Dusty and his amazing staff and Bob who has enabled all these great baseball people, the Reds are really doing a great job.

I remember now the sabr crowd was all over the Reds case in 2009 when Walt was hired and he did not fully bow to the numbers. He explained there needs to be a mix. As it turns out Walt and Dusty know how to win baseball games beyond adding and subtracting numbers. Who would have thought? I mean, the Reds had been terrible for a decade.

I just think Walt and Dusty are good people that also want a good feeling among their staff and players about being a Red, winning as a Red, being rewarded as a Red, etc. It's a great group they have. And you have to spread the credit all around, as an award such as this does. I would give an elevated place, though, for the scouting department. They are the lifeblood of an organization. Although the Reds aren't considered the A's or the Ray's or the Jays (not trying to rhyme here) when it comes to the prospect game, they really should be at or near the top.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 09:36 AM
I am tempted to agree, but then....

then I look at the ....elan with which the reds have played defense since that trade, the pride that not just the thirdbasmen, but all the players seem to take in what they do with the leather.

That doesn't happen with Edwin here. I think Rolen was more valuable to the organization than his hitting line shows.

Yes, Rolen's contributions go far beyond his performance on the field. If you just look at the stats then the Reds were big losers on that trade. But if you factor in Rolen's leadership I consider the trade a wash.

mdccclxix
12-03-2012, 09:49 AM
I'd call the Ramon Hernandez trade a win.

The Rolen trade was definitely a win. Again, go beyond the numbers. The Reds got one of the top 10 3rd basemen maybe ever.

Keppinger for Sutton was probably a loss, but I don't think they wanted his defense.

Hopper for Corky Miller was a HUGE win.

He's had a nack for vets like Nix, Gomes, Isringhausen, Cairo and others.

The Latos and Marshall trades were key.

I didn't like the inactivity in late 2010 through 2011 myself. But he didn't lose any talent, at least. And perhaps very luckily, he was able to salvage the value of Alonso despite delaying his progress. Frazier and Cozart worked out as well.

mdccclxix
12-03-2012, 09:55 AM
Yes, Rolen's contributions go far beyond his performance on the field. If you just look at the stats then the Reds were big losers on that trade. But if you factor in Rolen's leadership I consider the trade a wash.

Are you really trying to use 2012 for EE as a basis for a numbers argument? EE was passed on by the Reds, Jays and A's in 2009-10. He finally recovered at the plate when they moved him to a 1b/DH role. He had no place on the Reds and was quoted as saying "Thank god I'm out of here!" when he was traded.

_Sir_Charles_
12-03-2012, 10:25 AM
My realization over the last year has been that between Walt and his amazing staff and Dusty and his amazing staff and Bob who has enabled all these great baseball people, the Reds are really doing a great job.

I remember now the sabr crowd was all over the Reds case in 2009 when Walt was hired and he did not fully bow to the numbers. He explained there needs to be a mix. As it turns out Walt and Dusty know how to win baseball games beyond adding and subtracting numbers. Who would have thought? I mean, the Reds had been terrible for a decade.

I just think Walt and Dusty are good people that also want a good feeling among their staff and players about being a Red, winning as a Red, being rewarded as a Red, etc. It's a great group they have. And you have to spread the credit all around, as an award such as this does. I would give an elevated place, though, for the scouting department. They are the lifeblood of an organization. Although the Reds aren't considered the A's or the Ray's or the Jays (not trying to rhyme here) when it comes to the prospect game, they really should be at or near the top.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

traderumor
12-03-2012, 10:40 AM
Thanks for the personal insult. I don't think calling someone ignorant is worthy of the standards of the Old Red Guard.

It wasn't me who started the Jocketty is asleep at the switch bandwagon. I was just pointing out that it was not an unreasonable topic after someone said it was.

As I have said before, I think Jocketty has done a good job in the last 12 months. I also think he inherited a very strong farm system and a stellar core of young major league players. This team was bound for excellence before Jocketty took over. He did not build this team into a contender all by himself. I think most reasonable people understand that.

If you believe Jocketty did such a great job prior to 2012 then maybe you can explain the moves he made that built this team into a winner. The key components were all here when he took over with the exception of Chapman. Prior to 2012 the acquisition of Chapman was the only unquestionably good player move he had made in several years. I can certainly see why some people saw fit to question Jocketty's job performance (or lack of performance). One good move in several years is clearly quite dubious, especially when there were some glaring holes in the lineup and plenty of trading chips available and plenty of other teams finding ways to fill their holes while Jocketty couldn't.

Jocketty did a great job in 2012. I think most everyone agrees on that.I don't understand the offense at another person saying one is displaying ignorance on the topic at hand when that same person referred to another person as an "ignoramous" in their primary job of field manager. Why is your derogatory remark acceptable but you are so offended at my pointing out that your opinion is not well informed, in my opinion of course? I'd love to hear the distinction you make.

BTW, you do realize that Jocketty has only been GM since in season 2009, so he hasn't even been GM long enough to have "several years" of anything.

Finally, there are always things to be critical of anyone doing a job. But I found little other than contrarianism in your criticisms.

kaldaniels
12-03-2012, 10:54 AM
I don't understand the offense at another person saying one is displaying ignorance on the topic at hand when that same person referred to another person as an "ignoramous" in their primary job of field manager. Why is your derogatory remark acceptable but you are so offended at my pointing out that your opinion is not well informed, in my opinion of course? I'd love to hear the distinction you make.

BTW, you do realize that Jocketty has only been GM since in season 2009, so he hasn't even been GM long enough to have "several years" of anything.

Finally, there are always things to be critical of anyone doing a job. But I found little other than contrarianism in your criticisms.

Obviously it is ok to anonymously snipe a member of the Reds organization with an insult, but out of bounds to do the same to a fellow RZ'er.

You pretty much echo my thoughts on the matter here TR, as the 2 things that came to mind reading this thread were the ignormamus/ignorant thing and the "several years" remark. I'd love to hear that expounded upon.

REDREAD
12-03-2012, 11:13 AM
I'd call the Ramon Hernandez trade a win.
.

I forgot about that one.
Yes, the Ramon trade was a huge one in turning the organization around too.
Maybe not as big as Rolen, but it was huge. Catcher had been a black hole for eons before that. To get Ramon for Freel was a total steal.

Another thing that Walt and Dusty need to get credit for is assembling a great clubhouse. Broxton said after resigning "This is the best clubhouse I've ever been in". In my own life, I know it's a lot easier to go to work when I don't have to deal with a bunch of jerks all day. Stuff like that makes a difference when trying to attract or extend players on a budget.

Walt is in contention for "Best Reds GM of my lifetime", simply because it's a lot more difficult to build a winner in a small market now than it was in 1975 or 1990.. I won't say he's the best now, but if he can keep this pace a few more years, he may have a solid case.

bucksfan2
12-03-2012, 11:23 AM
I like Scott Rolen, but the trade to acquire him doesn't look like a great move at all. The trade paid off well for a couple months immediately after the trade, but since then it has been a huge steal for the Blue Jays. I would generously consider that trade a wash for the Reds.

The Blue Jays released Encarnacion between the trade and his breakout season. He was signed by Oakland and then granted FA. So in essence anyone in baseball could have signed Edwin at that time. If you consider that the Reds traded a guy who has bounced around the league from team to team to team and a guy who eventually granted an outright release from a second team I don't know how you can say the Reds lost that trade.

mdccclxix
12-03-2012, 11:31 AM
I forgot about that one.
Yes, the Ramon trade was a huge one in turning the organization around too.
Maybe not as big as Rolen, but it was huge. Catcher had been a black hole for eons before that. To get Ramon for Freel was a total steal.

Another thing that Walt and Dusty need to get credit for is assembling a great clubhouse. Broxton said after resigning "This is the best clubhouse I've ever been in". In my own life, I know it's a lot easier to go to work when I don't have to deal with a bunch of jerks all day. Stuff like that makes a difference when trying to attract or extend players on a budget.

Walt is in contention for "Best Reds GM of my lifetime", simply because it's a lot more difficult to build a winner in a small market now than it was in 1975 or 1990.. I won't say he's the best now, but if he can keep this pace a few more years, he may have a solid case.

What separates Cincinnati from KC, Pit, Colorado, Seattle, Toronto, etc? All these teams had great prospects and opportunities to emerge, but the Reds have played their cards better than any thus far.

kaldaniels
12-03-2012, 11:43 AM
The Blue Jays released Encarnacion between the trade and his breakout season. He was signed by Oakland and then granted FA. So in essence anyone in baseball could have signed Edwin at that time. If you consider that the Reds traded a guy who has bounced around the league from team to team to team and a guy who eventually granted an outright release from a second team I don't know how you can say the Reds lost that trade.

Yep as soon as he was waived and hit FA, the trade reprucussions are moot afterwards.

Scrap Irony
12-03-2012, 12:02 PM
Trades:
Traded Yonder Alonso, Brad Boxberger, Yasmani Grandal and Edinson Volquez to the San Diego Padres. Received Mat Latos.
Traded Ronald Torreyes (minors), Dave Sappelt and Travis Wood to the Chicago Cubs. Received Sean Marshall.
Traded Jeremy Horst to the Philadelphia Phillies. Received Wilson Valdez.
Traded Juan Francisco to the Atlanta Braves. Received J.J. Hoover.
Traded Paul Janish to the Atlanta Braves. Received Todd Redmond.
Traded Donnie Joseph (minors) and J.C. Sulbaran (minors) to the Kansas City Royals. Received Jonathan Broxton.
Traded Chris Dickerson to the Milwaukee Brewers. Received Jim Edmonds.
Traded Brandon Waring (minors), Ryan Freel and Justin Turner to the Baltimore Orioles. Received Ramon Hernandez and cash.

Free Agency:
Signed Ryan Madson as a free agent.
Signed Dioner Navarro as a free agent.
Signed Ryan Ludwick as a free agent.
Signed Xavier Paul as a free agent.
Signed Ramon Hernandez as a free agent.
Signed Dontrelle Willis as a free agent.
Signed Miguel Cairo as a free agent.
Signed Jeremy Hermida as a free agent.
Signed Edgar Renteria as a free agent.
Signed Fred Lewis as a free agent.
Signed Lance Nyx as a free agent.
Signed Aroldis Chapman as a free agent.
Signed Jose Arredondo as a free agent.
Signed Jonny Gomes as a free agent.
Signed Arthur Rhodes as a free agent.
Signed David Weathers as a free agent.

Waivers:
Selected Alfredo Simon off waivers from the Baltimore Orioles.

Lots of moves. More importantly, I don't see too many outright stinkers. The Valdez for Horst deal looks bad. The signings of Fred Lewis, Jeremy Hermida, and the second signing of Miguel Cairo weren't great-- however, generally, those deals are on the periphery of the major league team. The big deals-- Rolen, Latos, Marshall, Hoover, Chapman, Ludwick-- have all either been a new positive or a net push.

For any GM over a three year period, that's a remarkable achievement, IMO.

On a side note, Jocketty's tenure as Red GM has been phenomenal in terms of finding cheap, productive players as free agents. Almost one in four work out well for the major league team. There aren't many teams that can claim that success. The trades, I kind of expected. Jocketty's well-known for making good trades and has been for two decades.

The free agent list surprised me. There are five guys on that list who had All-Star or near All-Star seasons with the Reds after signing. Three resurrected careers. And the majority of them contributed positively.

mdccclxix
12-03-2012, 12:08 PM
Thanks Scrap. Also, you have to give the rest of the coaching staff credit when these players are coming here and revive their careers.

M2
12-03-2012, 12:15 PM
What separates Cincinnati from KC, Pit, Colorado, Seattle, Toronto, etc? All these teams had great prospects and opportunities to emerge, but the Reds have played their cards better than any thus far.

To be even more specific, the Reds have made good major league decisions. Ramon Hernandez and Scott Rolen were quality additions. Ryan Ludwick was an outright steal. Jonny Gomes and Orlando Cabrera plugged holes without creating new ones. Arthur Lee Rhodes and Sean Marshall have been dynamite bullpen investments. Keeping Bronson Arroyo paid off. Miguel Cairo and Laynce Nix turned in some solid work from the bench (and maybe Xavier Paul will follow in their footsteps).

Latos is the biggest deal Jocketty made, but Walt's done a nice job of acquiring useful pieces that have helped the Reds become a good baseball team rather than a team hoping for a pot of gold at the end of a prospect rainbow.

mdccclxix
12-03-2012, 12:22 PM
To be even more specific, the Reds have made good major league decisions. Ramon Hernandez and Scott Rolen were quality additions. Ryan Ludwick was an outright steal. Jonny Gomes and Orlando Cabrera plugged holes without creating new ones. Arthur Lee Rhodes and Sean Marshall have been dynamite bullpen investments. Keeping Bronson Arroyo paid off. Miguel Cairo and Laynce Nix turned in some solid work from the bench (and maybe Xavier Paul will follow in their footsteps).

Latos is the biggest deal Jocketty made, but Walt's done a nice job of acquiring useful pieces that have helped the Reds become a good baseball team rather than a team hoping for a pot of gold at the end of a prospect rainbow.

And there were calls and complaints about signing these types of vets in favor of 'finding out what we really have'. Not that the finding out was a bad idea, but it's pleasant to look back and see what developed.

Kc61
12-03-2012, 12:24 PM
I like Scott Rolen, but the trade to acquire him doesn't look like a great move at all. The trade paid off well for a couple months immediately after the trade, but since then it has been a huge steal for the Blue Jays. I would generously consider that trade a wash for the Reds.

I agree with this view of the trade. I think it's a wash, and only because of intangibles.

Let's face it, EE has become a pretty big hitter for the Blue Jays. Whether or not he was once waived, today he has serious value. He's an AL player, he isn't good defensively, but he hit 42 homers with 110 RBI and a .941 OPS last year. Serious numbers.

Josh Roenicke has some value, he was recently picked up by the Twins from the Rockies, he led basebal in relief innings last year and had good numbers, especially for a Colorado pitcher. The Rockies let him go thru waivers in a contract disagreement and lost him.

Oddly, Zach Stewart was probably the toughest for the Reds to trade, and he's the one who hasn't panned out as well to date.

Rolen had a good 2010 with the Reds, .854 OPS in 537 PAs. Since then, not much production and lots of injuries. But his intangibles are huge and have really influenced the team in a positive way.

On the numbers, I give the trade to the Rockies, particularly because EE is still in his prime and Rolen is near or at retirement. Given Rolen's intangibles and influence on the team, it's a wash.

Scrap Irony
12-03-2012, 12:38 PM
Whether or not he was once waived, today he has serious value. He's an AL player, he isn't good defensively, but he hit 42 homers with 110 RBI and a .941 OPS last year. Serious numbers.

But the point is that the waiver process effectively marks the end of the trade value for the Blue Jays. From trade to waiver wire process, the Reds won. After that, it's moot.



Josh Roenicke has some value, he was recently picked up by the Twins from the Rockies, he led basebal in relief innings last year and had good numbers, especially for a Colorado pitcher. The Rockies let him go thru waivers in a contract disagreement and lost him.

Again, once the waiver wire process hit, the trade "ended".



On the numbers, I give the trade to the Rockies, particularly because EE is still in his prime and Rolen is near or at retirement. Given Rolen's intangibles and influence on the team, it's a wash.

The Jays lost the original trade fairly handily, but made a great waiver wire pickup with EdE later on. That's my opinion, anyway.

Kc61
12-03-2012, 12:45 PM
But the point is that the waiver process effectively marks the end of the trade value for the Blue Jays. From trade to waiver wire process, the Reds won. After that, it's moot.
.

I disagree with this analysis, sorry.

I look at what the Reds gained in the trade compared to what the Reds gave up in the trade. I'm evaluating the trade as a Reds' fan, from the Reds' viewpoint.

The fact that the Jays may have mishandled EE isn't the Reds' concern. The question is what the Reds got, and what the Reds gave.

If the Reds had not made the trade, and today had EE, they would have a huge asset to trade or use. They don't. That has to go into the calculus of the trade from the Reds' point of view.

Blue Jays' poor move AFTER the trade doesn't influence it IMO. That's a separate matter.

Say the Reds traded Joey Votto to the Dodgers for a lousy minor leaguer. The Dodgers then dumped Votto for some silly reason. Doesn't change the fact that the Reds would have made a terrible trade.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 12:49 PM
I don't understand the offense at another person saying one is displaying ignorance on the topic at hand when that same person referred to another person as an "ignoramous" in their primary job of field manager. Why is your derogatory remark acceptable but you are so offended at my pointing out that your opinion is not well informed, in my opinion of course? I'd love to hear the distinction you make.

BTW, you do realize that Jocketty has only been GM since in season 2009, so he hasn't even been GM long enough to have "several years" of anything.

Finally, there are always things to be critical of anyone doing a job. But I found little other than contrarianism in your criticisms.

First of all, I am not the one who started the Dusty Baker is an ignoramus thing. I just agreed that he does a lot of dumb things in addition to the things he does well.

You are the one that is intolerant of other Redszoners' opinions and feels the need to hurl personal insults. I guess if you can't make a good case for your viewpoint you have to resort to calling names.

Definition of "several" from dictionary.com -- "Several: being more than two and less than many in number or kind." Obviously Walt Jocketty has been in Cincinnati for several years considering he was hired in April of 2008, which means Jocketty has been here for five seasons, so I can't imagine why you want to quibble with my usage of the word "several". So before you criticize someone's use of a word make sure you improve your vocabulary and basic comprehension of the English language or else you come off looking pretty foolish.

Obviously I am not of the opinion that Dusty Baker does a good job in all aspects of managing. Many, many people are able to comprehend how his lineup construction and in-game strategy reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of basic tenets of modern baseball. I guess you fail to comprehend them too since you can't see it. I have complimented Dusty in the past in many threads for his people skills and off-the-field leadership in terms of motivating players and making sure they are prepared mentally and physically to perform well on the field.

You can feel free to disagree with me anytime you like. Just try to do it without calling me names and hurling personal insults -- especially when you are clearly wrong.

kaldaniels
12-03-2012, 12:56 PM
I disagree with this analysis, sorry.

I look at what the Reds gained in the trade compared to what the Reds gave up in the trade. I'm evaluating the trade as a Reds' fan, from the Reds' viewpoint.

The fact that the Jays may have mishandled EE isn't the Reds' concern. The question is what the Reds got, and what the Reds gave.

If the Reds had not made the trade, and today had EE, they would have a huge asset to trade or use. They don't. That has to go into the calculus of the trade from the Reds' point of view.

Blue Jays' poor move AFTER the trade doesn't influence it IMO. That's a separate matter.

Say the Reds traded Joey Votto to the Dodgers for a lousy minor leaguer. The Dodgers then dumped Votto for some silly reason. Doesn't change the fact that the Reds would have made a terrible trade.

The fact that EE was put in waivers and didn't have many/high dollar FA suitors shows what his true value was during that period. Comping this to Votto vs a lousy minor leaguer isn't really fair...I know what you are trying to say, but the example is too much of a stretch.

Yes he bloomed, but well after the statute of limitations expired here. As mentioned above, he was not a valuable commodity at the time. And second, his defense and Votto would have prevented his emergence as a Red. Just one of those "What can you do" scenarios that really didn't have a good solution knowing what we know now.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 12:58 PM
I disagree with this analysis, sorry.

I look at what the Reds gained in the trade compared to what the Reds gave up in the trade. I'm evaluating the trade as a Reds' fan, from the Reds' viewpoint.

The fact that the Jays may have mishandled EE isn't the Reds' concern. The question is what the Reds got, and what the Reds gave.

If the Reds had not made the trade, and today had EE, they would have a huge asset to trade or use. They don't. That has to go into the calculus of the trade from the Reds' point of view.

Blue Jays' poor move AFTER the trade doesn't influence it IMO. That's a separate matter.

Say the Reds traded Joey Votto to the Dodgers for a lousy minor leaguer. The Dodgers then dumped Votto for some silly reason. Doesn't change the fact that the Reds would have made a terrible trade.

I agree. The Reds gave up too early on a player that had a ton of potential. He has now realized that potential for another team and the Reds missed out. It is too bad the Reds coaching staff didn't have the skills to nurture, develop and harness Edwin's talent as has occurred in Toronto.

I place a lot of value on what Scott Rolen brought to the Reds. Even though his statistical performance on the field was a big letdown and his frequent injuries kept him off the field, he still brought a lot of leadership-by-example and I think his presence has helped the Reds. However, this value is what made the trade even for both teams. If you don't value the leadership as highly as I do then the trade was a big net loss for the Reds. I don't see a case for claiming the Rolen trade was an example of Walt Jocketty's excellence as a GM. I score that trade a wash and don't count it as either a positive or negative toward Jocketty's record.

kaldaniels
12-03-2012, 12:59 PM
In the very post where "several seasons" was originally mentioned, the GM job was specifically referenced. Now we are invoking Walt's tenure before he became GM so it fits your case.

Goalposts. Moved.

I'm sorry for going after your point of view but I just think it is an unfair take.

Kc61
12-03-2012, 01:07 PM
The fact that EE was put in waivers and didn't have many/high dollar FA suitors shows what his true value was during that period. Comping this to Votto vs a lousy minor leaguer isn't really fair...I know what you are trying to say, but the example is too much of a stretch.

Yes he bloomed, but well after the statute of limitations expired here. As mentioned above, he was not a valuable commodity at the time. And second, his defense and Votto would have prevented his emergence as a Red. Just one of those "What can you do" scenarios that really didn't have a good solution knowing what we know now.

This is sensible. I can see "discounting" EE's later development because it happened long after the trade. I can see an argument that EE would likely have been moved anyway, it's too long for the Reds to have waited, his near term results after the trade are more important.

But on the other hand, the Reds traded EE as a fairly young player. He still isn't quite 30 years old. The Reds had to consider his ultimate maturation and development.

Whenever you trade a young player, before they are fully formed, you take a risk that with maturation will come improvement. The Reds took that risk, and in that respect the trade did not succeed.

So it's fair, perhaps, to say that EE's subsequent development has to be "discounted" in evaluating the trade. But it can't be ignored altogether. It's a factor.

757690
12-03-2012, 01:08 PM
I disagree with this analysis, sorry.

I look at what the Reds gained in the trade compared to what the Reds gave up in the trade. I'm evaluating the trade as a Reds' fan, from the Reds' viewpoint.

The fact that the Jays may have mishandled EE isn't the Reds' concern. The question is what the Reds got, and what the Reds gave.

If the Reds had not made the trade, and today had EE, they would have a huge asset to trade or use. They don't. That has to go into the calculus of the trade from the Reds' point of view.

Blue Jays' poor move AFTER the trade doesn't influence it IMO. That's a separate matter.

Say the Reds traded Joey Votto to the Dodgers for a lousy minor leaguer. The Dodgers then dumped Votto for some silly reason. Doesn't change the fact that the Reds would have made a terrible trade.

Let's get the facts straight here.

EE was due over $5M the next season, and considering his poor defense and inconsistent offense, the Reds wanted to dump his salary. At the time of the trade, in order to take EE and his salary, the Jays demanded the Reds include Stewart in the trade. If the Reds didn't include EE and his salary, a lesser prospect would have been included instead of Stewart. EE was a liability.

And after the 2010 season, any and every team would have non-tendered EE. He simply wasn't worth what he was going to get in arbitration. The Jaya didn't mishandle EE when they traded him to the A's, they actually got lucky that he was able turn his declining career around after they signed as a free agent when he was non-tendered by the A's.

You're right that what happened to EE after the trade isn't the Reds concern. What is is that at the time of the trade, EE was a liability that Jockety smartly got off of the books, while at the same time acquiring an All-Star in Rolen.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 01:12 PM
In the very post where "several seasons" was originally mentioned, the GM job was specifically referenced. Now we are invoking Walt's tenure before he became GM so it fits your case.

Goalposts. Moved.

I'm sorry for going after your point of view but I just think it is an unfair take.

The word several means more than two (Definition of "several" from dictionary.com -- "Several: being more than two and less than many in number or kind.") Before 2012 Jocketty had been GM for 4 seasons. How is that not several? Jocketty was the GM of the Reds for several years before the 2012 season.

Here is a link about Walt's hiring: Jocketty Hired as GM (http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080423&content_id=2573957&c_id=cin)

Jocketty was hired as a special assistant in January 2008 and became the GM of the Reds only three months later in April of 2008. He has now had five seasons in charge of the Reds as the General Manager.

It seems you are just not aware of how long Jocketty has been the GM of the Reds.

Prior to last winter's burst of belated activity, Jocketty had made very few moves. Of those moves, only 1-3 were truly helpful (depending on what your opinions on the Chapman, Hernandez and Rolen moves were going into last season). That is not much over such a long period, especially when you consider the glaring holes the team had at the time. It is fair to characterize that period as being inactive and wonder if Jocketty was "asleep at the switch" as the original poster stated. My opinion after the 2011 season was that the Hernandez trade for Freel was a good move, the Chapman signing was still questionable at that time given the $30 million cost for a middle reliever (now it looks like a great move), and the Rolen trade was a wash (now it looks worse).

Happily for Reds fans, Jocketty sprang into action in 2012 (his 5th season) and justified his leadership with a flurry of moves that nearly everyone agrees were excellent and helped launch the team over the top.

Kc61
12-03-2012, 01:12 PM
Let's get the facts straight here.

EE was due over $5M the next season, and considering his poor defense and inconsistent offense, the Reds wanted to dump his salary. At the time of the trade, in order to take EE and his salary, the Jays demanded the Reds include Stewart in the trade. If the Reds didn't include EE and his salary, a lesser prospect would have been included instead of Stewart. EE was a liability.

And after the 2010 season, any and every team would have non-tendered EE. He simply wasn't worth what he was going to get in arbitration. The Jaya didn't mishandle EE when they traded him to the A's, they actually got lucky that he was able turn his declining career around after they signed as a free agent when he was non-tendered by the A's.

You're right that what happened to EE after the trade isn't the Reds concern. What is is that at the time of the trade, EE was a liability that Jockety smartly got off of the books, while at the same time acquiring an All-Star in Rolen.

All I am saying is that you cannot ignore EE's subsequent development in evaluating this trade.

We cannot act as if his 2012 does not exist.

Fact is that today Scott Rolen is near or at retirement and EE is coming off a 42 homer 110 RBI season and is not yet 30 years old.

It may have been smart at the time, maybe this development happened too late, all of that may be true.

But if you want to fairly look at this trade, you simply can't make believe EE's 2012 didn't happen. It happened. And today he is a valuable asset, which the Reds don't have.

kaldaniels
12-03-2012, 01:19 PM
Jocketty was the GM of the Reds for several years before the 2012 season.

Jocketty was hired as a special assistant in January 2008 and became the GM of the Reds only three months later in April of 2008. He has had five seasons in charge of the Reds as the General Manager.

It seems you are not aware of just how long Jocketty has been the GM of the Reds.

I certainly know all that, but am just trying to be clear here.

What seasons was Jocketty's work as GM suspect?

2008?
2009?
2010?
2011?
All of the above?

When does a season start in terms of this anyway. You liked his 2012, but he didn't do much after Opening Day 2012, so I take it you liked his 2011 offseason moves.

kaldaniels
12-03-2012, 01:20 PM
This is sensible. I can see "discounting" EE's later development because it happened long after the trade. I can see an argument that EE would likely have been moved anyway, it's too long for the Reds to have waited, his near term results after the trade are more important.

But on the other hand, the Reds traded EE as a fairly young player. He still isn't quite 30 years old. The Reds had to consider his ultimate maturation and development.

Whenever you trade a young player, before they are fully formed, you take a risk that with maturation will come improvement. The Reds took that risk, and in that respect the trade did not succeed.

So it's fair, perhaps, to say that EE's subsequent development has to be "discounted" in evaluating the trade. But it can't be ignored altogether. It's a factor.

That's fair as well. It does make your stomach knot up a bit knowing what he has now become, but as I mentioned, it is hard to see him getting to that point as a Red or the Reds cashing him in for a much better haul.

Superdude
12-03-2012, 01:21 PM
What separates Cincinnati from KC, Pit, Colorado, Seattle, Toronto, etc? All these teams had great prospects and opportunities to emerge, but the Reds have played their cards better than any thus far.

This gets overlooked IMO. O'Brien and Krivsky may have laid the groundwork, but being able to focus all those resoures into a winning ballclub has been the key. While Krivsky forced the issue and traded away 25% of the lineup for bullpen dreck, Jocketty was patient enough to wait for the right moves and has turned a whole bunch of superfluous talent into key pieces like Latos, Marshall, and Hernandez.

kaldaniels
12-03-2012, 01:22 PM
I certainly know all that, but am just trying to be clear here.

What seasons was Jocketty's work as GM suspect?

2008?
2009?
2010?
2011?
All of the above?

When does a season start in terms of this anyway. You liked his 2012, but he didn't do much after Opening Day 2012, so I take it you liked his 2011 offseason moves.

I'm just afraid I'm not making this clear so I thought of a simpler way to ask.

On what date did Walt's GM behavior begin to be suspect, and on which date did it end being suspect?

REDREAD
12-03-2012, 01:23 PM
. I don't see a case for claiming the Rolen trade was an example of Walt Jocketty's excellence as a GM. I score that trade a wash and don't count it as either a positive or negative toward Jocketty's record.

Here's another criteria for evaluating a trade.
If you could go back in time and not make the trade, would you stop it?

I wouldn't. No Rolen means no 2010 division title at bare minimum.
Plus, I think EdE had worn out his welcome long ago. EdE was such a poor defender that even when he was hitting, he was not much of a contributor.
Apparently EdE was very unhappy here.. I am sure a lot of that was due to past history.. yet he still couldn't turn it around when Dusty gave him a fresh start.

Maybe being released by Oakland (?) was his wakeup call that he was not guaranteed a MLB job for life? Hard to speculate, but any how, there's no way I would reverse the Rolen trade if I could time travel .. would you?

I also think Rolen contributed a lot last year after the All Star break when Votto was out of the lineup.. It's true that Frazier and Ludwick were also on fire, but Rolen was big too. Sure, due to health, he wasn't as valuable as he was in 2010, but I was glad to have him on the team last year.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 02:00 PM
I certainly know all that, but am just trying to be clear here.

What seasons was Jocketty's work as GM suspect?

2008?
2009?
2010?
2011?
All of the above?

When does a season start in terms of this anyway. You liked his 2012, but he didn't do much after Opening Day 2012, so I take it you liked his 2011 offseason moves.

It was Jocketty's lack of work as GM from 2008-2011 that was suspect. The team was basically on autopilot for four seasons. That was the source of angst for so many observers. Other teams were making moves that improved their teams and farm systems, yet the Reds stood pat for season after season. Glaring holes were left unfilled. Upgrades were passed by.

I was not critical of the few moves that Jocketty actually made. I just wanted more of them. I stated it was fair to characterize Jocketty as being "asleep at the switch" as someone else proposed for those four seasons of 2008-2011. He certainly wasn't actively building the team in those years.

People weren't expecting Jocketty to make moves just for the sake of making moves. People expect a good GM to find/create/manufacture ways to improve the team. Other teams found ways to get better. Why couldn't the Reds?

Maybe Jocketty was trying to make deals but failed. Maybe his plan all along was to bide his time until 2012 and then go for it. We don't know for certain, although I am sure that even if the plan was ultimately to target 2012 as the year to compete, couldn't you still make some incremental upgrades here and there along the way? Is it unreasonable to expect a good GM to improve the team on a regular basis?

I consider a baseball season as ending with the World Series. The day after the World Series is the first day of the following season. I consider the post-season moves in 2011 as being preparation for the 2012 season.

Jocketty's moves last season turned out golden. He targeted the right players and found a way to get them. We can quibble and complain that he may have overpaid for them, or at least paid absolute top dollar. But in the end the new players played well and that is the most important thing. The three big off-season moves were the Latos trade, the Marshall trade and the Ludwick signing. All three paid off in spades. The other two big additions to the 2012 Reds were Frazier and Cozart, both of whom were already in the organization before Walt's arrival.

M2
12-03-2012, 02:03 PM
All I am saying is that you cannot ignore EE's subsequent development in evaluating this trade.

I disagree for two reasons. The Jays punted on Encarnacion after 2010. They got him back, but he was available to every club in the majors. If he had signed with Baltimore and put up the same numbers, we're not having a discussion about who won the trade.

Also, Encarnacion had no position with the Reds. He wasn't going to last at 3B and the Reds have that Votto guy at 1B. Had Encarnacion stayed with the Reds, he'd have been waived never to return.

Rolen was one of the best 3Bs in baseball in 2009 (when the Reds almost instantly transformed upon his arrival) and 2010. The Reds won this trade years ago. Rolen delivered, the Jays traded or waived every player they received. EdE's subsequent flourish strikes me as little more than a "good for him" sort of thing. I'm glad he's done well and it's good for the Jays that they had 1B and DH holes for him after his two weeks as A's property. None of that changes that the Reds got an All-Star 3B for two (so far) meh pitchers and a 3B who had to wash out before he found himself.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 02:11 PM
Here's another criteria for evaluating a trade.
If you could go back in time and not make the trade, would you stop it?

I wouldn't. No Rolen means no 2010 division title at bare minimum.
Plus, I think EdE had worn out his welcome long ago. EdE was such a poor defender that even when he was hitting, he was not much of a contributor.
Apparently EdE was very unhappy here.. I am sure a lot of that was due to past history.. yet he still couldn't turn it around when Dusty gave him a fresh start.

Maybe being released by Oakland (?) was his wakeup call that he was not guaranteed a MLB job for life? Hard to speculate, but any how, there's no way I would reverse the Rolen trade if I could time travel .. would you?

I also think Rolen contributed a lot last year after the All Star break when Votto was out of the lineup.. It's true that Frazier and Ludwick were also on fire, but Rolen was big too. Sure, due to health, he wasn't as valuable as he was in 2010, but I was glad to have him on the team last year.

I have not criticized the Rolen trade, I just said I think it was a wash. It is not a feather in Jocketty's cap. Both good and bad happened as a result of the trade. It is not an example of why Jocketty is a great GM as others have claimed. I really like Scott Rolen and he was a very valuable member of the team who contributed to some very good seasons for the Reds with his play on the field and his leadership by example. On the other hand the Reds paid a lot to acquire him from the Blue Jays. The Reds have also had to pay Rolen almost $30 million in salary since he came here. I don't think they got their money's worth.

If I could go back in time I would go back and make sure the Reds front office and coaching staff handled EdE better. He was miscast in his role on the Reds. The Reds failed to properly develop his game. Much of that blame falls on EdE too of course, but given how he has blossomed elsewhere it is a shame that the Reds couldn't help him reach that level here.

MrRedLegger
12-03-2012, 02:12 PM
In high school I dated the fattest girl in school and she had a nasty personality. When I broke up with her for an attractive senior I felt pretty good about myself. We fulfilled each other's steamy fantasies for years. Even to this day she still has some spunk left in her. Years later at a reunion, the fat girl had gotten very skinny and pretty and was a very successful model. She got a lot of attention from most of the men there, and some even asked me if I had known what she would become later in life would I have ever broken up with her.

No didn't feel bad at all. I dumped her for a better looking girl and got laid all the time. And all the guys she dated up until the reunion broke up with her because they couldn't deal with her crap. And the only reason she got skinny was from anorexia. Not too long after seeing her she got fat again because she couldn't help but go to her old ways of stuffing her face. And once again, she was dumped by her Canadian boyfriend. Yes she had a pretty face for a while but once that was gone everyone remembered how rude and nasty she was. And she can't field a baseball for anything.

Superdude
12-03-2012, 02:23 PM
In high school I dated the fattest girl in school and she had a nasty personality. When I broke up with her for an attractive senior I felt pretty good about myself. We fulfilled each other's steamy fantasies for years. Even to this day she still has some spunk left in her. Years later at a reunion, the fat girl had gotten very skinny and pretty and was a very successful model. She got a lot of attention from most of the men there, and some even asked me if I had known what she would become later in life would I have ever broken up with her.

No didn't feel bad at all. I dumped her for a better looking girl and got laid all the time. And all the guys she dated up until the reunion broke up with her because they couldn't deal with her crap. And the only reason she got skinny was from anorexia. Not too long after seeing her she got fat again because she couldn't help but go to her old ways of stuffing her face. And once again, she was dumped by her Canadian boyfriend. Yes she had a pretty face for a while but once that was gone everyone remembered how rude and nasty she was. And she can't field a baseball for anything.

Just phenomonal. :clap:

mdccclxix
12-03-2012, 02:37 PM
In high school I dated the fattest girl in school and she had a nasty personality. When I broke up with her for an attractive senior I felt pretty good about myself. We fulfilled each other's steamy fantasies for years. Even to this day she still has some spunk left in her. Years later at a reunion, the fat girl had gotten very skinny and pretty and was a very successful model. She got a lot of attention from most of the men there, and some even asked me if I had known what she would become later in life would I have ever broken up with her.

No didn't feel bad at all. I dumped her for a better looking girl and got laid all the time. And all the guys she dated up until the reunion broke up with her because they couldn't deal with her crap. And the only reason she got skinny was from anorexia. Not too long after seeing her she got fat again because she couldn't help but go to her old ways of stuffing her face. And once again, she was dumped by her Canadian boyfriend. Yes she had a pretty face for a while but once that was gone everyone remembered how rude and nasty she was. And she can't field a baseball for anything.

POY candidate

M2
12-03-2012, 02:41 PM
If I could go back in time I would go back and make sure the Reds front office and coaching staff handled EdE better. He was miscast in his role on the Reds. The Reds failed to properly develop his game. Much of that blame falls on EdE too of course, but given how he has blossomed elsewhere it is a shame that the Reds couldn't help him reach that level here.

The Reds brought him all the way through the minors and got modest production from him for three seasons. Until last season, the Jays never got better than modest production from him either. And he'd have never have reached his 2012 level with the Reds because he'd have been blocked by Joey Votto. Encarnacion is effectively done as a 3B. No one has developed his defense and, without it, he'd have been nothing more than a bench player for the Reds.

He proved to be something the Reds weren't going to be able to use and then the team moved him for an All-Star 3B who helped turn around years of helpless, hopeless baseball.

REDREAD
12-03-2012, 02:42 PM
I have not criticized the Rolen trade, I just said I think it was a wash. It is not a feather in Jocketty's cap. Both good and bad happened as a result of the trade. It is not an example of why Jocketty is a great GM as others have claimed. I really like Scott Rolen and he was a very valuable member of the team who contributed to some very good seasons for the Reds with his play on the field and his leadership by example. On the other hand the Reds paid a lot to acquire him from the Blue Jays. The Reds have also had to pay Rolen almost $30 million in salary since he came here. I don't think they got their money's worth.

If I could go back in time I would go back and make sure the Reds front office and coaching staff handled EdE better. He was miscast in his role on the Reds. The Reds failed to properly develop his game. Much of that blame falls on EdE too of course, but given how he has blossomed elsewhere it is a shame that the Reds couldn't help him reach that level here.

Well, I can respect that point on Rolen, even though I don't agree with it.
I see where you are coming from.

IMO, the Reds were more than patient with EdE.. Heck, Walt even gave him a new 2 year deal. (That was a mistake by Walt that is overlooked, imo).. Then Walt realized that EdE was never going to be the solution at 3b and moved on.
Other GMs managers gave EdE plenty of chances too. If EdE is not going to flourish on Dusty, and can't wait to get out of town (based on saying how glad he was traded), I'm not sure the Reds could've done anything else with him.

I have no way to prove this, but I think EdE needed the shock of being almost out of a job to grow up and actually start trying to be a good MLB player. He just seemed to think he was entitled to a starting job, no matter how bad his hitting/fielding were.. The Reds gave EdE 2008 plate appearances over 5 seasons, and got a 793 OPS with horrible defense.... at some point, they just had to cut bait on him..

westofyou
12-03-2012, 02:54 PM
The Reds brought him all the way through the minors and got modest production from him for three seasons. Until last season, the Jays never got better than modest production from him either. And he'd have never have reached his 2012 level with the Reds because he'd have been blocked by Joey Votto. Encarnacion is effectively done as a 3B. No one has developed his defense and, without it, he'd have been nothing more than a bench player for the Reds.

He proved to be something the Reds weren't going to be able to use and then the team moved him for an All-Star 3B who helped turn around years of helpless, hopeless baseball.

Exactly, another guy who can claim only to have power when he was batting, couldn't run well, can't field well and was woefully inconsistent while on the team.

And frankly the Reds were lucky to get an actual baseball player in return for for this hitter. And to top it off it coincided with the Reds actually starting to play baseball everywhere but in the batters box. He could hit 40 again next year and I wouldn't care

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 02:54 PM
Well, I can respect that point on Rolen, even though I don't agree with it.
I see where you are coming from.

IMO, the Reds were more than patient with EdE.. Heck, Walt even gave him a new 2 year deal. (That was a mistake by Walt that is overlooked, imo).. Then Walt realized that EdE was never going to be the solution at 3b and moved on.
Other GMs managers gave EdE plenty of chances too. If EdE is not going to flourish on Dusty, and can't wait to get out of town (based on saying how glad he was traded), I'm not sure the Reds could've done anything else with him.

I have no way to prove this, but I think EdE needed the shock of being almost out of a job to grow up and actually start trying to be a good MLB player. He just seemed to think he was entitled to a starting job, no matter how bad his hitting/fielding were.. The Reds gave EdE 2008 plate appearances over 5 seasons, and got a 793 OPS with horrible defense.... at some point, they just had to cut bait on him..

I know it wouldn't have been easy or likely to maximize EdE's talents, but given the fact that he did have tremendous talent lurking inside of him (as evidenced by the monster season he had this year), then it is a shame the Reds didn't harness that talent while they had the chance. He was a player development failure for the organization.

EdE's 793 OPS with the Reds was better than Rolen's .771 OPS with the Reds in limited action due to frequent injury. Edwin has an 839 OPS as a Blue Jay. Over that time period EdE has an OPS+ of 124 compared to Rolen's 104. Obviously Rolen's defense and leadership are superior, but given the fact the Reds had to pay Rolen $27 million while the Blue Jays were paying EdE $11 million I don't think the trade was worth it. It certainly wasn't a steal for the Reds as some have characterized it. To me it was a wash.

Kc61
12-03-2012, 02:58 PM
The most important aspect of a trade is a team's scouting analysis of the players.

Not the public perception. Not historical stats. But a team's own internal analysis of how the player is going to play going forward.

I'm guessing the Reds never thought EE would hit 42 homers and 110 RBIs in a major league season. I think the Reds underestimated EE. So did I, so did most of us.

Yes, at the time it seemed to make sense. Yes, the Blue Jays also gave up on him at one point. Yes, he was waived. Yes, EE can't field and never really fit well with the Reds.

But you just can't ignore what this player has become. His 2012 season exists. It happened. And had the Reds seen his long term potential more clearly, they undoubtedly would have made a different trade. It's inconceivable the Reds thought they were trading a 42 homer guy.

It's no big deal, the Reds got value from the trade, nobody has a crystal ball, it's perfectly understandable. But anyone who thinks you ignore what the player has become is incorrect IMO.

M2
12-03-2012, 03:12 PM
I'm guessing the Reds never thought EE would hit 42 homers and 110 RBIs in a major league season.

I'm guessing neither did the Jays nor the 28 other organizations in MLB. If anyone had, he would have been a hot commodity when he hit the waiver wire or after the A's released him. It's safe to say that what Encarnacion did in 2012 was something no one saw coming, so I don't see the point in faulting the Reds for not having a crystal ball that no else had.

Yes, his 2012 happened, long after the Reds moved him and every other team in baseball had a chance to bite his apple.

Seems to me the Reds scouted this one perfectly. Encarnacion was not going to stick at 3B and had no long-term place with the Reds. So the team moved him for a 3B who proved to be an immediate and perfect fit. With that deal, the Reds made the decision that it was time to stop the endless rebuilding cycle and to start behaving like a grown up, contending team. It worked. Pretty good self-scouting/awareness when you get right down to it.

backbencher
12-03-2012, 03:15 PM
And had the Reds seen his long term potential more clearly, they undoubtedly would have made a different trade.

Not so.

In 2009, Encarnacion had no trade value. None. There was no "different trade" to make, because no other team was available to trade with.

Revering4Blue
12-03-2012, 03:24 PM
AtomicDumping and Kc61 have more or less conveyed my views on the Rolen deal, but I'll add this:

My concern with dealing EE for Rolen was that by the time the Reds were in a position to actually win a World Series - unlike 2010, no glaring weaknesses - EE was more likely to be a more significant contributor than Rolen, which has proven to be true, regardless of whether the Blue Jays initially gave up on EE, or not. And if Frazier hadn't emerged last year, the EE-Rolen deal and more specifically, the ensuing extension for Rolen would have garnered even more scrutiny than they already have.

If I'm keeping score, I'd rate the Hernandez deal ahead of the Rolen trade from the standpoint of on-field production the Orioles received in return, and I'm kind of surprised that the Griffey for Masset deal hasn't been mentioned as an overlooked solid deal. It still boggles the mind that WJ was able to acquire more for Griffey than for Adam Dunn.

M2
12-03-2012, 03:35 PM
EdE's 793 OPS with the Reds was better than Rolen's .771 OPS with the Reds in limited action due to frequent injury. Edwin has an 839 OPS as a Blue Jay. Over that time period EdE has an OPS+ of 124 compared to Rolen's 104.

And Encarnacion's Toronto numbers are almost entirely built on last season.

Prior to 2012 Encarnacion's slash line with the Jays was .257/.320/.461. Perfectly fine in a general sense, but nowhere near the kind of production required for a 1B/DH.

Encarnacion never would have been a Red last year. The team had no need for a 1B/DH. It's a fluke he was even with the Jays, who lost him via waivers and only got him back because the rest of MLB thought he deserved an even more severe pay cut than the one he got by going back to Toronto (had his salary cut by more than 50%).

It's not like the Reds traded away this guy who had been a consistent performer since the trade. The Reds traded away a guy who disappointed, got taken on waivers by another team, got cut, had to accept a major pay cut, followed that with a non-descript season and finally had a big year long after he'd have become an irrelevance if the Reds had kept him.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 03:57 PM
And Encarnacion's Toronto numbers are almost entirely built on last season.

Prior to 2012 Encarnacion's slash line with the Jays was .257/.320/.461. Perfectly fine in a general sense, but nowhere near the kind of production required for a 1B/DH.

Encarnacion never would have been a Red last year. The team had no need for a 1B/DH. It's a fluke he was even with the Jays, who lost him via waivers and only got him back because the rest of MLB thought he deserved an even more severe pay cut than the one he got by going back to Toronto (had his salary cut by more than 50%).

It's not like the Reds traded away this guy who had been a consistent performer since the trade. The Reds traded away a guy who disappointed, got taken on waivers by another team, got cut, had to accept a major pay cut, followed that with a non-descript season and finally had a big year long after he'd have become an irrelevance if the Reds had kept him.

The Reds traded away a 26 year old above average major league hitter for a 34 year old injury-plagued player earning more than 4x as much money. Then watched as that young hitter eventually developed into a star for another team while the expensive player they acquired struggled to stay healthy enough to play. Not exactly a recipe to be proud of. I don't call it a bad trade, but it certainly wasn't a brilliant success either. It was a trade that didn't pan out that well for either team.

The reason this trade came up in this thread is because it was one of the very few moves made by Jocketty during his prolonged period of inactivity from 2008-2011. During this 4-year period Jocketty made 1 move that very clearly was brilliant and was a key part of building the 2012 team that won 97 games -- signing Aroldis Chapman to a $30+ million contract. Jocketty made another good trade that helped the team for awhile but didn't impact the 2012 team -- trading Ryan Freel for Ramon Hernandez and later signing him to a new contract. If you want to include the Rolen/Encarnacion exchange as a net positive even though Rolen didn't contribute much to the 2012 club then that would be a third positive move for Jocketty in that 4-year lethargic period. Either way, it is not a very impressive body of work for a good GM to make only three substantive moves over such a long period. That is why people were concerned that Walt was either asleep at the wheel or had lost his touch. Thankfully he came to life in 2012 and helped launch the team over the top with some player acquisitions that turned to gold.

M2
12-03-2012, 03:58 PM
My concern with dealing EE for Rolen was that by the time the Reds were in a position to actually win a World Series - unlike 2010, no glaring weaknesses - EE was more likely to be a more significant contributor than Rolen

Playing where? Encarnacion is a terrible defensive player. He's not a 3B anymore and it's likely a fool's errand to play him in LF. And if you tried to stick him in those positions, I'm reasonably certain his defensive miseries would follow him to the plate and detract from his hitting. We saw that play out first-hand during his time with the Reds.

The only place where Encarnacion would fit with an NL team is 1B and the Reds have their franchise player at 1B. So how was EdE going to contribute anything to the 2012 Reds?

I suppose he could have been an expensive bench player who could have stepped in briefly during Votto's injury (and it's an extremely implausible set of theoretical hoops you'd have negotiate to make that scenario play out), but the Reds had Frazier. And the Reds also had Frazier, Francisco and Soto in the pipeline when they dealt Encarnacion. The organization was probably pretty confident it would have a replacement on hand for when age overtook Rolen. Whether the confidence was based on a specific one of those kids or just liking the odds of having three potential replacements, I can't say, but trading Encarnacion didn't create any sort of long-term concern at 3B.

Kc61
12-03-2012, 04:01 PM
Funny thing about this discussion is that I never was an EE fan and I was delighted to see him traded for Scott Rolen. My concern with the trade, when made, was the pitching the Reds were giving up.

But I have to be realistic. Fact is that EE is now a big hitter and not yet 30; and Rolen is retiring after two tough years. I can't just ignore that.

Whether EE is a one-year wonder, I don't know. Time will tell.

It's all about when you evaluate a trade. In a year? In three years? After all the players are retired? It's just a matter of opinion and individual judgment. There's no right or wrong answer.

Tom Servo
12-03-2012, 04:07 PM
We made the trade in 2009. We made the playoffs in 2010 and 2012. In 2012 Edwin Encarnacion had a good year. I'll take that tradeoff any day.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 04:07 PM
Playing where? Encarnacion is a terrible defensive player. He's not a 3B anymore and it's likely a fool's errand to play him in LF. And if you tried to stick him in those positions, I'm reasonably certain his defensive miseries would follow him to the plate and detract from his hitting. We saw that play out first-hand during his time with the Reds.

The only place where Encarnacion would fit with an NL team is 1B and the Reds have their franchise player at 1B. So how was EdE going to contribute anything to the 2012 Reds?

I suppose he could have been an expensive bench player who could have stepped in briefly during Votto's injury (and it's an extremely implausible set of theoretical hoops you'd have negotiate to make that scenario play out), but the Reds had Frazier. And the Reds also had Frazier, Francisco and Soto in the pipeline when they dealt Encarnacion. The organization was probably pretty confident it would have a replacement on hand for when age overtook Rolen. Whether the confidence was based on a specific one of those kids or just liking the odds of having three potential replacements, I can't say, but trading Encarnacion didn't create any sort of long-term concern at 3B.

Or he could have been dealt for a player who would have been able to help those 2012 Reds. Instead Jocketty dealt EdE for a broken-down older player making a ton of money that might have been better used to acquire younger players who could contribute to a winning team during the Reds projected window of opportunity to compete.

I don't think it was a bad trade, but it has been bandied about as an example of a Jocketty trade that helped build the 2012 team that won 97 games. I disagree. As far as 2012 goes, that Rolen/Encarnacion trade had a negligible impact. Rolen was unable to play most of the season (only 294 ABs) and played poorly when he was on the field (88 OPS+). On the positive side it allowed Rolen to come over here and share his experience and work ethic and leadership to provide an example for the Reds' young players. On the negative side it used up a ton of money that could have been used to build the squad. I think it is a neutral trade that was a wash as far as building the team goes.

traderumor
12-03-2012, 04:16 PM
First of all, I am not the one who started the Dusty Baker is an ignoramus thing. I just agreed that he does a lot of dumb things in addition to the things he does well.

You are the one that is intolerant of other Redszoners' opinions and feels the need to hurl personal insults. I guess if you can't make a good case for your viewpoint you have to resort to calling names.

Definition of "several" from dictionary.com -- "Several: being more than two and less than many in number or kind." Obviously Walt Jocketty has been in Cincinnati for several years considering he was hired in April of 2008, which means Jocketty has been here for five seasons, so I can't imagine why you want to quibble with my usage of the word "several". So before you criticize someone's use of a word make sure you improve your vocabulary and basic comprehension of the English language or else you come off looking pretty foolish.

Obviously I am not of the opinion that Dusty Baker does a good job in all aspects of managing. Many, many people are able to comprehend how his lineup construction and in-game strategy reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of basic tenets of modern baseball. I guess you fail to comprehend them too since you can't see it. I have complimented Dusty in the past in many threads for his people skills and off-the-field leadership in terms of motivating players and making sure they are prepared mentally and physically to perform well on the field.

You can feel free to disagree with me anytime you like. Just try to do it without calling me names and hurling personal insults -- especially when you are clearly wrong.I did not see a response in your explanation. It's in play for you to refer to Baker as an ignoramous in performing his job, but me pointing out that I feel your opinion shows ignorance on this topic is "hurling personal insults." BTW, a personal insult would have been "you are stupid," not "you show ignorance on this subject." If you do not want your arguments analyzed, you are in the wrong place. But I think its more in the line of "dish it out but can't take it." All you did here was explain why you feel the insult of Baker is accurate. So, did you not understand the question or simply think that you deserve more respect than Mr. Baker, a human being just like yourself?

BTW, I was incorrect on my WJ timeline, I had him starting in '09. Regardless, saying he has had several years to do anything is misleading, esp. since since half of his full-time tenure, from 09-12 has had his team in the postseason 50% of the time.

M2
12-03-2012, 04:26 PM
The Reds traded away a 26 year old above average major league hitter for a 34 year old injury-plagued player earning more than 4x as much money. Then watched as that young hitter eventually developed into a star for another team while the expensive player they acquired struggled to stay healthy enough to play. Not exactly a recipe to be proud of. I don't call it a bad trade, but it certainly wasn't a brilliant success either. It was a trade that didn't pan out that well for either team.

A) Two division titles and complete franchise trajectory change later, I don't care what Rolen got paid. He was the perfect fit in 2009 and 2010 (not to mentioned a better hitter than Encarnacion in those seasons). If the Reds don't surge forward at that precise moment in time, we might be looking at roster where Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto got moved in the name of another rebuilding phase.

B) You're still avoiding that there is just about no realistic scenario in which Edwin Encarnacion would have remained a Red through 2012. Whatever he did in 2012, it was invariably going to happen for a team playing in another city.

C) I'll say it again, two division titles and a complete franchise trajectory change. That looks like pretty brilliant success given that the Reds were on their way to becoming the Pirates v2.0 prior to the Rolen trade. In fact, you can pretty trace back the Reds' rebirth to August 23, 2009 when Rolen came back from a brief DL stint and the Reds began to furiously claw their way up from a 51-71 record. They went 27-13 the rest of the way. Walt Jocketty made a deal which turned around his entire franchise, one of the finest examples of surgical focus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDuPayZLfqU) in the history of baseball.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 04:32 PM
I did not see a response to your explanation. It's in play for you to refer to Baker as an ignoramous in performing his job, but me pointing out that I feel your opinion shows ignorance on this topic is "hurling personal insults." All you did here was explain why you feel the insult of Baker is accurate. So, did you not understand the question or simply think that you deserve more respect than Mr. Baker, a human being just like yourself?

The difference is I was responding to someone else calling Dusty Baker an ignoramus and was not talking directly to Dusty Baker in a rude and confrontational manner. My comments about Dusty were tongue-in-cheek while your insults were quite clearly based in anger and an intolerance of my opinion. I also clearly stated that Dusty is only an ignoramus with regard to one issue (sabermetrics and in-game strategy), while giving him props for being good at other things. You responded with mocking sarcasm and personal insults. You said I was ignorant even though I was right and you were wrong. :lol: Feel free to disagree, just don't resort to personal insults of your fellow Redszoners because someone doesn't share your opinion.

traderumor
12-03-2012, 04:33 PM
A) Two division titles and complete franchise trajectory change later, I don't care what Rolen got paid. He was the perfect fit in 2009 and 2010 (not to mentioned a better hitter than Encarnacion in those seasons). If the Reds don't surge forward at that precise moment in time, we might be looking at roster where Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto got moved in the name of another rebuilding phase.

B) You're still avoiding that there is just about no realistic scenario in which Edwin Encarnacion would have remained a Red through 2012. Whatever he did in 2012, it was invariably going to happen for a team playing in another city.

C) I'll say it again, two division titles and a complete franchise trajectory change. That looks like pretty brilliant success given that the Reds were on their way to becoming the Pirates v2.0 prior to the Rolen trade. In fact, you can pretty trace back the Reds' rebirth to August 23, 2009 when Rolen came back from a brief DL stint and the Reds began to furiously claw their way up from a 51-71 record. They went 27-13 the rest of the way. Walt Jocketty made a deal which turned around his entire franchise, one of the finest examples of surgical focus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDuPayZLfqU) in the history of baseball.Rolen led the way in turning the franchise from a "just show up for the games, hope we win" mentality to a professional, excellence, expecting-to-win franchise. He took the mentality of the GM that traded for him and the manager he played for and displayed what it looked like on the field.

In contrast, EE was exactly part of the "just show up for the games, hope we win" type of player that was the norm at the time.

westofyou
12-03-2012, 04:35 PM
A) Two division titles and complete franchise trajectory change later, I don't care what Rolen got paid. He was the perfect fit in 2009 and 2010 (not to mentioned a better hitter than Encarnacion in those seasons). If the Reds don't surge forward at that precise moment in time, we might be looking at roster where Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto got moved in the name of another rebuilding phase.

B) You're still avoiding that there is just about no realistic scenario in which Edwin Encarnacion would have remained a Red through 2012. Whatever he did in 2012, it was invariably going to happen for a team playing in another city.

C) I'll say it again, two division titles and a complete franchise trajectory change. That looks like pretty brilliant success given that the Reds were on their way to becoming the Pirates v2.0 prior to the Rolen trade. In fact, you can pretty trace back the Reds' rebirth to August 23, 2009 when Rolen came back from a brief DL stint and the Reds began to furiously claw their way up from a 51-71 record. They went 27-13 the rest of the way. Walt Jocketty made a deal which turned around his entire franchise, one of the finest examples of surgical focus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDuPayZLfqU) in the history of baseball.

Gold Star for Robot Boy

traderumor
12-03-2012, 04:36 PM
The difference is I was responding to someone else calling Dusty Baker an ignoramus and was not talking directly to Dusty Baker in a rude and confrontational manner. My comments about Dusty were tongue-in-cheek while your insults were quite clearly based in anger and an intolerance of my opinion. I also clearly stated that Dusty is only an ignoramus with regard to one issue (sabermetrics and in-game strategy), while giving him props for being good at other things. You responded with mocking sarcasm and personal insults. You said I was ignorant even though I was right and you were wrong. :lol: Feel free to disagree, just don't resort to personal insults of your fellow Redszoners because someone doesn't share your opinion.There was no personal insult. Seriously, I'm on a computer, so are you, I'm responding to someone who I know is not named Atomic Dumpling. The insult is of your arguments, not you personally. What is so hard to understand here?

M2
12-03-2012, 04:36 PM
Or he could have been dealt for a player who would have been able to help those 2012 Reds.

Scott Rolen did help the 2012 Reds. I'll refer to when he played some pretty darn good baseball during Joey Votto's injury. Aside from that, Encarnacion's trade value was quickly approaching nil when the Reds dealt him. He got a big arbitration raise in 2010 and his defense at 3B was becoming untenable. He wasn't even the main target for the Jays in the Rolen deal. That was Zach Stewart. Encarnacion was a little bit of salary ballast and a short-term 3B fix.

The Reds traded two arms who haven't amounted to much and a 3B whose value cratered a year after the deal for an All-Star 3B. That's a tidy bit of business.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 04:37 PM
A) Two division titles and complete franchise trajectory change later, I don't care what Rolen got paid. He was the perfect fit in 2009 and 2010 (not to mentioned a better hitter than Encarnacion in those seasons). If the Reds don't surge forward at that precise moment in time, we might be looking at roster where Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto got moved in the name of another rebuilding phase.

B) You're still avoiding that there is just about no realistic scenario in which Edwin Encarnacion would have remained a Red through 2012. Whatever he did in 2012, it was invariably going to happen for a team playing in another city.

C) I'll say it again, two division titles and a complete franchise trajectory change. That looks like pretty brilliant success given that the Reds were on their way to becoming the Pirates v2.0 prior to the Rolen trade. In fact, you can pretty trace back the Reds' rebirth to August 23, 2009 when Rolen came back from a brief DL stint and the Reds began to furiously claw their way up from a 51-71 record. They went 27-13 the rest of the way. Walt Jocketty made a deal which turned around his entire franchise, one of the finest examples of surgical focus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDuPayZLfqU) in the history of baseball.

Like I said, even if you want to roll with the unlikely theory that it was a brilliant trade it was still one of only three substantively good moves over that extended period of 4 seasons. It doesn't change the narrative that Jocketty was largely inactive for a long time.

M2
12-03-2012, 04:37 PM
Gold Star for Robot Boy

That's my move.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 04:39 PM
There was no personal insult. Seriously, I'm on a computer, so are you, I'm responding to someone who I know is not named Atomic Dumpling. The insult is of your arguments, not you personally. What is so hard to understand here?

"... that's just plain disingenuous and reveals a level of ignorance from the one holding that opinion."

That is a personal insult, not a critique of an argument. Don't dig your hole any deeper. I am moving on.

traderumor
12-03-2012, 04:41 PM
Scott Rolen did help the 2012 Reds. I'll refer to when he played some pretty darn good baseball during Joey Votto's injury. Aside from that, Encarnacion's trade value was quickly approaching nil when the Reds dealt him. He got a big arbitration raise in 2010 and his defense at 3B was becoming untenable. He wasn't even the main target for the Jays in the Rolen deal. That was Zach Stewart. Encarnacion was a little bit of salary ballast and a short-term 3B fix.

The Reds traded two arms who haven't amounted to much and a 3B whose value cratered a year after the deal for an All-Star 3B. That's a tidy bit of business.He was dfa'd by the Jays in 2010.

traderumor
12-03-2012, 04:42 PM
"... that's just plain disingenuous and reveals a level of ignorance from the one holding that opinion."

That is a personal insult, not a critique of an argument. Don't dig your hole any deeper. I am moving on.I'll let the record stand as it is. I actually crawl out from under a rock occasionally, thank you.

M2
12-03-2012, 04:43 PM
Rolen led the way in turning the franchise from a "just show up for the games, hope we win" mentality to a professional, excellence, expecting-to-win franchise. He took the mentality of the GM that traded for him and the manager he played for and displayed what it looked like on the field.

Perfectly stated. I've never seen a more dramatic change in a team from the addition of a single player.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 04:43 PM
Scott Rolen did help the 2012 Reds. I'll refer to when he played some pretty darn good baseball during Joey Votto's injury. Aside from that, Encarnacion's trade value was quickly approaching nil when the Reds dealt him. He got a big arbitration raise in 2010 and his defense at 3B was becoming untenable. He wasn't even the main target for the Jays in the Rolen deal. That was Zach Stewart. Encarnacion was a little bit of salary ballast and a short-term 3B fix.

The Reds traded two arms who haven't amounted to much and a 3B whose value cratered a year after the deal for an All-Star 3B. That's a tidy bit of business.

The main target for the Blue Jays was unloading the injured Scott Rolen and his huge salary. Getting the future star EE was gravy. For the Reds, not only did they lose the future star and the prospects they also committed $27 million to Rolen.

As I have said, the leadership they got from Rolen is what makes the trade a wash, his performance on the field was inferior to EdE's and Rolen's salary was a loss for the Reds.

bucksfan2
12-03-2012, 04:46 PM
The main target for the Blue Jays was unloading the injured Scott Rolen and his huge salary. Getting the future star EE was gravy. For the Reds, not only did they lose the future star and the prospects they also committed $27 million to Rolen.

If Edwin was a future star why did they release him?

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 04:48 PM
If Edwin was a future star why did they release him?

Are you saying Edwin is not a star? He had an MVP candidate type of year in 2012. Since he is a star now he was a future star in the past.

mdccclxix
12-03-2012, 04:49 PM
Jays sent some money in the deal too.

Anyway, the inactivity was maddening for a period of time, but there was no shortage of rumor that Walt was trying to get something done. He almost landed Cliff Lee in 2010, but the M's took Smoak instead. He was in on Hunter Pence (2 times), Michael Bourn, and Ubaldo Jiminez too, from what was reported. Win some, lose, well, he hasn't lost one yet, so never mind.

backbencher
12-03-2012, 04:49 PM
The main target for the Blue Jays was unloading the injured Scott Rolen and his huge salary. Getting the future star EE was gravy. For the Reds, not only did they lose the future star and the prospects they also committed $27 million to Rolen.

There was no "future star EdE" in the 2009 deal. There was only "future waiver wire fodder EdE."

Now, waiver wire Ed had value. The fault, if any, lies in not recognizing that.

The "Zack Stewart Cy Young" argument is a lot more compelling than anything related to EdE's inclusion in the deal.

mdccclxix
12-03-2012, 04:50 PM
Are you saying Edwin is not a star? He had an MVP candidate type of year in 2012. Since he is a star now he was a future star in the past.

If the A's had kept EE, did Toronto win the trade?

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 04:51 PM
If the A's had kept EE, did Toronto win the trade?

Is anyone arguing that Toronto won the trade?

backbencher
12-03-2012, 05:00 PM
Like I said, even if you want to roll with the unlikely theory that it was a brilliant trade it was still one of only three substantively good moves over that extended period of 4 seasons. It doesn't change the narrative that Jocketty was largely inactive for a long time.

Making moves is not the same thing as making progress.

Jocketty chose the latter.

What cost him in the press (and with some overactive fans), he made up in the standings.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 05:03 PM
Making moves is not the same thing as making progress.

Jocketty chose the latter.

What cost him in the press (and with some overactive fans), he made up in the standings.

The team progressed despite him not doing anything. That means he is not responsible for the progress.

As I said earlier, nobody wanted him to make moves just for the sake of making moves. It is reasonable to expect a good GM to find/create/manufacture ways to improve the team. Other teams were able to do it over the same timespan. For a long time Jocketty couldn't do it.

M2
12-03-2012, 05:05 PM
Like I said, even if you want to roll with the unlikely theory that it was a brilliant trade it was still one of only three substantively good moves over that extended period of 4 seasons. It doesn't change the narrative that Jocketty was largely inactive for a long time.

I'd say he didn't make many major moves. He wasn't inactive. He brought in guys like Hernandez, Gomes, Nix, Cairo and Rhodes. He plugged the SS hole with Cabrera (which kind of worked) and then Renteria (which kind of didn't). He extended Arroyo. He handed a lot of jobs to young guys and kept the right kids.

Add in the Rolen trade, the Chapman signing and bringing Leake straight to the majors - which were his biggest moves - and you've got a tidy bit of business.

Much as I'd have loved for him to do a trade-and-sign for Jose Reyes prior to 2011, I can't fault him for paths not taken given recent results. I certainly am not going to complain about the current state of the franchise and, that being the case, it's important to recognize that Walt's actions and inaction got us to this place.

camisadelgolf
12-03-2012, 05:09 PM
Are you saying Edwin is not a star? He had an MVP candidate type of year in 2012. Since he is a star now he was a future star in the past.
In that case, everyone's a future star until they never become one.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 05:21 PM
I'd say he didn't make many major moves. He wasn't inactive. He brought in guys like Hernandez, Gomes, Nix, Cairo and Rhodes. He plugged the SS hole with Cabrera (which kind of worked) and then Renteria (which kind of didn't). He extended Arroyo. He handed a lot of jobs to young guys and kept the right kids.

Add in the Rolen trade, the Chapman signing and bringing Leake straight to the majors - which were his biggest moves - and you've got a tidy bit of business.

Much as I'd have loved for him to do a trade-and-sign for Jose Reyes prior to 2011, I can't fault him for paths not taken given recent results. I certainly am not going to complain about the current state of the franchise and, that being the case, it's important to recognize that Walt's actions and inaction got us to this place.

OK. He brought in some roster filler and some short-term fixes. He inherited a strong system and didn't screw things up.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the current state of the franchise. I am a fan of Walt Jocketty. My comments in this post were in response to post #7 where it was said that those people who were claiming at this time a year ago that Jocketty had been asleep at the switch during his first four seasons were off base. Clearly there was in fact a strong argument to be made that Jocketty had failed to improve the team during his first 4 seasons due largely to a lack of activity. The team had glaring holes each year that were not filled with adequate options. In 2012 he was finally able to add Latos, Marshall, Ludwick, Paul and Broxton to the solid core of the team that was here when he took over and help launch the Reds to the top of the league. These were the types of moves that people had been clamouring for since Jocketty took over. He finally took action and did a great job.

M2
12-03-2012, 05:21 PM
The main target for the Blue Jays was unloading the injured Scott Rolen and his huge salary. Getting the future star EE was gravy. For the Reds, not only did they lose the future star and the prospects they also committed $27 million to Rolen.

As I have said, the leadership they got from Rolen is what makes the trade a wash, his performance on the field was inferior to EdE's and Rolen's salary was a loss for the Reds.

So the Jays saved money and the Reds won divisions. I'd rather be the team that spent the money and won.

And it wasn't just leadership the Reds got from Rolen. It got an essential bat early in the deal and a great glove throughout the deal. In 2009 and 2010 Scott Rolen vastly outproduced Edwin Encarnacion. If you're a WAR fan (and I'm not) Rolen had more value in 2011 as well. Encarnacion is entirely a figment of his 2012 season. You're trying to make it sound like the Reds didn't get the better of this deal from a pure production standpoint for 2+ seasons, when they most certainly did. What happened in 2012 with Encarnacion is irrelevant to the Reds. He had been cut loose twice prior to that. Had no trade value to speak of prior to being cut loose. And would have had no role on the 2012 Reds had he (improbably) stayed around.

Rolen's 2012 even had more relevant value to the Reds since no one in their right mind would have strapped a glove to Encarnacion's left hand and sent him out to play 3B for any significant period of time.

M2
12-03-2012, 05:26 PM
OK. He brought in some roster filler and some short-term fixes. He inherited a strong system and didn't screw things up.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the current state of the franchise. I am a fan of Walt Jocketty. My comments in this post were in response to post #7 where it was said that those people who were claiming at this time a year ago that Jocketty had been asleep at the switch during his first four seasons were off base. Clearly there was in fact a strong argument to be made that Jocketty had failed to improve the team during his first 4 seasons due largely to a lack of activity. The team had glaring holes each year that were not filled with adequate options. In 2012 he was finally able to add Latos, Marshall, Ludwick, Paul and Broxton to the solid core of the team that was here when he took over and help launch the Reds to the top of the league. These were the types of moves that people had been clamouring for since Jocketty took over. He finally took action and did a great job.

I see where you're coming from (even agree with pieces of it). Yet I don't think it makes a lot of sense to take that stance and then fret over the Rolen trade. If anything, the desire for Walt to be more aggressive (mostly prior to the 2011 season) would mean more crazy brilliant, immediate payoff deals like the one he made for Rolen.

edabbs44
12-03-2012, 05:28 PM
The team progressed despite him not doing anything. That means he is not responsible for the progress.

As I said earlier, nobody wanted him to make moves just for the sake of making moves. It is reasonable to expect a good GM to find/create/manufacture ways to improve the team. Other teams were able to do it over the same timespan. For a long time Jocketty couldn't do it.

Ramon. Rolen. Cabrera. Gomes. Leake. Rhodes. Chapman. Masset. All key members of the 2010 Division Champs.

backbencher
12-03-2012, 05:30 PM
Clearly there was in fact a strong argument to be made that Jocketty had failed to improve the team during his first 4 seasons due largely to a lack of activity.

If you believe that there is a "clear" argument that Jocketty failed to improve the team, make it. If you have a 2008-2011 move that should have been made, identify it; it shouldn't be hard with the benefit of hindsight.

Me, I would argue that no organization in baseball has grown stronger, top to bottom, from 2008 to 2012 than the Reds. A large part of that is Jocketty figuring out which parts of the garden to nourish, which to prune, and which to replace.

Blitz Dorsey
12-03-2012, 05:49 PM
In my mind, the Reds-Jays trade of Zach Stewart (the main piece from the Reds), Edwin Encarnacion and Josh Roenicke for Scott Rolen was up for verdict as soon as Encarnacion was DFA by the Jays. Anyone in baseball could have had him then. At that point, the trade was a resounding success for the Reds. Even the Reds could have had EE back if they wanted him at that point.

Just because EE -- by some miracle (cough, cough) -- is now putting up big numbers doesn't mean the Reds lost the trade. Let's say the A's would have picked up Encarnacion when he was available to all of MLB and he ended up having his career turnaround there. Would that have meant that the Blue Jays won the trade? Nope.

What the Blue Jays "won" was getting the PED-enhanced, er, I mean the vastly-improved Edwin Encarnacion after he was basically on the MLB scrap heap for anyone to have. As I said, the Reds could have taken him back if they wanted and used him as a backup to Rolen. They definitely won the trade. It's revisionist history to pretend otherwise. The only "mistake" Jocketty made was not making a move on EE when he was available for nothing. But there are 28 other GMs who could say the same thing. And really, EE would only be a good fit for an AL team, so I don't think it was a mistake not going back after him. No one saw this coming from Encarnacion. Unless you also saw it coming from Melky Cabrera if you know what I mean.

This would be different if Encarnacion went to the Jays and immediately starting putting up big numbers. But he didn't. He tanked. Then they were ready to release him. Then they decided to keep him on the cheap because no one else in MLB wanted him. Then he somehow turned his career around. The verdict was in as soon as Encarnacion was DFA'd ... and it was a "win" for the Reds.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 05:53 PM
So the Jays saved money and the Reds won divisions. I'd rather be the team that spent the money and won.

And it wasn't just leadership the Reds got from Rolen. It got an essential bat early in the deal and a great glove throughout the deal. In 2009 and 2010 Scott Rolen vastly outproduced Edwin Encarnacion. If you're a WAR fan (and I'm not) Rolen had more value in 2011 as well. Encarnacion is entirely a figment of his 2012 season. You're trying to make it sound like the Reds didn't get the better of this deal from a pure production standpoint for 2+ seasons, when they most certainly did. What happened in 2012 with Encarnacion is irrelevant to the Reds. He had been cut loose twice prior to that. Had no trade value to speak of prior to being cut loose. And would have had no role on the 2012 Reds had he (improbably) stayed around.

Rolen's 2012 even had more relevant value to the Reds since no one in their right mind would have strapped a glove to Encarnacion's left hand and sent him out to play 3B for any significant period of time.

By that logic you could say any of the other moves the Reds made were brilliant as well. The Reds won so every move must have been perfect right?

When we examine it deeply we can see that Rolen had very little to do with the Reds success in 2012. Rolen's play on the field in 2012 was not good, even when he wasn't hurt.

The Reds made both good and bad moves during the build-up to 2012. The Reds were losers in 2011, so does that mean the Rolen trade was a bad deal since the team was bad? The Reds have gone through good times and bad times during Rolen's tenure, so if you want to give him all the credit for the good times you should blame him for the bad ones too.

Rolen has been a part time player for a long time, partly due to injury and partly due to age. He is surrounded with a full cast of very good young players, many of whom were here prior to Jocketty's arrival. Rolen arrived at a time when the young Reds team was on the brink of success. It is a mistake to believe the winning started because Rolen came to town. Claiming Rolen is a major reason why the Reds have a good team this year just doesn't add up.

When weighing the trade we can see that Encarnacion's hitting stats in Toronto have been superior to Rolen's in Cincinnati -- advantage Jays. Rolen played great defense -- advantage Reds. Rolen provided great leadership -- advantage Reds. Rolen cost a lot more money than EE that could have been spent elsewhere -- disadvantage Reds. It is clearly a wash in my opinion. Going forward the Blue Jays' relationship with Encarnacion is going to continue paying dividends, whereas it looks like Rolen is finished helping the Reds.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 05:55 PM
Ramon. Rolen. Cabrera. Gomes. Leake. Rhodes. Chapman. Masset. All key members of the 2010 Division Champs.

Ramon, Rolen yes. The rest no. Those guys were filler or decent parts that rode the coattails of the stars in 2010.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 05:58 PM
In my mind, the Reds-Jays trade of Zach Stewart (the main piece from the Reds), Edwin Encarnacion and Josh Roenicke for Scott Rolen was up for verdict as soon as Encarnacion was DFA by the Jays. Anyone in baseball could have had him then. At that point, the trade was a resounding success for the Reds. Even the Reds could have had EE back if they wanted him at that point.

Just because EE -- by some miracle (cough, cough) -- is now putting up big numbers doesn't mean the Reds lost the trade. Let's say the A's would have picked up Encarnacion when he was available to all of MLB and he ended up having his career turnaround there. Would that have meant that the Blue Jays won the trade? Nope.

What the Blue Jays "won" was getting the PED-enhanced, er, I mean the vastly-improved Edwin Encarnacion after he was basically on the MLB scrap heap for anyone to have. As I said, the Reds could have taken him back if they wanted and used him as a backup to Rolen. They definitely won the trade. It's revisionist history to pretend otherwise. The only "mistake" Jocketty made was not making a move on EE when he was available for nothing But there are 28 other GMs who could say the same thing. And really, EE would only be a good fit for an AL team, so I don't think it was a mistake not going back after him. No one saw this coming from Encarnacion. Unless you also saw it coming from Melky Cabrera if you know what I mean.

You are ignoring the huge salary hit the Reds took. That trade cost them many millions of dollars and hence the good players they could have bought with that money.

Do you really think the Jays would have MVP candidate EE right now if the Reds hadn't traded him to them? EE is in Toronto because of the relationship they established with him after the trade.

I won't comment on the unfounded steroids accusations.

Blitz Dorsey
12-03-2012, 06:01 PM
You are ignoring the huge salary hit the Reds took. That trade cost them many millions of dollars and hence the good players they could have bought with that money.

Do you really think the Jays would have MVP candidate EE right now if the Reds hadn't traded him to them? EE is in Toronto because of the relationship they established with him after the trade.

I won't comment on the unfounded steroids accusations.

You are ignoring that anyone in baseball could have had Encarnacion for nothing. That's when it was time to give the trade a final grade. The Reds won. Everything after that is irrelevant to the trade itself. Like I said, the Reds could have re-acquired EE and used him as Rolen's backup if they wanted. Think about that for a second.

So, IMO, you can argue that the Reds erred in not re-acquiring EE when he was available for nothing. But arguing they lost the trade is a big stretch and revisionist history.

757690
12-03-2012, 06:04 PM
The team progressed despite him not doing anything. That means he is not responsible for the progress.

As I said earlier, nobody wanted him to make moves just for the sake of making moves. It is reasonable to expect a good GM to find/create/manufacture ways to improve the team. Other teams were able to do it over the same timespan. For a long time Jocketty couldn't do it.

The biggest problem with Bowden, O'Brien and Krivsky is that from 2001-2007 they were always going all in, trying to win the division each year, when in reality, the Reds were never close. What was needed was to sit back, restock the farm system and wait for the team to rebuild.

It cost the Reds millions in wasted contracts, a destruction of their farm system, MLB talent in Kearns, Lopez, Hamilton, etc, all for losing seasons they were destined to have regardless.

Jocketty was the first GM to have the patience to sit tight, keep all the team's prospects, and rebuild the foundation for long term success.

I have no doubt that if Jocketty wasn't the GM in 2008-9, some combination of Votto, Cueto, Bruce and Bailey, would have been traded for mediocre middle relief and starting pitching. Seriously, no trades or moves could have been made in those years to make the team a contender, and Jocketty was smart enough to understand that.

edabbs44
12-03-2012, 06:10 PM
Ramon, Rolen yes. The rest no. Those guys were filler or decent parts that rode the coattails of the stars in 2010.

Disagree. Heisey, Nix, Cairo and similar were filler that year. Those guys started or played legit roles in 2010. Chapman probably not as he was a late call up. But the others did, like it or not.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 06:11 PM
If you believe that there is a "clear" argument that Jocketty failed to improve the team, make it. If you have a 2008-2011 move that should have been made, identify it; it shouldn't be hard with the benefit of hindsight.


The argument has already been made many times -- the key pieces of the 2012 team were already here before Jocketty took over. It wasn't until 2012 that Jocketty finally took action and added to the strong core that was already in place when he came to town. The only player that Jocketty obtained in his first four seasons as Reds GM who is a key component of the 2012 team and beyond is Aroldis Chapman. Every other move he made was for temporary fixes or roster filler.

Walt Jocketty didn't build this team. It was built for him by his predecessors. It is fair to give Jocketty some real credit for keeping things on course and avoiding screwing things up, but it is not accurate to say he built this team into a contender. Only in the past year has he finally found some ways to bolster the core of the team he inherited.

edabbs44
12-03-2012, 06:16 PM
The argument has already been made many times -- the key pieces of the 2012 team were already here before Jocketty took over. It wasn't until 2012 that Jocketty finally took action and added to the strong core that was already in place when he came to town. The only player that Jocketty obtained in his first four seasons as Reds GM who is a key component of the 2012 team and beyond is Aroldis Chapman. Every other move he made was for temporary fixes or roster filler.

Walt Jocketty didn't build this team. It was built for him by his predecessors. It is fair to give Jocketty some real credit for keeping things on course and avoiding screwing things up, but it is not accurate to say he built this team into a contender. Only in the past year has he finally found some ways to bolster the core of the team he inherited.

Let me ask you this...what do you think happened in 2011-12 that woke him up? Did his boss demand that he do something? Did he go to GM school at community college over the winter? Did he get GMing for Dummies for Christmas?

The guy has a pretty good track record and then gets to Cincy and doesn't make many headlining transactions for a couple of years. Maybe there is more to it than just being asleep.

edabbs44
12-03-2012, 06:18 PM
The argument has already been made many times -- the key pieces of the 2012 team were already here before Jocketty took over. It wasn't until 2012 that Jocketty finally took action and added to the strong core that was already in place when he came to town. The only player that Jocketty obtained in his first four seasons as Reds GM who is a key component of the 2012 team and beyond is Aroldis Chapman. Every other move he made was for temporary fixes or roster filler.

Walt Jocketty didn't build this team. It was built for him by his predecessors. It is fair to give Jocketty some real credit for keeping things on course and avoiding screwing things up, but it is not accurate to say he built this team into a contender. Only in the past year has he finally found some ways to bolster the core of the team he inherited.

Don't forget, he also hired your unsung hero during the asleep years.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 06:30 PM
You are ignoring that anyone in baseball could have had Encarnacion for nothing. That's when it was time to give the trade a final grade. The Reds won. Everything after that is irrelevant to the trade itself. Like I said, the Reds could have re-acquired EE and used him as Rolen's backup if they wanted. Think about that for a second.

So, IMO, you can argue that the Reds erred in not re-acquiring EE when he was available for nothing. But arguing they lost the trade is a big stretch and revisionist history.

I never argued the Reds lost the trade. Where did you get that idea? I have said all along at least a dozen times in this thread alone that the trade was a wash. The trade was costly for both teams.

Edwin would have been far too expensive for the Reds to pick him up as Rolen's backup. The Reds would have had to pay EE several million dollars and they had already invested many millions in Rolen.

I disagree that any team could have gotten EE for nothing. That is not accurate. When EE was first placed on waivers in June 2010 so the Jays could send him on a stint to the minors. In order to claim him the Reds would have had to pay his pro-rated $5 million salary. After his contract was over after the 2010 season he was claimed on waivers by the A's, one of the first teams that could have claimed him. All that claim garnered them was the right to try to attempt to work out a contract with Edwin or they could have gone to arbitration and been forced to give him a raise over his previous $5 million salary. They couldn't come to a financial agreement on a contract with EE so he was released again a few days later. He then signed a $6 million contract with the Jays -- that is a long way from being picked up for nothing. When he became a free agent he chose to sign with the Blue Jays. It was up to him to choose which team to play for. He could have gone anywhere he wanted. I am sure the Reds were last on his list. No team had the right to just pick him up for nothing. He was an expensive player who had the right to negotiate with any team and he chose to stay where he was comfortable in Toronto. He would not be a Blue Jay right now if the Reds had not traded him to Toronto.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 06:34 PM
Don't forget, he also hired your unsung hero during the asleep years.

Yes, I would argue that hiring Bryan Price is the best move he has made since taking over the Reds. I am sure Dusty Baker had some key input into that decision as well.

REDREAD
12-03-2012, 07:00 PM
The Reds traded away a 26 year old above average major league hitter for a 34 year old injury-plagued player earning more than 4x as much money. Then watched as that young hitter eventually developed into a star for another team while the expensive player they acquired struggled to stay healthy enough to play..

I see it as the Reds traded away a one dimensional 3b that could not field for a 3b that could field and hit and who helped lead them to two divisional titles.
Eventually the one dimensional journeyman blossomed into a productive DH, but he would've never gotten that chance in Cincy.

Let me ask you this.. suppose hypothetically the Jays would been willing us to give EdE right now. All we'd have to do is pay him and agree to keep him on the roster for the remaining 3 years of his contract. We would not be allowed to trade Votto to "make room for him".. Would you do it.. (EdE is owed 27 million over the next 3 years). I would not do it, because he's a bad fit for an NL team, especially the Reds.

AtomicDumpling
12-03-2012, 07:20 PM
I see it as the Reds traded away a one dimensional 3b that could not field for a 3b that could field and hit and who helped lead them to two divisional titles.
Eventually the one dimensional journeyman blossomed into a productive DH, but he would've never gotten that chance in Cincy.

Let me ask you this.. suppose hypothetically the Jays would been willing us to give EdE right now. All we'd have to do is pay him and agree to keep him on the roster for the remaining 3 years of his contract. We would not be allowed to trade Votto to "make room for him".. Would you do it.. (EdE is owed 27 million over the next 3 years). I would not do it, because he's a bad fit for an NL team, especially the Reds.

Yes I would take him. I would play him in left field. He would fill that hole nicely.

If the Reds still had him he would have been a good option in left field all along. I may have traded him to acquire a player that fits the Reds needs better, or perhaps some prospects.

Blitz Dorsey
12-03-2012, 07:39 PM
I never argued the Reds lost the trade. Where did you get that idea? I have said all along at least a dozen times in this thread alone that the trade was a wash. The trade was costly for both teams.

Edwin would have been far too expensive for the Reds to pick him up as Rolen's backup. The Reds would have had to pay EE several million dollars and they had already invested many millions in Rolen.

I disagree that any team could have gotten EE for nothing. That is not accurate. When EE was first placed on waivers in June 2010 so the Jays could send him on a stint to the minors. In order to claim him the Reds would have had to pay his pro-rated $5 million salary. After his contract was over after the 2010 season he was claimed on waivers by the A's, one of the first teams that could have claimed him. All that claim garnered them was the right to try to attempt to work out a contract with Edwin or they could have gone to arbitration and been forced to give him a raise over his previous $5 million salary. They couldn't come to a financial agreement on a contract with EE so he was released again a few days later. He then signed a $6 million contract with the Jays -- that is a long way from being picked up for nothing. When he became a free agent he chose to sign with the Blue Jays. It was up to him to choose which team to play for. He could have gone anywhere he wanted. I am sure the Reds were last on his list. No team had the right to just pick him up for nothing. He was an expensive player who had the right to negotiate with any team and he chose to stay where he was comfortable in Toronto. He would not be a Blue Jay right now if the Reds had not traded him to Toronto.

You explained that very well, but I think we can all agree that the Jays would not have put Encarnacion on waivers if they truly believed in him at the time. $2 million for the rest of the season wouldn't be much money for a decent player. Only problem is no one in MLB viewed Encarnacion as a decent player, including the Jays. For some reason, things magically changed for him in the coming years. Maybe I've seen too much of this in the last couple decades and I'm jaded, but I think you know what I chalk EE's immense improvement up to. I don't want to say you'd be naive to believe otherwise; that wouldn't be fair. It's merely my opinion.

M2
12-03-2012, 07:42 PM
By that logic you could say any of the other moves the Reds made were brilliant as well. The Reds won so every move must have been perfect right?

Rolen was the catalyst for the late 2009 turnaround and a critical component to the 2010 division title. Those events set the foundation on which the 2012 Reds were built. Again, no Rolen and a fire sale might have been on the near horizon. Acting like 2012 happened in a vacuum is, IMO, a grievous error.

Plus, Rolen was a perfectly acceptable vanilla player in 2012.

Though my point about being the team with the titles rather than the one which clipped more coupons is that no one cares about the contract prices when you win, not that it makes all moves good moves. I'd have gladly seen the Reds pay Rolen triple what he made for the same Rolen-related performance and impact. If he had played like Encarnacion in 2009-2011, then no amount of savings would have covered my disappointment. Perfect contract efficiency is a never-ending blind alley. Rolen made a serious positive difference for the Reds. Glad they traded for him and he's welcome to every dollar.

Blitz Dorsey
12-03-2012, 07:43 PM
BTW, has Rolen officially retired? I know he was mulling it, but I don't think he's come to a final decision. Has anyone heard the latest?

He probably wouldn't want to do it, but I'd love to have him around as Frazier's backup for one final season if he'd be willing to sign for cheap. One last hurrah if you will.

_Sir_Charles_
12-03-2012, 07:53 PM
BTW, has Rolen officially retired? I know he was mulling it, but I don't think he's come to a final decision. Has anyone heard the latest?

He probably wouldn't want to do it, but I'd love to have him around as Frazier's backup for one final season if he'd be willing to sign for cheap. One last hurrah if you will.


Scott Rolen (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rolensc01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.typepad.com) has told the Reds he may play next season, but he isn't ready to make a final decision tweets (https://twitter.com/jaysonst/status/271393218178973697) Stark. The team wants him back in some role.
Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/cincinnati_reds/page/2/#MDSdw0lSfT2xiU0q.99




ROLEN UPDATE: Both Jocketty and manager Dusty Baker have talked to Scott Rolen. Rolen has not officially retired or indicated he wants to play.

“I talked to Scotty the other day, and he doesn’t know,” Baker said. “If you don’t know, it’s hard for me to know for you. It’s hard for me to answer that question. There comes a point in time, you know, when you’re tired of paying as an older player. There comes a time when you’re also wrestling between still playing and your family wanting you home. So I just think that’s a decision that has to start with him.”

Revering4Blue
12-03-2012, 08:03 PM
The biggest problem with Bowden, O'Brien and Krivsky is that from 2001-2007 they were always going all in, trying to win the division each year, when in reality, the Reds were never close. What was needed was to sit back, restock the farm system and wait for the team to rebuild.

It cost the Reds millions in wasted contracts, a destruction of their farm system, MLB talent in Kearns, Lopez, Hamilton, etc, all for losing seasons they were destined to have regardless.

Jocketty was the first GM to have the patience to sit tight, keep all the team's prospects, and rebuild the foundation for long term success.

I have no doubt that if Jocketty wasn't the GM in 2008-9, some combination of Votto, Cueto, Bruce and Bailey, would have been traded for mediocre middle relief and starting pitching. Seriously, no trades or moves could have been made in those years to make the team a contender, and Jocketty was smart enough to understand that.

I look at it this way:

I'm fairly certain, judging by his "the losing stops now" mantra in April of '08, that Cast didn't have a clue just how far away this franchise was at the time.

To his credit, Jocketty was able to do what O'Brien - who didn't have a hope of being retained - and Krivsky - who unfortunately appeared to believe that the franchise could rebuild and contend simultaneously - were unable to do: Convince cast that best course of action was to continue to rebuild the foundation of the team for further success. In short: Winning now wasn't realistic. Thus, Jocketty was afforded the luxury of patience.

I believe that westofyou stated it best in a previous thread that Krivsky - who made two of the best deals (Arroyo and Phillips) in recent years - equates to Murray Cook and Jocketty - the master of turning spare parts into significant contributors = Bob Quinn.

Roy Tucker
12-03-2012, 08:19 PM
I'm more of a results guy. And ever since 1999, the Reds,have seemed to have a team that was on the cusp of success. But it never happened.

Then Jocketty came on board. Took a couple years, but that breakthrough finally happened. Was it luck, skill, patience, or sleep, I don't know. But I'm glad it did and I don't think it was an accident.

westofyou
12-03-2012, 08:49 PM
I'm more of a results guy. And ever since 1999, the Reds,have seemed to have a team that was on the cusp of success. But it never happened.

Then Jocketty came on board. Took a couple years, but that breakthrough finally happened. Was it luck, skill, patience, or sleep, I don't know. But I'm glad it did and I don't think it was an accident.

Deliver the product and then audit the process achieving the delivery, sometimes it's a lucky thing sometimes it's meticulous minutia that equals domain knowledge

The key is does the delivery occur more than once it not?

I know I spent a good part of the last decade wondering how the Cardinals could trot that team out year in and year out with guys like Eckstein starting

It's all about pitching + stars + baseball players and that's what the Reds have been pulling off the past few years

Blitz Dorsey
12-04-2012, 01:17 AM
I'm more of a results guy. And ever since 1999, the Reds,have seemed to have a team that was on the cusp of success. But it never happened.

Then Jocketty came on board. Took a couple years, but that breakthrough finally happened. Was it luck, skill, patience, or sleep, I don't know. But I'm glad it did and I don't think it was an accident.

I'm with you on this. No way it was an accident. Especially not two division titles in three years. One lucky year might happen. Two divisional titles in 3 years are far from luck. That's just a damn good GM. Maybe he inherited a good situation. I think we'd all agree he did. But he sure made the most of it and continues to do so. I also like the way he handles his business. I like when GMs are professional. I'm not a fan of the brash, immature GMs (like Leatherpants).

traderumor
12-04-2012, 08:55 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't think WJ should be penalized or "marked down" because he "inherited" what he has. All GMs do this. It doesn't take much to screw up a good program, but he also brought his competence and track record to Cincinnati. It isn't like he was the new Kris Kringle taking over the Santa Claus empire. Don't forget we live in the town where a certain decision maker inherited a franchise that was in decent shape and what happened to that franchise when he took the reins.

I guess the overabundance of information has raised expectations to sexy moves to say a GM is active and should "get credit." Begging the question.

Well, the Marlins have been very active. The Astros have been releasing, trading, signing left and right. Lots of activity there, they must be well run organizations.

I guess lots of activity gives more fodder for internet pundits to have information to deadpan.

HeatherC1212
12-04-2012, 10:19 AM
Congrats to the Reds on being named Organization of the Year by Baseball America!!! That's pretty awesome. :D

REDREAD
12-04-2012, 10:26 AM
Jocketty was the first GM to have the patience to sit tight, keep all the team's prospects, and rebuild the foundation for long term success.

I have no doubt that if Jocketty wasn't the GM in 2008-9, some combination of Votto, Cueto, Bruce and Bailey, would have been traded for mediocre middle relief and starting pitching. Seriously, no trades or moves could have been made in those years to make the team a contender, and Jocketty was smart enough to understand that.

Excellent way to say it.
Before Walt Jocketty, we had a series of GMs that were basically "churners".
Well, other than DanO, who did absolutely nothing.

Bowden figured a lot of HR and good relief pitching would lead to a lot of exciting, come from behind victories that would sell tickets (and he was successful at constructing some teams like that, and to his credit, sold tickets)

Wayne figured that if you audition enough pitchers, eventually you'd get a group that would work. Defense wasn't that important. Dunn and a few other hitters was a "Good enough" offense.

Both Bowden and Wayne made tons of dumpster dive moves and churned through a lot of bodies, but other than Bowdens' early years (mid 90's) no progress made. Isn't it wonderful to come into spring training not having to hope the Jimmy Anderson, Jason Bere, and Steve Avery will suddenly find the success that has eluded them for years? (Acutally Anderson never really had success). Isn't it great that Dave Williams is not being pimped as a possible #2 starter? Isn't it great that our big offseason move is not signing Stanton to a 3 year deal? Isn't it nice to hold on to our best hitters instead of trading them for a AAA lottery ticket?

A lot of credit goes to Cast for bringing in the right people to run this franchise.
He got a lot of flack for his "The losing stops now" comment, but he's really put his month where his mouth is.

Blitz Dorsey
12-05-2012, 12:39 PM
Re: Scott Rolen ...he's undecided on whether he'll retire or play for one more year, per Fay:

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/12/05/rolen-undecided/

kaldaniels
12-05-2012, 12:50 PM
Re: Scott Rolen ...he's undecided on whether he'll retire or play for one more year, per Fay:

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/12/05/rolen-undecided/

C'mon Scott put your cards on the table and let's move on.