Blue Jays are also taking offers for outfielder Alex Rios & third baseman Scott Rolen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine

Oh, I'm in favor of Rolen as long as the Reds don't have to give up a ton. But it sounds like Walt is focusing on an outfielder though. I just hope he doesn't give up the farm for a half year rental like Matt Holliday for example. I would start building for 2010. Next year's team has a chance to be very good IMO, if Walt makes some moves.

---

If we can get Rolen, do we get an outfielder whose initials are EE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reds44

It's not like he is a clubhouse cancer or is eating up a truckload of money

---

No but if you conclude that he shouldn't play third and his bat's not enough for left-field then you should look to move him. Preferably last winter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rojo

No but if you conclude that he shouldn't play third and his bat's not enough for left-field then you should look to move him. Preferably last winter.

---

Again, there's a difference between "looking to move him" and "paying people to take him off your hands." A big, big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HokieRed

If we can get Rolen, do we get an outfielder whose initials are EE.

---

I think that depends on if Edwin is in the part of the deal or not. IMO, it would be in the best interest of the Reds if they really want to make a run this year to have both EE and Rolen in the lineup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reds44

Then you just don't include EE in the deal? EE is not somebody the Reds need to desperatley trying to deal. It's not like he is a clubhouse cancer or is eating up a truckload of money. This makes no sense.

---

I think it's pretty clear that EE has a wider view of opinions than really about anyone this side of Homer Bailey out there.

I think that should be remembered, because the same is probably true in front offices in the MLB. You'll find some people who like him and thus should not be treated as a scrap trade piece, but there are probably some that totally don't value his skillset. He has trade value, as it really only takes a few bidders, but I do think that there are teams out there, and the Jays could very well be included where there would be very little interest in a player such as EE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reds44

Then you just don't include EE in the deal? EE is not somebody the Reds need to desperatley trying to deal. It's not like he is a clubhouse cancer or is eating up a truckload of money. This makes no sense.

---

OK, I will try again.

OBM reported (from Hal McCoy's blog) that the Jays were not interested in EE. Instead, they wanted prospects. I tried to make a point that for the money to work, the Jays needed to take EE's contract which will pay $4.75M next year. That would effectively reduce the cost of Rolen to around $4.5M for '09 and $6.25M for '10. I also argued that if the Jays did not take EE in the trade, the Reds would have no place to play him. The choices would be to carry him as a bench player, move him to LF, trade him, or eat his salary. Since the Jays want prospects, I suggested that the Reds include one with EE. That could make it work. There is no imperative to have someone take EE off our hands at any cost. Nor was it my intent to demean EE in the process. I was simply looking for a way to make the swap work from a financial standpoint, since that seems to be the big sticking point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Austin Kearns

I think it's pretty clear that EE has a wider view of opinions than really about anyone this side of Homer Bailey out there.

I think that should be remembered, because the same is probably true in front offices in the MLB. You'll find some people who like him, and some that totally don't value his skillset. He has trade value, as it really only takes a few bidders, but I do think that there are teams out there, and the Jays could very well be included where there would be very little interest in a player such as EE.

---

I don't care what you think about EE as a player, he's not a guy who you are going to sweeten a deal for the other team to take him off your hands. That's not logical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RED VAN HOT

OK, I will try again.

OBM reported (from Hal McCoy's blog) that the Jays were not interested in EE. Instead, they wanted prospects. I tried to make a point that for the money to work, the Jays needed to take EE's contract which will pay $4.75M next year. That would effectively reduce the cost of Rolen to around $4.5M for '09 and $6.25M for '10. I also argued that if the Jays did not take EE in the trade, the Reds would have no place to play him. The choices would be to carry him as a bench player, move him to LF, trade him, or eat his salary. Since the Jays want prospects, I suggested that the Reds include one with EE. That could make it work. There is no imperative to have someone take EE off our hands at any cost. Nor was it my intent to demean EE in the process. I was simply looking for a way to make the swap work from a financial standpoint, since that seems to be the big sticking point.

---

I must have missed that, my fault. Not saying I agree with it, but definatley much more logical and I can see your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reds44

I don't care what you think about EE as a player, he's not a guy who you are going to sweeten a deal for the other team to take him off your hands. That's not logical.

---

I agree, and actually updated my post a little bit while you were posting to reflect that.

In my post I was agreeing with that point, but at the same time, I think there are a lot of front offices who would have absolutely no interest in acquiring him as a major trading return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Austin Kearns

You'll find some people who like him and thus should not be treated as a scrap trade piece, but there are probably some that totally don't value his skillset.

---

Yes, a team that is missing offense and has a number of open positions. (I'm thinking the Giants).

Yonder Alonso, Homer Bailey, Bronson Arroyo, Edwin Encarnacion, and either Stubbs or Heisey

for

Roy Halladay and Scott Rolen.

Who hangs up first?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benihana

Yonder Alonso, Homer Bailey, Bronson Arroyo, Edwin Encarnacion, and either Stubbs or Heisey

for

Roy Halladay and Scott Rolen.

Who hangs up first?

---

The Reds. Too much future talent for rental players. Don't mind giving up Stubbs or EdE, but Alonso and Bailey don't go for rentals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mth123

The Reds. Too much future talent for rental players. Don't mind giving up Stubbs or EdE, but Alonso and Bailey don't go for rentals.

---

Maybe, although both Rolen and Halladay are signed through 2010, giving the Reds a 2 year window to really go for it all.

After that, you still have Frazier/Francisco to step in at 3B and Stewart/Wood/Leake to step into the rotation.

You also still have Cozart for SS and either Stubbs or Heisey for CF.

Not saying I would do it, just something interesting to think about...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benihana

Maybe, although both Rolen and Halladay are signed through 2010, giving the Reds a 2 year window to really go for it all.

After that, you still have Frazier/Francisco to step in at 3B and Stewart/Wood/Leake to step into the rotation.

You also still have Cozart for SS and either Stubbs or Heisey for CF.

Not saying I would do it, just something interesting to think about...

---

Halladay probably opts out unless he gets something to waive that right.

Back to the Rolen rumor, ESPN has it listed as "debunked" but I cant read the details since it's Insider content.