That closes the ledger on EdE.
Ignore his post-DFA numbers because, at that point, he could have been taken by any team in baseball.
With all due respect, I'd say that the deals for Arroyo and Phillips -- even taken into account separately -- significantly altered the state of the franchise for the better at least as much as the Rolen deal, if not more.Quote:
Jocketty made one of the best trades we'll ever see when he landed Scott Rolen. If you can find a deal which completely changed a club's fortunes as immediately and as much as the Rolen deal, I'd love to see it. I've done a good bit of looking around and I can't find anything close.
Okay, let's assume you're right and he was a Chad Rogers type. Is one year of an oft-injured and aging Scott Rolen worth Juan Francisco, Chad Rogers and Sam LeCure? My point is what do most aging & injured players on one year contracts usually bring back in trade? Not that much, that's for sure.Quote:
Was he a top 100 prospect? He wasn't. Did some scouts like him? Yes, some. Not all. He wasn't the level of Cingrani, Corcino, nor Stephenson. He was, at best, a Chad Rogers type.
The point was that the Reds never even attempted to adapt to Edwin's shortcoming. They never attempted to move him to another position where he would probably have more success.Quote:
Okay. What does that matter at all to the trade? That the Reds could have paid less? What's less than below replacement? At the times of their various DFAs, each player was well below major league average to less than replacement.
Nobody said he was a great LF'er. Hell, I've never seen him play there. But I know the tools it takes to succeed there. I know what we had in place there prior to Ludwick. Edwin's bat was fine. The question regarding EE was his defense at third. Why wasn't he tried at LF with the Reds or Toronto? No clue. But can you think of a single reason why he shouldn't be able to adapt to that role rather quickly? I sure can't.Quote:
If EdE is such a great athlete and an apparently great LF, why was he still a DH in Toronto even after they had major problems filling OF voids the past two seasons?
What were the odds that Rolen would come out and put together that first half that he did? Long indeed. Did it work out? Absolutely. But the odds were much better that he'd be more like he was outside of that 1 first half. Offensively, at the time of the trade, Edwin and Rolen were fairly similar IMO. The biggest difference was that Edwin was heading towards his prime but held back by injury and Rolen was on the decline due to age/injury. If the deal was Edwin for Rolen, I think that would've been pretty close to fair. Maybe toss in Roenicke. Adding in a solid prospect as well was overpaying.Quote:
Okay. Again, that has little to do with assessing the deal at hand. The fact is, Rolen had a 5.1 WAR in the first year and a quarter after the trade (before free agency would have hit). That's All-Star level production at 3B, even if his best years were behind him.
Agree to disagree I'd say.
Those guys didn't "hold him back", the Jays simply didn't view Edwin as a LF'er. Why, I don't know.
Does anybody here doubt that he has the speed, the athleticism, the arm or the glove to man LF effectively given practice/reps?
Anyway, I'm done with this as it's over and done with and serves no real purpose anyway. *sigh* I can't wait for ST to start and we can talk about REAL issues. :O)
The Reds dealt him, in part, for a superior player that helped them win their first pennant in 15 years.
Sometimes, players can't play defense well enough to stick in the field at any position. I suspect EdE is one of those types.
Jocketty seems to find and make work those long odds a whole lot more than most GMs, scouts, experts, and fans would. He made the deal, and it worked.
I view this trade in the same way I view the Krivsky deal of Hamilton. From the POV of the day the deal was made. I personally think Krivsky did a better job on the Hamilton trade than Walt did on the Rolen trade. I thought Krivsky got what he should've been able to get for Hamilton and if filled a huge void on the club and dealt from a strength. I thought Walt traded away more than he needed to in order to improve the defense, I thought it could've been done for less (but it still should've been done).
And due to good fortune, good luck, injuries, whatever, the end result of both deals I now view in polar opposites.
I'm probably explaining this poorly...but I've stopped caring. LOL. Anyway, carry on. I've got to cook dinner for the kids. Later guys.
Just a couple random musings on this;
* We don't know who was highly valued at what time. Zach Stewart may have been highly valued here. He may have been highly value by Baseball America (even though he wasn't a top prospect.) Clearly, and it is beyond my comprehension how this could be disputed, however this did not translate to actual value in baseball. Toronto had no qualms shipping him off for chaff to Chicago shortly after. He's been released multiple times now.
* Comparing Edwin Encarnacion at the time of the trade to Rolen is laughable. Edwin was a marginally useful hitter and a black hole as a defender. He also had an attitude problem. He contributed to the culture of losing that had set in the entire previous decade in Cincinnati. Bringing in Rolen cured that problem. By the way, Encarnacion's supposed range was always a myth. And no, he would not be a good LF, or useful as a 1B. He always carried his defensive shortcomings to the plate with him and let it affect his bat.
* Clearly Edwin was not very highly valued by all of baseball given that he was released by Toronto, signed by Oakland, and then released again to go back to Toronto all in the same offseason. That he was able to break out as a plus offensive player was a flukey find for Toronto.
"Who got the better end of the deal?" and "Was it a good deal for the Reds?" are two different questions. We may have gotten the better end because the Jays were also too stupid to know what they had in Encarnacion, but that doesn't change the fact that the Reds would be better today had we not made the deal and kept EE instead.
Either way, you -- and others --present a compelling argument that it was in the Reds best interest to keep EE.
Wrong. They made the postseason in 2010. While a longshot, any team in the baseball postseason can surprise. And Rolen was a major reason they got there.Quote:
the projected window of opportunity to realistically win a World Series. Read: 2012 forward.
Why is everyone on this thread underrating Zach Stewart? He will win MULTIPLE Cy Youngs, not just ONE (measly) Cy Young. Book it.
Edwin: .744 / .831 / .794 / .807 / .729 ~.781 average
Scott: .706 / .887 / .729 / .780 / .823 ~.785 average
This is what I meant by their bats being comparable...that's all. I'm not saying Edwin is equal to Rolen. Rolen is the MUCH better player, teammate, defender and person. But the difference in their bats at the time of the trade was negligible. And one should've been expected to trend upward while the other should've been expected to trend downward going forward.