Re: Heyman says Rolen to the Reds
Love when I come home from golfing to a 44 page thread generated in five hours.
Initial thoughts without reading the entire thread:
1. The 2009 Reds are better now. The 2010 Reds might be better, depending on if Rolen's contract prevents other guys from being signed. The 2011-2014 Reds are probably worse.
2. With the new emphasis on defense, you knew EE was not going to be the long-term guy at 3B.
3. Zach Stewart is a good but not great prospect, he's the type of guy you have to be willing to part with to add the missing piece. If the time was right I could live with this sort of deal. Since the 2009 Reds aren't going anywhere, I don't think this is that time.
My question is, what has to happen for this to be a good trade? The 2010 Reds have to contend with Rolen playing a key role, right?
I don't like it. Rolen's a good player and the Reds are better now that they have him, but if he's the difference between 76 and 78 wins who cares? His acquisition needs to be followed with others for 2010... and since available payroll just went down I'm not sure that is going to happen. If Jocketty wants to go this route he sends out Alonso or Frazier for a legit SS in the offseason - not saying I would necessarily go that route, but if he did that at least you couldn't accuse him of not having a plan.