Originally Posted by mth123
I'm not sure that is the way to look at it. Rolen has been a windfall that has provided tons of value and even those who were against the deal knew that he was a big upgrade from EdE, but that doesn't mean the Reds couldn't have gotten him for less.
If you buy a house for 200K and its value rockets to $500K you're surely happy with the deal. But if you could have bought the same house for $75K, then you still overpaid.
I'm with Doug, Rolen wanted out of Toronto and there was really nowhere else for him to go. His OPS of .840+ last year was probably about 60 points higher than what should have been expected and he was and is a damaged player whose skills have been compromised by injury and isn't the guy that the back of his baseball card says anymore. Under those conditions, giving up Stewart seemed too much to me. Even if the Reds had made the decision that Stewart was a mirage, his value was skyrocketing and he could have been dealt for something else. At the time, he probably had more value than any prospect the Phillies gave for Cliff Lee.
IMO, even the Chicago market was too far from Rolen's home for him to accept a deal there. Since he'd burned his bridge in St, Louis, I think it was Cincy or retirement to be near his family for Rolen. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Rolen asked Walt "get me out of here now" and Walt simply tired of negotiating and made a deal that he knew would be accepted quickly. Rumor at the time was that the Jays wanted Alonso. Had it been Alonso instead of Stewart, I'd have thought it was a fair deal. I just hate giving up highly regarded pitching without getting pitching in return. Intead the Reds got some cash to pay the salary difference and that is what made this an overpayment in my mind. I'm not opposed to selling off assets to help with the budget, but dealing what was, at the time, the best pitching prospect simply to balance the dollars in the deal didn't seem a good idea. I'd have waited until the off-season and added Rolen before the 2010 season when that money to balance the 2009 budget was no longer a factor. Adding him for the end of 2009 was meaningless in the overall plan and I really don't think he'd have willingly played anywhere else.
I understand simply saying, I think the Reds gave up too much to get Rolen, but it was a good deal for the Reds in the end. Fine. Some had a higher value on Stewart...I get that. But I asked Doug a few months back if he would undo the trade if he could, and he said yes. I doubt you stand with him on that front. And to be honest, I struggle with Doug on that one, for he is one of the more knowedglable ones on here...but I just hope one day he sees the light and realizes this deal was a plus for the Reds.
And I would have not been happy at the time of the deal myself had it been Yonder instead of Stewart.