Originally Posted by Kc61
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.