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.
Let's get the facts straight here.
EE was due over $5M the next season, and considering his poor defense and inconsistent offense, the Reds wanted to dump his salary. At the time of the trade, in order to take EE and his salary, the Jays demanded the Reds include Stewart in the trade. If the Reds didn't include EE and his salary, a lesser prospect would have been included instead of Stewart. EE was a liability.
And after the 2010 season, any and every team would have non-tendered EE. He simply wasn't worth what he was going to get in arbitration. The Jaya didn't mishandle EE when they traded him to the A's, they actually got lucky that he was able turn his declining career around after they signed as a free agent when he was non-tendered by the A's.
You're right that what happened to EE after the trade isn't the Reds concern. What is is that at the time of the trade, EE was a liability that Jockety smartly got off of the books, while at the same time acquiring an All-Star in Rolen.