Originally Posted by Revering4Blue
My concern with dealing EE for Rolen was that by the time the Reds were in a position to actually win a World Series - unlike 2010, no glaring weaknesses - EE was more likely to be a more significant contributor than Rolen
Playing where? Encarnacion is a terrible defensive player. He's not a 3B anymore and it's likely a fool's errand to play him in LF. And if you tried to stick him in those positions, I'm reasonably certain his defensive miseries would follow him to the plate and detract from his hitting. We saw that play out first-hand during his time with the Reds.
The only place where Encarnacion would fit with an NL team is 1B and the Reds have their franchise player at 1B. So how was EdE going to contribute anything to the 2012 Reds?
I suppose he could have been an expensive bench player who could have stepped in briefly during Votto's injury (and it's an extremely implausible set of theoretical hoops you'd have negotiate to make that scenario play out), but the Reds had Frazier. And the Reds also had Frazier, Francisco and Soto in the pipeline when they dealt Encarnacion. The organization was probably pretty confident it would have a replacement on hand for when age overtook Rolen. Whether the confidence was based on a specific one of those kids or just liking the odds of having three potential replacements, I can't say, but trading Encarnacion didn't create any sort of long-term concern at 3B.