Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37

Thread: Rolen

  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    769

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick
    The package we offered (centered around Brandon Larson) was preferred by Philly, but Bowden couldn't get a promise that we'd spring for an extention. That was my understanding.
    Yep. And Rolen declined the trade to Cincy, choosing St. Louis instead.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    Member Spitball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    5,626

    Re: Rolen

    I'm not sure all our memories are true. You can google and check the articles yourselves, but this one is pretty typical of the information out there.
    Past doesn't prove Reds want to win


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Column by The Post's Lonnie Wheeler

    Of course, the Reds want to win. Whenever asked, and sometimes anyway, they've preached that from the podium and sung it from the skyboxes.
    It just seems like they don't.

    It has seemed like that for several years now, but we'll limit the discussion to the last three, which takes us back to 2002, when Jim Bowden, the Cincinnati general manager, dared to think that the Reds stood a chance of hanging in with the Cardinals.

    To that end, Bowden worked out a couple deals for better ballplayers. One was Bartolo Colon, a pitcher who beats anybody the Reds have trotted out there in recent seasons. The other was third baseman Scott Rolen, whom St. Louis also wanted. Word is that Philadelphia liked Cincinnati's offer -- alleged to be Scott Williamson, Todd Walker and Brandon Larson -- better than the Cardinals'. The sticking point was Cincinnati ownership, which wouldn't ante up.
    "I am your child from the future. I'm sorry I didn't tell you this earlier." - Dylan Easton

  4. #18
    Member Stewie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    436

    Re: Rolen

    And if I recall correctly, once Ed Wade decided he liked the Reds' package better, he told Walt Jocketty that he had a deal in place before Bowden got it cleared with ownership. Then, once things fell through, he had to go back to Jocketty with his tail between his legs. And again, if I recall correctly, the original deal from the Cards included Jimmy Journell instead of Bud Smith, but once Jocketty knew there were no other teams involved, he removed Journell and added Smith (not that Jimmy Journell has been wonderful or anything).

    Sadly, as bad as that was, the Schilling deal was worse. And the Abreu/Lidle trade to the Yankees a few weeks back, where Gillick had to throw in Lidle in order to get an over-hyped prospect in CJ Henry wasn't all that great, either.

    Good times.

  5. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio
    Posts
    2,729

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by Spitball
    I'm not sure all our memories are true. You can google and check the articles yourselves, but this one is pretty typical of the information out there.
    Linder axed the deal.. right at the deadline.. Rolen even said he wanted to play for the Reds.. but Lindner axed itr because of the money he would have to pay Rolen for a extension.. man i wish BOB was the owner then.. things would have been WAY different here..

  6. #20
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,126

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by BRM
    I thought Bowden did put together a better package and Lindner refused to increase the payroll. Am I remembering it wrong?
    I remember hearing that too. IIRC, it was rumored the Reds offered Larson and Williamson and the Phils accepted it, only to have Allen torpedo it.
    Then the Phils went to the cards :thumbdown
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  7. #21
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,126

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by Aronchis

    Long term, not trading for Rolen was the right thing to do. Injury prone, I wouldn't be surprised that 2007 won't be like 2005 for him. .
    I disagree. Since the trade, what exactly have Larson and Williamson being doing, compared to what Rolen has done?

    All players have a limited shelf life. Rolen has been a steal for the Cards, and would've been a steal for the Reds.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  8. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,673

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by redsfan4445
    Linder axed the deal.. right at the deadline.. Rolen even said he wanted to play for the Reds.. but Lindner axed itr because of the money he would have to pay Rolen for a extension.. man i wish BOB was the owner then.. things would have been WAY different here..
    Lindner axed nothing. The "Limiteds" axed it. That is a WELL known fact.

    Wheeler is wrong on Colon, he is mumbling that article with half-truths and saying them as they are true.

  9. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,673

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD
    I disagree. Since the trade, what exactly have Larson and Williamson being doing, compared to what Rolen has done?

    All players have a limited shelf life. Rolen has been a steal for the Cards, and would've been a steal for the Reds.
    Disagree right back. Who cares what they would have gave up, it is the big money and injury issues considering the Reds already had a big contract with injuries issues. Bowden's impatience with the 2000-03 offensive decline was the only reason he went after Rolen. He was a very poor GM during that period. Yet, by 2004 the offense was beginning to deliver and continues to this day.

  10. #24
    "So Fla Red"
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    South Florida - The Real Humidor
    Posts
    5,067

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by Aronchis
    Disagree right back. Who cares what they would have gave up, it is the big money and injury issues considering the Reds already had a big contract with injuries issues. Bowden's impatience with the 2000-03 offensive decline was the only reason he went after Rolen. He was a very poor GM during that period. Yet, by 2004 the offense was beginning to deliver and continues to this day.
    Back to a four year old topic. No way were the Reds in position to take on another LT contract for a position player with injury history in the 10M+/year range. Not when they had 6+ years left on KGJ's contract.

    Without a doubt, Rolen would have walked after the 2-month rental period with the Reds

  11. #25
    Member 15fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,510

    Re: Rolen

    Sure they were.

    They hadn't shelled out the stupid money to Casey or Milton at that point. Dunn & Kearns were just cutting their teeth, as was Jason LaRue.

    And to address an earlier point, having Rolen AND EdE wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Keep one, and deal the other for pitching. Or move EdE to first. or the OF.

    Instead, the Reds were left to deal for pitching by shopping guys like Sean Casey, Aaron Boone and Danny Graves. We all know how well that went.

  12. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,673

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by 15fan
    Sure they were.

    They hadn't shelled out the stupid money to Casey or Milton at that point. Dunn & Kearns were just cutting their teeth, as was Jason LaRue.

    And to address an earlier point, having Rolen AND EdE wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Keep one, and deal the other for pitching. Or move EdE to first. or the OF.

    Instead, the Reds were left to deal for pitching by shopping guys like Sean Casey, Aaron Boone and Danny Graves. We all know how well that went.
    and Rolen left the Reds with a 11 mill, sapping it from other resources. Simply wasn't meant to be.

  13. #27
    "So Fla Red"
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    South Florida - The Real Humidor
    Posts
    5,067

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by 15fan
    Sure they were.

    They hadn't shelled out the stupid money to Casey or Milton at that point. Dunn & Kearns were just cutting their teeth, as was Jason LaRue.

    And to address an earlier point, having Rolen AND EdE wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Keep one, and deal the other for pitching. Or move EdE to first. or the OF.

    Instead, the Reds were left to deal for pitching by shopping guys like Sean Casey, Aaron Boone and Danny Graves. We all know how well that went.
    You do realize Rolen signed an 8-year 90M deal at the end of 2002. No matter how great the player, the $50M payroll Reds riding a second year of major injury setbacks to their franchise player (and not reaping any of the benefits at the gate for having KGJ on the payroll) were in no position whatsoever to lock themselves into a second $10M+ position player contract (with some injury history) taking them through the end of this decade.

    Sure the Reds squandered money in the meanwhile, like almost everyone else due to MLB's inane salary/service time structure, but at the end of 2002 -- the commitment due Rolen and the risk was enormous. I think Casey's contract was after the 2002 season (3/20 with a 4th year option). A bad one but less than a third of the total commitment to Rolen. Milton wasn't signed until 2 years later and thankfully only for 3 years.

  14. #28
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,126

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by Aronchis
    Lindner axed nothing. The "Limiteds" axed it. That is a WELL known fact.

    Wheeler is wrong on Colon, he is mumbling that article with half-truths and saying them as they are true.
    If it was axed, it was axed with Lindner's blessing. Furman and other media types always liked to blame the anonymous "limiteds" for everything bad.

    What about in Lindner's last year, when DanO went on his 20 million spending spree. None of the limiteds were aware we were even talking to Milton. They were more surprised than we were at the signing. What does this prove? That Carl was the decision maker when he wanted to be. If he wanted Rolen, he could've made it happen, just like he made it happen for Jr, Vaughn, and Milton. The limiteds didn't have any say in those signings/trades, so it's absurd to blame them for blocking any trades.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  15. #29
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,126

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by Aronchis
    Disagree right back. Who cares what they would have gave up, it is the big money and injury issues considering the Reds already had a big contract with injuries issues. Bowden's impatience with the 2000-03 offensive decline was the only reason he went after Rolen. He was a very poor GM during that period. Yet, by 2004 the offense was beginning to deliver and continues to this day.
    If you think the best way to run a club is to minimize payroll and not grab the best 3b in the league on the cheap when he's available, I don't know what to say.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  16. #30
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,126

    Re: Rolen

    Quote Originally Posted by oregonred
    You do realize Rolen signed an 8-year 90M deal at the end of 2002. No matter how great the player, the $50M payroll Reds riding a second year of major injury setbacks to their franchise player .
    The Reds could've swung it if they wanted to, although they might've had to let Casey or Graves walk as a FA at the end of 2002.

    The only reason the payroll was only 50 million was because Allen and Lindner wanted to screw the fans and milk all the money they could out of the franchise.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25