Forget whether or not this organization is committed to Edwin Encarnacion. By benching him two out of the first three games out of the all star break, the Reds have effectively sent any trade value he had garnered with a strong recent performance to the recycle bin. Nobody is going to ante up to his true value in a deal when the Reds are broadcasting to the world so clearly that they have lost faith in him. Not to mention, he is one of the top 2-3 most valuable players in the organization right now and should be getting ab's every day in the middle of the order without even a passing thought about trading him in the first place. I am just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a defensable argument to benching him no matter what the pov is about his future.
The guy has hit since his demotion and has played good defense. A few more homers would be nice, but come on. I certainly understand driving up Freel's value. But with Hamilton out there is absolutely no excuse for not stationing Freel (and Farney) in the leadoff spot as the Reds center fielder and leaving the third base situation alone. If one of these gm's who reportedly love his "hustle" decide to overpay for a utility man with suicidal tendancies, let's indulge him.
I am dumbfounded at how the Reds manage to stumble their way into situations that hurt themselves with every move. Does the human element in baseball really create these factions between wisdom and prudence? Does Edwin eat lunch in his car and refuse to associate with his teammates, or something? Using Reganomics, the trickle down theory still fails when you substitute sunk cost like Norris Hopper for an asset like Encarnacion.
Ownership should be on top of this and intervening if the new substitute teacher is having so much trouble with his times tables. The Reds are desperately in need of the new math, and a professor who knows how to teach it.