Heyman says Rolen to the Reds

[Marc D]

I think there are plenty more Zach Stewart's and Josh Roenicke's. Our prospects are adequately hyped right now, so I'm sure some more deals can be hammered home including some of our "maybe's" talent for some major leaguers that can produce now. If not, the draft is next June to get some more. Glad to see Walt finally crap and get off the pot on something. People think he has been doing nothing, but if he thought like RZ, talk about a hamstrung organization afraid to make a move because "gee, that prospect might be a Cy Young award winner some day."

There are more prospects in the system but not all are of equal value. They are a finite resource. I can't speak for all of RZ but I have no fear of moving prospects because of what they may be some day. I fear giving them away for a disproportional return. Why give away what you can sell?

The only answer I can come up with is the difference in perceived value to this organization and that of perceived value to everyone else. I feel the organization thinks this is a good move because it will let the fans know they are trying to build a winning team and because of that the fans will continue to come on down and watch. The pro's and con's of that model have been rehashed many times.

Scott Rolen embodies the status quo to me. I think most fans are sick to their stomach of the status quo while ownership is quite content with it despite being misquoted about wanting to win from time to time.

[TheNext44]

Just for the record, both BP and Keith Law like this trade from the Blue Jays side.

That makes me feel so much better about the trade, given their history.

Also, other "experts" have weighed in, and nearly all have

1) valued EE as about equal to Rolan or as an actual valuable piece to the trade,

2) not mentioned the money involved nor the money that EE was due next year (which was huge imo),

3) have not like the trade mainly because they don't think the Reds can compete this year or next with only the addition of Rolen.

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

1) EE is bench player at best. He simply will not hit enough to justify playing LF or DH, and we all know he is not a 3B.

2) Basically the Reds absorbed $6M in this deal over a year and a half. That really is pretty fair, considering the talent involved on both sides.

3) I agree, as do most non-haters of this trade, that the Reds have to do more to justify this trade. I am confident that they will between now and next season. Either a payroll bump or shedding one of the big contracts, or maybe even both.

[VR]

Stewart has a 2.57 BB/9 in 91.2 innings this season. For his career his minor league walk rate is 2.90 BB/9, which is very solid.

It is, but projecting Major league success off a minor leaguer's first 100 IP's isn't an exact science.....especially when he's a college arm, pitching against much younger competetion at each stop.

[kaldaniels]

Stewart has a 2.57 BB/9 in 91.2 innings this season. For his career his minor league walk rate is 2.90 BB/9, which is very solid.

For such a highly touted guy, I'm unimpressed by that rate.

[TheNext44]

The amusing part of all this is that maybe a dozen people on the board have actually seen Stewart pitch.

There are about 50 pitching prospects I wish the Reds had traded sooner over the years. Additionally, there are about 50 pitching prospects (many of whom were "top 10" guys themselves) that were acquired by the Reds in deals like this one who never amounted to squat (see: Ramirez, Elizardo / Chick, Travis / Valentine, Joe / Germano, Justin etc.).

I've watched too much baseball to put total faith in a 20-something in the minors. Some are gonna be good, some are gonna be bad -- the only mistake you can make is selling 'em all or hording 'em all and hoping for the best.

Maybe the Reds screwed the pooch on this, but look at anyone who tells you the answer to that question with certainty or conviction with a health dose of skepticsm.

Well put.

The philosophy to trading prospects is to keep trading them, but make sure you get solid veterans who produce back every time.

The prospects will become productive major leaguers around 20-30% of the time, and stars maybe 5-10% of the time. And history has shown, that no one knows who those will be.

If you keep getting solid production back every time, you always will be ahead of the game, even if one of them becomes a star.

[Brutus]

There are more prospects in the system but not all are of equal value. They are a finite resource. I can't speak for all of RZ but I have no fear of moving prospects because of what they may be some day. I fear giving them away for a disproportional return. Why give away what you can sell?

The only answer I can come up with is the difference in perceived value to this organization and that of perceived value to everyone else. I feel the organization thinks this is a good move because it will let the fans know they are trying to build a winning team and because of that the fans will continue to come on down and watch. The pro's and con's of that model have been rehashed many times.

Scott Rolen embodies the status quo to me. I think most fans are sick to their stomach of the status quo while ownership is quite content with it despite being misquoted about wanting to win from time to time.

I have expressed my thoughts on the trade in another post, but I'm going to say this as a generic observation.

While I have my own thoughts on the deal, and whether it should have been made, it really goes like this:

If the Reds had just traded the enigmatic third baseman (Encarnacion) and a solid but dime-a-dozen middle reliever (Roenicke), everyone here would have been overjoyed at this trade, I imagine. After all, while Rolen's age and health history can be called into question, he does have a proven track record and brings both talent to third base and intangibles that most agree Encarnacion does not provide.

If what the article posted in this thread is true, the Jays see Stewart as a No. 3 starter, then does the trade of an unproven No. 3 starter (who's had less than a year experience in the minors as a starting pitcher) really take this deal from solid to horrendous?

I like Stewart a lot. And I'd rather the Reds not have traded him. However, given the past success (or rather lack of success) rates of guys just like Stewart, I know better than to allow his inclusion too strongly dictate my opinion on the trade. There's a better chance he amounts to little or nothing than this trade haunting the Reds for years to come.

I'm more concerned about the production and how it equates to the financial cost than whether the Reds include a projected No. 3 starter.

[RollyInRaleigh]

Trade minor league bullpen arms for above average major league position players all day, every day, twice on Sunday, and three times on the important holidays.

[OnBaseMachine]

For such a highly touted guy, I'm unimpressed by that rate.

I don't know why. A 2.57 walk rate is very good, as is his career 2.90 walk rate.

Here's a look at some other pitchers career minor league walk rates:

Greg Maddux - 2.7
Brandon Webb - 3.2
Chris Carpenter - 4.3
Roy Oswalt - 2.5
Matt Cain - 3.7
Tim Lincecum - 3.3
Cole Hamels - 3.3
Roy Halladay - 2.9

Please note that I'm not saying Stewart is as good as those guys, I'm just pointing out that his walk rate is very good and is right in line with some of the best pitchers in the game.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

People are going a bit overboard in an attempt to justify dealing prospects.

The many of that hate this trade do so, not because we want the Reds to hoard prospects (because they will all be future HOF'ers), but because these two prospects in particular (and especially Stewart) should not have been necessary to get this deal done.

That's the point. So let's stop with the red herrings that prospects are unimportant and overvalued.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

For such a highly touted guy, I'm unimpressed by that rate.

You really think this?

What do you think would be a good rate?

[OnBaseMachine]

People are going a bit overboard in an attempt to justify dealing prospects.

The many of that hate this trade do so, not because we want the Reds to hoard prospects (because they will all be future HOF'ers), but because these two prospects in particular (and especially Stewart) should not have been necessary to get this deal done.

That's the point. So let's stop with the red herrings that prospects are unimportant and overvalued.

Great post.

I LOVE the Reds and I know everyone else here does too, but it's okay to disagree with a move every now and then. We don't have to agree with everything and try to justify every move they make.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

I guessed I missed the 'smug' reasoning.

I dunno. I'm seeing plenty of smug just in the past few pages of this thread.

[kaldaniels]

You really think this?

What do you think would be a good rate?

Give me a 2.5 and I'm gonna start to be impressed by a pitchers' control. 2.9 for a career is an average rate for a guy who is hoping to be a good big league pitcher. You can stack up his walk rate to other superstars' walk rates in the minors, but that doesn't speak to whether it is a good one or not. Trust me...Chris Carpenter's walk rate of 4.3 in the minors was a concern. It has no implication of whether or not Stewart will be sucessful. I'm not putting down Stewart at all...just saying that if you isolate his walk rate it is average.

[VR]

I dunno. I'm seeing plenty of smug just in the past few pages of this thread.

That's great.
I was trying to start some conversation on evaluating the past maximization of Reds prospects.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Give me a 2.5 and I'm gonna start to be impressed by a pitchers' control. 2.9 for a career is an average rate for a guy who is hoping to be a good big league pitcher. You can stack up his walk rate to other superstars' walk rates in the minors, but that doesn't speak to whether it is a good one or not. Trust me...Chris Carpenter's walk rate of 4.3 in the minors was a concern. It has no implication of whether or not Stewart will be sucessful. I'm not putting down Stewart at all...just saying that if you isolate his walk rate it is average.

If they have a high K rate, I don't think anything around 3.0 is an issue.