How did Walt do?

[redsfandan]

No, I don't think that's silly in any way, shape or form. It's a legit question to ask and have a discussion about. Yes, Rolen is an excellent player but he is older and a decline would be natural. Throw in his injury history and we _could_ have an OPS of .800, but in how many games? 120? 100?
It's not a silly proposition.



Again, I say it's a reasonable concern.

And you're pointing towards how many games he plays as the bigger concern. Just like I did.

[nate]

Of course you could also look at players like Chipper Jones and Mike Lowell who are still productive and are both older than Rolen.

But haven't they both spent quite a bit of time on the DL?

[princeton]

Of course you could also look at players like Chipper Jones and Mike Lowell who are still productive and are both older than Rolen.

you argued that you can't see "any reason" that Rolen can't OPS .800 next year.

but now you do, correct? older players sometimes fall right off a cliff-- following up a good season at 34 with several poor seasons thereafter. age'll do that. and even if they OPS .800, it doesn't much help if they can't get on the field, and older players have more injuries as Larkin/Jr surely showed. so there are a couple of reasons right there.


personally, I hope that Rolen plays every day and wins the 2010 NL MVP. but I do see that we're not getting a 27 year old player. matter of fact, we gave one up

[nate]

And you're pointing towards how many games he plays as the bigger concern. Just like I did.

So this one reason why he perhaps wouldn't OPS .800. Or, if he does, it could be in less than a full season.

Like I said, these concerns aren't silly.

I like having him on the team and am concerned about these very things.

[redsfandan]

you argued that you can't see "any reason" that Rolen can't OPS .800 next year.

but now you do, correct? older players sometimes fall right off a cliff-- following up a good season at 34 with several poor seasons thereafter. age'll do that. and even if they OPS .800, it doesn't much help if they can't get on the field, and older players have more injuries as Larkin/Jr surely showed. so there are a couple of reasons right there.


personally, I hope that Rolen plays every day and wins the 2010 NL MVP. but I do see that we're not getting a 27 year old player. matter of fact, we gave one up

Not really. I don't think anyone, including me, is expecting Rolen to have a mvp type season. Similar offense to EE with MUCH better defense. That's all. Like I've said, repeatedly, how much he plays is the MUCH bigger concern.

[LincolnparkRed]

Well Buster Olney chimed in to say Walt confused him as well

The Reds have a $74 million payroll this season, and if they stay at that level next year, Scott Rolen's $11 million salary will account for about 15 percent of that total. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever given his age, injury history and decline in power. Rolen, who will turn 35 years old in April, mashed 34 homers in 2004 but has hit 54 homers in the four-plus seasons since.

[BRM]

Bob Miller said in his most recent chat that the Reds are not on the hook for his entire 2010 salary.

EDIT: I may have misread that. His answer doesn't specifically say next year.

ethanator9:
11:29 am How are the Reds going to have money to pay for Rolen next year?

bob_miller:
11:31 am The reports on the amount owed Rolen floating around is incorrect. While I'm not at liberty to say what the amount is, we are not responsible for some of it.

[dfs]

How was that a decent move? If we had actually saved some money it would be different but he wasn't getting that much money anyway.

They gave away a couple months of Hairston for minor league talent that they don't have to pay a bonus.

[edabbs44]

Bob Miller said in his most recent chat that the Reds are not on the hook for his entire 2010 salary.

EDIT: I may have misread that. His answer doesn't specifically say next year.

The question says next year.

Interesting if the $$$ estimate is incorrect.

[Ltlabner]

edabbs44 showed that his skills aren't declining. But you keep saying they are. How about proving your point? I don't see any reason why he can't be an .800+ OPS player next season. His health is a much bigger concern.

His production isn't declining (as shown by his hot 2009) but that doesn't mean his raw skills aren't.

People generally slow down, lose a step, suffer more injuries and take longer to recover as they get older. I'm not sure why anybody would want to argue that point.

[Ltlabner]

I assume that the Reds staff disagrees on the "declining skills" part of the discussion.

They also thought they could "fix" Taveras.

[princeton]

Miller: "I know that it seems like a totally idiotic trade but trust me, it's not. I just can't tell you why though."

[Ltlabner]

That is obvious, however the argument is that his stats are in decline.

No, I said skills. Big difference.

And as Nate correctly pointed out, the big question is at what rate do the decline and how far do they drop during the next 1.5 years. Maybe they don't drop at all, maybe his injury history goes away and maybe we'll all look back and say "Edwin who?".

But those are big maybes, and it's not out of bounds to suggest they exist.

[edabbs44]

They also thought they could "fix" Taveras.

I think everyone is entitled to a screwup every so often. Especially one that is fairly cheap.

[BRM]

The question says next year.

Interesting if the $$$ estimate is incorrect.

Yeah, the question says next year but Miller's answer was a little vague.