Post Rolen trade reactions

[Cedric]

I like the move. Giving up basically two relievers for someone the caliber of Scott Rolen is good business. I have been pretty harsh on Jocketty in the past, can't say anything bad about this move.

I also like the way Rolen looks in a Reds uniform. Call me weird but I like when someone carries himself like a professional.

[nate]

I offered up the same thought a few days back.

I predict friction and pouting.

Here or in the Reds locker room?

[redsfan4445]

I wonder if Rolen was brought in to give his own opinion as a player on who to keep and get rid of for 2010.. like behind the scene. When ESPN was showing him on camera, he wasnt joking around with others, he was intensely watching.. very focused..

just ba take on maybe whats hopefully going to get this team beter ready for 2010

[TRF]

That's because all the critics analyzed it before learning about the money involved.

No one said that the Reds got hosed on the talent level, just that Rolen makes too much money and this trade makes it harder for the Reds to do something else since it limits the teams payroll flex. That is what BP, Fangraphs, everyone at ESPN, everyone at MLBTV, and everyone else I read said.

IMO the Reds were completely hosed on the talent level. They have now traded to relievers, likely their best SP prospect and a 26 year old 3B whose offensive game is on the rise, while Rolen's skills are declining. To Rolen's credit he's been fairly healthy and productive this year, but he costs a mint, and my guess is he won't sign for less than 3 years.

The STL model WJ wants to adopt won't work for a team that struggles to draw 2 mil.

Horrible trade. I have no doubt Rolen will be productive for the remainder of 2009 and the first half of 2010 before he is dealt for prospects.

Same as it ever was.

[Rojo]

I wonder why his critics don't bring up extending EdE on his list of "goofs" this offseason. EdE got more money than Tavares did. I guess it's because EdE was more or less a homegrown player (acquired as a prospect), so he gets more love?

I was critical. I wanted EdE traded when he was still a young, cheap player with 26 HR's. The extension plus the changing market moved him into the albatross column.


What I want to know is what did Walt know and when did he know it about Volquez. The seriousness of the injury makes the trade less appealling.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

For all the people that look at dumping EE as addition by subtraction, what was your reaction when he signed the two-year deal in the off-season?

By the way he's talked about (post-trade) you'd think there would have been some RedsZone meltdown they day he signed. I never saw that.

And for those that say they supported the EE signing because they thought he was better than he actually was (he's been a disappointment in '09), don't you think his injury has played a factor in his performance this year?

People are saying....we basically traded relievers for Rolen. I can bet last off-season, it wouldn't have been looked at as just relievers for Rolen. Face it, we just sold EE when his stock was low (due to the injury) and had to pay the price with two good pitching prospects.

You can't give Walt credit for making this trade and not fault him for extending EE.

Four days later and I still don't like this deal.

[BRM]

Here's Daugherty's take.

A scout I spoke to yesterday re the Rolen deal said, "They'd (Reds) have had to fire me before I made that deal.''

TML will be accused of flip-flopping again. Not at all. About a month ago, when the Reds were a game under and 3 1/2 out, I suggested they be bold and make a big move. They did, on Friday, when they were something like 10-under and out of contention. The cavalry came after the Indians had done their work. It was a strange deal. Those who favored it talk of Rolen's clubhouse influence. Good, but worth $7 million next year, which apparently is what the Reds portion of his deal will be? Rolen is injury prone, has lost some HR pop. And really, why should a club have to trade for "presence?'' Didnt we hear all spring about how a new attitude was emerging now that Dunn and Junior were gone? Who didnt step up?

[bucksfan2]

I was critical. I wanted EdE traded when he was still a young, cheap player with 26 HR's. The extension plus the changing market moved him into the albatross column.


What I want to know is what did Walt know and when did he know it about Volquez. The seriousness of the injury makes the trade less appealling.

To me it says that Walt didn't see Stewart as a starter.

[Chip R]

The STL model WJ wants to adopt won't work for a team that struggles to draw 2 mil.

Exactly. But does this mean we're East St. Louis rather than St. Louis East?

[TheNext44]

Here's Daugherty's take.

Okay, now it's official. PDoc and Keith Law don't like it, so it must have been a good move.

[Chip R]

And really, why should a club have to trade for "presence?'' Didnt we hear all spring about how a new attitude was emerging now that Dunn and Junior were gone? Who didnt step up?

Like my grandpa used to say, "Even a blind sow finds an acorn every once in a while."

[TheNext44]

Exactly. But does this mean we're East St. Louis rather than St. Louis East?

If you've ever been to East St. Louis, it's even funnier (and sadder).

[wolfboy]

Exactly. But does this mean we're East St. Louis rather than St. Louis East?

East St. Louis for sure. Right now, the Cards are the designer watch you buy on 5th Ave, while the Reds are the knockoff watch you buy on Canal St.

[Rojo]

To me it says that Walt didn't see Stewart as a starter.

So. I was ok (and only ok) with the trade to take advantage of a 2010. The window fell nearly shut with the Volquez news.

Now, if he's got a plan to add a pitcher and a SS, fine. Otherwise, the trade doesn't make sense.

[Chip R]

If you've ever been to East St. Louis, it's even funnier (and sadder).

I have been - by accident. I took the wrong exit from the airport and wound up there. Turned around to get back on the freeway ASAP.