The Rolen trade was a good trade as long as the Reds are competitive in September next year or Rolen's contract is extended. Otherwise, they traded Zach Stewart for practically nothing.
The Rolen trade was a good trade as long as the Reds are competitive in September next year or Rolen's contract is extended. Otherwise, they traded Zach Stewart for practically nothing.
Hey, we almost completely agree on something!Originally Posted by camisadelgolf
I wouldn't want to extend him beyond 1 year at a discount, not that I think that makes the trade better (as we could have signed him regardless). But, if the Reds are competitive next September, I will retract my position on the trade.
Bum
Yes, the Reds need to stockpile prospects. But the failure rate for prospects is high. The time it takes for them to adjust to the majors is often long. Standing alone, I think an exclusive commitment to prospects is a bad way to build a winning ballclub and will not get you the consistent winner you want.
I also think that you can commit to youth but nevertheless add important veteran players. Anyone watching the Reds the last two weeks will see a major positive influence by Rolen's play. It's a question of getting the right people, both the right kids and the right vets.
As for Rolen's age, let's assume -- for the sake of argument -- the Reds' starting eight has three good veterans and five good younger players. Given the salary structure, the three good vets will not all be "in their prime" top players. At least one, maybe two, will either be somewhat lesser players or somewhat older players who no longer command huge long-term dollars. Guys like Rolen.
As for Stewart, I can only trust the Reds' scouts for having selected the right players to trade. I have no idea how the Reds really valued Stewart. It was evident to me that they considered Roenicke trade bait. I am not persuaded that because of his good AA stats the Reds necessarily viewed Stewart as a top prospect. I just don't know.
You are now assuming the Reds scouts/coaches were asked... from what I have heard, some of them weren't and thats not a good sign.
Say what you want about Walt Jocketty--in fact, I'm not a fan of his, personally--but one thing he does well is sell high on prospects to obtain Major League talent that help his teams compete. He has given up practically nothing to get players like Mark McGwire, Pat Hentgen, Will Clark, Dustin Hermanson, Steve Kline, Edgar Renteria, Chuck Finley, Woody Williams, Jason Marquis, Adam Wainwright, Larry Walker, etc.
Where his problems have come is offering extensions to players who are on their way out of their primes. If the worst he does is Mike Lincoln, I think the Reds will be fine. As long as he avoids crazy extensions to Mark Mulder-types, the Reds should be in good shape.
Last edited by camisadelgolf; 09-04-2009 at 02:40 PM. Reason: the Mark Mulder trade was rather expensive
You can have your view but stating he gave up practically nothing for Mark Mulder just doesnt fit very well.
Competitive does nothing for me. I want a Championship. Unless the REDS make the playoffs next year and that Rolen plays in at least 130 games at an .800+ OPS clip, I'll not change my stance on the trade.Hey, we almost completely agree on something!
Bum
You're right--that's a very bad example. I somehow completely forgot Danny Haren was included in that deal. I'll edit it the post.
The end result looks pretty bad for the Mulder/Haren trade. But if you look back at the time of the trade it wasn't so clear cut. Haren had already put up 118 unspectacular innings as a pro. He wasn't exactly a ripe prospect. Mulder on the other hand was a 27 year old pitcher with an 81-42 career record. You couldn't really expect him to have an injury riddled career, especially as one of the better pitchers in the game entering his prime.
IMO it is similar to the Reds trading Homer Bailey for Adam Wainwright. I think most Reds fans would be ok with that.
Does that mean Homer is going to have an injury-riddled career going forward??
Just because they're younger, not better? If thats the case, lets use the grand plan the Pirates have been using en route to 17 years of losing baseball, of trading every decent player they have for a younger unproven prospect. That's worked out great for them.
I don't see what getting a proven 3B harms things, with a couple of far from proven prospects. Rolen is a step ni the right direction: getting a proven player to improve the team.
Well unless a lot of things go right in 2010, the Reds aren't going to be competing for the playoffs. That was known when the trade went down, so while Rolen certainly helps the team in 2009 and probably even in 2010, does he really help the ultimate goal of getting into the playoffs? If not, would the two guys we traded have helped the Reds next run to the playoffs? Simply improving your team now isn't always the best answer.
A step toward 78 wins, I agree...I just don't care. I would rather take my chances with Stewart thanks. You gotta ask yourself, why did the Reds have to give up that much for an $11M Rolen? Who were they bidding against? I know the answer: THEMSELVES!
I don't buy this, and it's in no manner a shot at your intel.
Even if we assume, for a minute, that the scouts/coaches were not asked directly, the Advanced Scouts themselves would have all of their opinions on the Reds' players likely stored in the Reds' development and player files in the front office. Every scout that watches games are asked to put their reports on each player in with their formal reports. So truthfully, if the Reds really wanted to know something on how a scout viewed a player in the organization, it would already be on file.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Because they're better, not younger.
You either want to win a Championship or you don't. Adding a 36-37 year old aging, over-the-hill 3rd Baseman to the 2010-2011 teams isn't going to win a Championship for the REDS.
All MLB Championships start and end with Pitching. The team with the better pitching wins the Championship series every time. Only the very richest of clubs could even attempt to do it the other way by overpaying for the other 8 positions on the field.
The only way the REDS ever win another MLB Championship is if they have better pitching than everyone else. They don't have to have the best 2-5 starters, but they have to have one of the five best starters in MLB that year and they have to have the best bullpen. There is no other way the REDS win a Championship. To accomplish this you have to try to come up with as many "possible" pitchers that can get you to that goal, and Stewart and Roenicke were two "possible" pitchers. When you look at the other choices in the REDS' farm system who are as close as they are to the Majors, the choices fall much shorter on the "possible" scale.
You can have your aging exhorbitantly over-priced, over-the-hill veterans that don't play Catcher, SS, 2B, or CF and the mediocre seasons that go along with it.
When you watch the next two seasons go by the wayside remember, "I told you so".
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
Reply With Quote