Co-sign.Originally Posted by westofyou
Co-sign.
If you're going to look at that, then look at the other side, too. Rolen, while batting in an RBI-spot all season long is hitting just .223 with RISP. That's a pretty poor job for someone who's being asked to drive in runs.
I'm not looking at either.
Since most posts are trying to "evaluate" the trade, I like this one best of all:
Originally Posted by jojo
Basically its saying over the period looked at, pitchers ranked as Stewart was as a group averaged $12M of production at the major league level over their careers. That could be a starting pitcher who produced $100M, several guys who ended up being relievers and maybe contributed $6 million total as a group and a bunch of guys who never made it to the majors (and all variations in between).
If the Reds really were confident that Stewart would have 15 WAR production as a Red, they shouldn't have included him in the deal (That's about $60M worth of production on the open market most of which would've been surplus value given how little they'd have to pay relative to service time).
I doubt they thought about it like this BTW but who knows?
Basically I think it means that the Reds had some reservations about Stewart's chances to stick as a starter in the bigs and it probably also suggests that his trade market may not have been as enticing as we'd like to hope (probably because it is still in the air concerning which role he's ultimately likely to assume as a major leaguer). It probably also means the Reds wanted Rolen so badly that they'd error on the side of overpaying a bit too. That said, I don't think it was a dramatic overpay in the sense that the Reds were blinded at all costs in their like of Rolen (i.e. the Reds didn't think they were trading a TOR starter who commanded a stellar trade return).
Stewart has an almost 7 ERA in DOUBLE A - and nitpicking about this or that stat for one of the guys that's helping the REDS win is like, totally and utterly incomparable. It's like bragging about a rec league game where you scored 20 points or something and then bashing Kobe Bryant based on it. It makes no sense.
Why don't people just admit they're wrong? They were wrong about the Kearns/Lopez trade, which sucked to trade two at the time contributors for nothing, but those guys didn't help other teams out either. We've never *really* been hosed on a trade in recent history (unless you want to count the Griffey fiasco, in which you had to have been Nostradomus to know he would be hurt that much.) Our demise and rise has been thanks to the minor league system/developing player, and free agency.
As I said in the other thread you pasted this in, what exactly does it mean to say pitchers ranked as Stewart was? At what point in time, from what service? I mean, its all random. Some places had him ranked, some didn't, does that mean he's good?
Like, lollipop, I respectfully disagree with the assumption that you cannot judge a trade by its results. You can.
Oh, you can point to the vagaries of the human condition-- injuries, mental struggles, light bulbs, whatever.
But this is a results business.
So far, the deal has worked really well for the Reds. It's worked less well for the Jays, though it could eventually.
And, for the record, Boston made a great trade. It won them the World Series. Without both Lowell and Beckett, the Sox don't win.
Florida also made a great trade. They dealt a major headache and underperforming 3B and a really expensive-to-be SP for a prospect that turned into a great player.
Here's a pretty timely entry on USSM-it discusses process versus results using the Ms but it's still on point with the recent focus on how to view the Rolen deal....
http://www.ussmariner.com/2010/05/18...s-and-results/
Baseball fans have unprecedented access to information and evaluation tools-devoted, knowledgeable fans can form meaningful and informed opinions about process.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Like I said, you can judge the trade based on results, it's fun to do. But you can't judge the GM based on results. You can only judge them based on how intelligent their moves were based on the knowledge that they had available at the time.
A great example of this is when the Tigers traded John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander in 1987. Results say it was a terrible trade for the Tigers. But at the time, they needed a starting pitcher, and Alexander was the best one out there, and he lead them to the division title with a 9-0 record. Smoltz was a 22 round draft pick with just one and a half years of pro ball under his belt. He was 4-10 with a 5.68 ERA at the time of the trade in AA.
There was no way the Tigers could have known how good Smoltz would end up being. In fact, most people doubt Smoltz would have been anybody if the Tigers kept him. But the point is that at the time of the trade, the Tigers made the right decision. If they trade a 22 round draft pick who has a 5 ERA in AA for a legitimate major league starter 20 times, 19 times they will come out on top. They just got unlucky that this one time was the one in 20 chance that it turned out bad.
So the moral is, judge the trade based on the results, judge GM on the process.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein
I don't see why you can't judge the Alexander/Smoltz trade on results.
From my view, both teams "won" that trade. Detroit got exactly what they wanted and needed to complete a run at the division. Atlanta got a piece that led to years of competitiveness. Both teams won that deal.
Why is it not okay to look at the results?
Exactly.From my view, both teams "won" that trade. Detroit got exactly what they wanted and needed to complete a run at the division. Atlanta got a piece that led to years of competitiveness. Both teams won that deal.
It's kind of like pitching and ERA.... it's best to view the things that the GM could know/control when looking at how well he performed. Lots of things can effect the results that could be classified as being things a reasonable person couldn't hang on a GM.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Working on 5 days rest, Stewart has a good outing last night:
6 IP, 5 H, 2 ER, 0 BB, 3 K 9/6 GB:FB
ERA now at 6.12 on the year at AA New Hampshire.
I fully reject the "it's best to view" tone of this as officious and unhelpful. I will choose to view deals based on results. You don't, apparently. Full stop agree to disagree here. When a GM makes a deal, results matter.
Is it? It's 2 WAR for one season. At the time of the trade I had EE vs Rolen as a little over 1 WAR for one season. Roenicke could reasonably be expect to add that over 6 seasons, and that's not even mentioning Stewart, the centerpiece of the trade.
Last edited by kpresidente; 05-19-2010 at 08:54 AM.
Right and if things keep breaking right for the Reds this season, that two WAR could be gold. A playoff appearance is big money. Winning a series is huge. Getting to the world series....jackpot.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
An interesting article from Doc on this subject today...
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...olen+trade+now
Here's a quote from Walt from the article:
What can't be factored into this, or at least hasn't by many is the human element. Its almost impossible to judge correctly, but I'm guessing a good GM can spot when his missing a non-baseball skill within the clubhouse much quicket than any fan or beat writer can (well maybe the beat writer would have a good idea). At the time of the trade, your best team player was dealing w/ questions about his mental health, your best young prospect was injuried and stuck in a terrible season long slump w/ major difficulities handling lefties. You're most expensive position player, and one that would typically get the "leadership" roll was getting questioned several times about his "hustle" and there were questions about how much of a "leader" he really was, despite his previous claims of wanting that roll.It can be said now that Walt Jocketty and Bob Castellini acquiring Scott Rolen was pretty much a masterstroke. The general manager and owner had concluded the home clubhouse was a mess. The “culture’’ as Jocketty called it, was aimless. There were players who wanted to win. They didn’t know how. Rolen knew.
Jocketty knew Rolen knew, having watched him in St. Louis, where he’d played on two World Series teams. The GM saw Rolen’s “subtle leadership’’ and guessed it would work a little magic in Cincinnati. He was right. Boy, was he ever.
For all I know, perhaps Walt thought on a pure baseball skill vs cost structure, he was giving up far more in Stewart than he was getting in return in Rolen, but this article hints that he was looking for more than just talent and skill level, but needed an example in the locker room that his is how you approach your job, this is how you handle adversity. Honestly, I don't know how you judge a trade on anything beyond the results on the field. All the clubhouse leadership or minor league rankings in the world don't mean a hill of beans if you can't do your #1 job, namely winning baseball games. A trade can look great on paper, but paper doesn't win you anything, performance does, and so far, based upon about half a season worth of ball games, the Reds are winning this trade. I'll happily give up Mike Leaker, Yonder Alonso & Chapman tonight for Joe Schmidt, Joe Schmoe & Joe Schmadt, if Schmidt, Schmoe & Schmadt all turn into hall of famers. I don't really care how much a trade is critized or panned the day it goes down, all that matters is what happens as a result of that trade going forward.
Was Stewart looking like a good prospect? Absolutley, ranked highly by several sources, but never discount a proven, quality major league talent just because you're giving up a prospect. Proven major league talent has shown he belongs, a prospect has done nothing more than proven he belongs in the conversation, nothing more, nothing less. Prospect certainly appeal to that pie in the sky, the grass is always greener in the future outlook that lossing franchises must hold onto while the on the field results suffer. How many prospects have come and gone and been forgotten since 1999? I'll take a legit chance at a winner today over the promise of a winner tomorrow everyday.
This is from PDoc today:
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/daughert...ning-line-519/Baker needs players like Rolen in his clubhouse because, current Rol’ notwithstanding, he can have an overly light touch. Clubhouse lieutenants are vital on any team (see: Vaughn, Greg, 1999) but this team was especially needy. Jocketty told me yesterday that the Reds were all but assured of getting Rolen to sign an extension after last season, when they traded for him. Jock also said Rolen would be willing to spread out the cash, as he has done, which allowed the Reds to get Cabrera.
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