Hm. I thought I remember seeing a week or two ago that the Reds were something like 44-22 since the trade. Maybe the stat I saw wasn't just their last 66 games or something, and not specifically since the Rolen trade.
Perhaps the 44-22 mark is in games Rolen has played in, or started? Obviously he hasn't played every game, not even including DL stints, like the games @ Pittsburgh earlier when he had a minor injury and sat out a couple of losses.
Culture might be the lead example cited by Jocketty, but the man isn't dumb: he acquired himself a damn good baseball player in addition to a good clubhouse guy.
23 Years and Counting...
I think this basically tells us enough to get us 90% of the way to why the trade happened like it did. It probably also roughly quantifies how much monetary value Jocketty ascribes to chemistry (i.e. the discrepancy illustrated in this post: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showp...&postcount=253) though we don't know how much WAR he'd translate it's effect into (though he clearly thinks its important and thus has a significant impact) and we don't know how much faith the Reds truly had in Stewart's future.
Here's what I'd argue is a reasonable view of the Reds' process on this trade (order does not imply importance):
1) Rolen wanted a trade and it was a natural conversation for Toronto and the Reds to have
2) money issues (EE, Rolen's salary=about $10M and Toronto rightly wanted to be compensated for the "relief" provided for a fair trade)
3) a desire by Jocketty to upgrade the team on the field
4) Jocketty assumed Rolen would provide leadership and he added that to Rolen's value (i.e. Jocketty thinks chemistry has a tangible effect on RS/RA and this effect is worth paying for)
5) The Reds perhaps having enough doubts about Stewart to feel comfortable passing the risk on to Toronto
Really through that prism, it's no wonder that Jocketty thought it was a nobrainer. The people who don't like the trade generally think the odds are pretty good that Stewart is going to be a good major league starting pitcher.
As indicated by my contribution to the multiple threads on this subject, I don't have a problem with the Reds process on this one.
I still cringe when a GM talks about chemistry and clubhouse presence though.
Anyway, IMHO, a lot of the Stewart/Rolen "debate" in multiple threads has basically been recycling the two sides ingrained stances on the issue. I'd suggest the best way to move this discussion forward would be to focus on what value Jocketty actually places on chemistry (i.e. how much WAR he thinks it translates into for example and what he thinks is a proper monetary value to pay for it) and what the Reds actual true feelings were on Stewart's future (i.e. what probability they thought would be associated with his various potential outcomes). That's my two cents for what it's worth (I don't think 2 cents is actually worth two cents anymore is it?)....
Last edited by jojo; 05-19-2010 at 03:25 PM.
"This isnít 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
I take the clubhouse comment to refer possibly to the other positive of the trade: moving EE off third.
I started this thread and I'm going to continue to "move the discussion forward" by posting Stewart's results on the field this year. That's far more interesting to me than trying to put a number (WAR) on an unquantifiable (chemistry) or unlock the Reds' thoughts on Zach Stewart's potential circa July 2009 (where would anyone here get that information?).I'd suggest the best way to move this discussion forward would be to focus on what value Jocketty actually places on chemistry (i.e. how much WAR he thinks it translates into for example) and what the Reds actual true feelings were on Stewart's future (i.e. what probability they thought would be associated with his various potential outcomes). That's my two cents for what it's worth (I don't think 2 cents is actually worth two cents anymore is it?)....
So, as noted, Stewart had a good outing last night to drop his ERA in a Double AA starting rotation to 6.12.
"Baseball is a very, very complex business. It's more of a people business than most businesses." - Bob Castellini
I applaud your desire, lollipop, to get back on thread. One last comment: moving a 3b who cannot play the position is, for pitchers, not a matter of chemistry but sanity.
Fay answered for me....
26-11 last year with Rolen in the lineup, and 23-16 (didn't calculate lineup with or without him). 49-27 with Rolen. Not saying that he is directly responsible for the uptick in wins, but man, that is impressive.
Tim McCarver: Baseball Quotes
I remember one time going out to the mound to talk with Bob Gibson. He told me to get back behind the batter, that the only thing I knew about pitching was that it was hard to hit.
I just don't think it is possible to evaluate a trade without considering any of the results of a trade. Some in here staked their case the day of the trade and have not been flexible at all in their position.
Some What ifs...(which we will never know)
1) What if the Reds FO accurately scouted Stewart to be not as good as many projected, making him easily expendable
2) What if the Reds FO thought Cincy could truly compete in 2010.
3) What if in real life there was no real/better trade return for Zach Stewart
I'm just saying, who knows...the Reds FO could have perhaps legitimately done their homework on this one...we don't know the behind the scenes details.