Heyman says Rolen to the Reds

[gm]

Originally Posted by Matt700wlw

You're not going anywhere.

Buttermaker couldn't chase Amanda away the day before the big game, either

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by pedro

The hyperbole around here is comical.

I'm still waiting for that Bailey fellow to pan out too.

Maybe he will, maybe he won't....but now Zack Stewart is going to win a Cy Young?

Hysterical.

I would venture a guess that the masses would have been happier had we traded Bailey and kept Stewart.

But then again, I could be very wrong.

Since Ryan Wagner, apparently all of our young arms are "can't miss".

Or at least that's what I'm told.

Cueto's the only one that hasn't missed so far, in my book.

Regardless, I like the trade.

[redsfandan]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRedleg

No, they are still on the hook for all of Rolen's salary in 2010.

So that makes a $6.25MM extra all for better defense (when he's healthy enough to play).

But this means that the Reds payroll will be even less for THIS year. (Since Toronto is paying the rest of his '09 salary and Hairston is off the books) We just need the Reds to take those savings and put them into the 2010 team.

[savafan]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Very doubtful.

But it is possible.

The Reds recent history has shown them to be procrastinators in the area of knowing when to deal a player. They tend to overvalue what they have and hang on to guys as cornerstones of the franchise who are really just average major league players.

The Reds went out on a limb here. This trade, like all trades, can't be judged this season, and probably not even next season. We'll have to wait and see how careers play out.

This is just another example of people jumping off the Titanic while it's still docked in port.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Originally Posted by pedro

MLB.com says the jays are paying 4 mil of rolens 2010 salary.

What about the rest of this years?

I guess I'm confused. They owed him $4M+ this year. So if the Jays give the Reds $4M, why would it be considered for NEXT year?

[Red in Chicago]

I've got no problem with EE being traded. Don't think he was ever going be anything special. Not thrilled with Rolen's history of health issues, but other than Votto, Cueto, Bruce, Phillips and Volquez, no one is untradeable for me.

Definitely would have preferred a shortstop or outfielder to be brought in, but I'm not complaining about this one. A little better than shuffling chairs on the Titanic.

[corkedbat]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

I would venture a guess that the masses would have been happier had we traded Bailey and kept Stewart.

But then again, I could be very wrong.

Since Ryan Wagner, apparently all of our young arms are "can't miss".

Or at least that's what I'm told.

Cueto's the only one that hasn't missed so far, in my book.

Regardless, I like the trade.

What do you like about it? Does Rolen help this team contend in 2010? Would you actually sign him to a say a 2y/ $20M extension given his injury history and declining power numbers. If neither answer is yes, then what's to like about it?

[redsfandan]

Originally Posted by savafan

The Reds went out on a limb here. This trade, like all trades, can't be judged this season, and probably not even next season. We'll have to wait and see how careers play out.

The Reds overpaid but until it's a few years from now we won't be able to really judge this deal fairly yet.

[redsfandan]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRedleg

What about the rest of this years?

I guess I'm confused. They owed him $4M+ this year. So if the Jays give the Reds $4M, why would it be considered for NEXT year?

I'm going by this:

4:50pm: Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star reports that the Jays will pay all of Rolen's 2009 salary, nearly $4MM. Ken Rosenthal and Jon Paul Morosi report that an undisclosed amount of cash is changing hands.

Originally Posted by corkedbat

What do you like about it? Does Rolen help this team contend in 2010? Would you actually sign him to a say a 2y/ $20M extension given his injury history and declining power numbers. If neither answer is yes, then what's to like about it?

I'd say yes to the 1st question but, like others have mentioned, the Reds need to do more between now and April 2010.

[gm]

Originally Posted by savafan

This is just another example of people jumping off the Titanic while it's still docked in port.

Those were the smart ones. Imagine how "Sven" felt after hearing the news, he was probably relieved that he lost his ticket to Jack in that poker game

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

That was my prediction yes. But I also said it was *possible* they'd go for Rolen with no other supporting moves. A minor leage catcher and the Balentine kid certinally qualifies. I'd say I nailed that one.

And if you want to describe this season as a success be my guest, but FAIL is what this season is and will be.

I'm batting .1000 here so the fieldgoals haven't moved an inch. Nice try though.

You're batting .1000, or 1.000?

[guttle11]

Originally Posted by Red in Chicago

I've got no problem with EE being traded. Don't think he was ever going be anything special. Not thrilled with Rolen's history of health issues, but other than Votto, Cueto, Bruce, Phillips and Volquez, no one is untradeable for me.

Definitely would have preferred a shortstop or outfielder to be brought in, but I'm not complaining about this one. A little better than shuffling chairs on the Titanic.

I'm pretty much about the same. It's a step in the right direction, IMO. The direction is contending for an NL Central title next season. Screw 2011 or 2012 or...Go for it now. Still need a SS, a LF, and another pitcher or two. But taking 3B off that list puts us that much closer.

I'll say this, an infield of Rolen, Phillips, Votto, and a respectable SS is a contending infield in my book.

[corkedbat]

Originally Posted by redsfandan

The Reds overpaid but until it's a few years from now we won't be able to really judge this deal fairly yet.

Two or three years down the road does not matter in this deal. Rolen is highly (over)paid with declining numbers and a huge injury redflag. Stewart has portential to be a solid major league pitcher. You can't convince me that this deal could not have been made for EdE and Roenicke. Even if Rolen surprises and Stewart completely washed out, this was a stupid deal now or three years from now.

The Reds will probably extend Rolen and make this a $30-40M error. Id' rather have seen them take that money and make a run at Beltre or Figgens. That fails, fall back to Frazier and spend the $30-40 toward a TOR pitcher.

Don't like putting too much stock into untested prospects? Shop Stewart to the Braves or Angels and just keep piling on more untested prospects until you get Yunel Escobar, Macier Izturus, Eryk Aybar or even Brandon Wood. Don't waste it foolishly hoping for a miracle renaissance from a brokendown 35yo.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Originally Posted by redsfandan

I'm going by this:

4:50pm: Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star reports that the Jays will pay all of Rolen's 2009 salary, nearly $4MM. Ken Rosenthal and Jon Paul Morosi report that an undisclosed amount of cash is changing hands.

Ok, so we shed EE's money owed and JHJ's and get Rolen for free in 2009. That's proabably why they paid such a high price in dealing Stewart and Roenicke.

Still, I look at it as the 2009 payroll has been decreased slightly.

We still owe Rolen $11M in 2010 and that number you can bet will be used by the Reds when adding all the salaries account for total 2010 payroll.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by corkedbat

What do you like about it? Does Rolen help this team contend in 2010? Would you actually sign him to a say a 2y/ $20M extension given his injury history and declining power numbers. If neither answer is yes, then what's to like about it?

What do I like about the deal?

The Reds had given up on EE, so it made sense that he was included in the deal.

As I previously said, Roenicke was the guy I was sad to see go, but as Ltlabner's pointed out, relievers are fungible, so we can easily replace Roenicke.

Stewart was the wild card, but we had to give something to get something, so the fact that we now have a stud defender @ 3B who has a reliable stick, what's not to like? I'm certainly not upset over trading a question mark prospect for proven talent, albeit aged proven talent.

Rolen definitely helps the Reds contend in 2010, although not by himself. Adding Rolen is a step in the right direction, wouldn't you say? We've now upgraded Rolen from EE.

Who knows what kind of extension, if any, we'll offer Rolen, but Rolen's definitely better than EE, and all it took was a reliever and a question mark prospect.

What's not to like?