Reds Acquire Jonathan Broxton

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Wow.
You thought that Stewart was our #1 prospect. Obviously the Reds thought differently.

The only guy that ended up having value was EdE as a DH.
Stewart might eventually make something out of himself, but it's not looking good now

You've never said what a "Fair price" for Rolen would've been..

No, I said Stewart was our #1 pitching prospect. And he was. At the time we hadn't signed Leake or Boxberger and our other pitching prospects were: Travis Wood, Matt Maloney and well, a a few of guys who had some talent but terrible production.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by wolfboy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...news|text|Reds



This has to violate some kind of child labor law.

But if he was dominican, he'd be like 32 in American years. Unfortunately he was born in Texas so this joke sadly must wither on the vine.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

No. I don't think anything that Stewart has done since then has anything to do with the trade.

I was wrong about what Stewart would be. A lot of people were. Our own scouts/his managers/his coaches too.

Doesn't matter. Scott Rolen was demanding a trade to a midwest team and the Blue Jays said they would make it happen. The Reds were the only team at the time who even had room for a third baseman. We were literally the only suitors for him.

How can you overpay if you don't believe what you're giving up will ever amount to anything?

The Reds as an organization were not convinced of Stewart. They said it. Other analysts said it. Sure, perhaps a few scouts and a few teammates liked him. Doesn't mean the whole organization shared that sentiment.

Trades are ultimately about what you give to get. Sure, perception and leverage play a role, but if you're going to argue that results don't matter, then you've created a situation where someone can never be wrong.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

What happens if he is? If you run a good minor league organizatoin you should be able to produce minor league arms year in year out.

And we have. But we decided to trade for an arm instead of just calling up one of the few we had in the minors who were flat out dominating.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

What happens if he is? If you run a good minor league organizatoin you should be able to produce minor league arms year in year out.

This organization produces decent LH relievers about once every ten yrs: Rob Murphy, BJ Ryan and now Chappy

[The Snow Chief]

Any word on whether KC picks up any of the salary?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Trades are ultimately about what you give to get. Sure, perception and leverage play a role, but if you're going to argue that results don't matter, then you've created a situation where someone can never be wrong.

No, you can be wrong. If the Nationals trade Bryce Harper tomorrow for Daniel Corcino, they are wrong. Even if Corcino goes on and wins 150 games for them in his career and Bryce Harper turns into Jeff Francouer. Yes, that was an incredible reach to make my point, but what I am saying is that just because a trade works out doesn't make it a good trade and just because a trade doesn't work out doesn't make it a bad one. It is about the thought process behind them and I just don't see a way where the Reds didn't overpay for Scott Rolen given the only reason that he was available for a trade in the first place was because he was demanding his way out to a team in the Midwest and the Reds were literally the only team who had anything resembling an opening at third base at the time.

[westofyou]

Scott Rolen introduced a culture to this team that was lacking for most of the decade, it was called being a "baseball player"

It's craft that I believe has rubbed off on some of our Reds on the field today.

It's an intangible, and it's priceless and unmeasured.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

He might be an incredibly small upgrade to Ondrusek and a hurt Bray. I would take Simon and Arredondo over him without thinking about it though. JJ hoover for that matter too.

Broxton is a pretty huge upgrade to this year's version of Bray (who has been hurt/useless all year.. not bashing Bray, but he's not added anything to the team).

I really don't think the Reds gave up anything that significant.
So, Joseph might've been a future LH reliever in a couple years.. that's something replacable.

If Broxton can keep throwing groundballs, he'll be useful. He doesn't have to be a K machine if he can keep the walks down. No guarantee Broxton will make an impact, but I like the risk vs reward of this.

I'm glad we didn't empty the farm for Garza + DeJesus as rumored...

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

And we have. But we decided to trade for an arm instead of just calling up one of the few we had in the minors who were flat out dominating.

Dominating the minors and dropping a debuting reliever into the middle of a pennant race is not exactly a plug and play situation.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Dominating the minors and dropping a debuting reliever into the middle of a pennant race is not exactly a plug and play situation.

Walking 3.5 per 9 and striking out just 6.3 per 9 and dropping him into late innings in your bullpen isn't exactly what I would call an ideal situation either.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

No, you can be wrong. If the Nationals trade Bryce Harper tomorrow for Daniel Corcino, they are wrong. Even if Corcino goes on and wins 150 games for them in his career and Bryce Harper turns into Jeff Francouer. Yes, that was an incredible reach to make my point, but what I am saying is that just because a trade works out doesn't make it a good trade and just because a trade doesn't work out doesn't make it a bad one. It is about the thought process behind them and I just don't see a way where the Reds didn't overpay for Scott Rolen given the only reason that he was available for a trade in the first place was because he was demanding his way out to a team in the Midwest and the Reds were literally the only team who had anything resembling an opening at third base at the time.

You just made my point for me.

If they trade Harper for Corcino and the results subsequently have no impact on whether the deal is "right or wrong," then you just proved my point... you're making it to where someone can argue something is overpaying just because you say so and can never be wrong. That's basically admitting to my point: that you're suggesting a subjective opinion about value at the time of the trade is the only thing that matters and it doesn't matter how many metrics, scouting reports or advanced intuition an organization might have, if you don't like a trade you can call it wrong with no accountability.

[dougdirt]

I strongly disagree Brutus. I am done with it though. I have explained my beliefs on it far too many times already and they aren't changing. You can disagree with them all you want.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Scott Rolen introduced a culture to this team that was lacking for most of the decade, it was called being a "baseball player"

It's craft that I believe has rubbed off on some of our Reds on the field today.

It's an intangible, and it's priceless and unmeasured.

Without Scott Rolen the Reds do not win the 2010 NL Central.
I questioned the acquisition of Rolen at the time it was made. I was wrong.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Walking 3.5 per 9 and striking out just 6.3 per 9 and dropping him into late innings in your bullpen isn't exactly what I would call an ideal situation either.

Good D behind him. Who knows, he may turn out to be a gas can, but I think he comes for a modest cost. It seems you default to any prospect in a deal that has performed above average is too high of an opportunity cost when the Reds deal them.

He is an upgrade to four current guys in what has been a high-performing bullpen. It should bolster the pen.