Reds Acquire Jonathan Broxton

[jojo]

The Reds have designated Andrew Brackman for assignment, Tom Groeschen of the Cincinnati Enquirer reports (on Twitter). In related moves, the Reds acquired Jonathan Broxton, placed Bill Bray on the disabled list, and called up Todd Redmond.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

JJ Hoover pitched pretty well for the Reds earlier this year. Maybe he scared you. Broxton scares me. I will take the guy who can record his own outs.

I guess it was that he looked like a middle reliever to me at this stage of his career. He may develop into more than that, but claiming he is suited for a back-end job today? Not seeing it.

[powersackers]

Any concern that Broxton pitched in only 6 games the entire month of July.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I guess it was that he looked like a middle reliever to me at this stage of his career. He may develop into more than that, but claiming he is suited for a back-end job today? Not seeing it.

I wouldn't put him at the back end of the bullpen. Of course I wouldn't put Broxton there either and I guess that is the difference. Broxton to me profiles as a guy who should be pitching in the 6th inning. If the best asset you have is that you allow a lot of groundballs, you aren't a back end of the bullpen guy.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Trades are made with the information you have at the time. If we knew what would happen afterwards no one would ever make a bad or good trade. They would all be perfect trades for both sides. But it doesn't work that way.

And Walt's information said that Zack Stewart was not a ML pitcher, so that makes it a good trade. (No way to prove it otherwise, right?).

At what point can you concede that you overrated Zach Stewart? I'm not trying to rub it in your face, but if you still insist that he was an overpay based on how you rated Zach... At what point does actual performance prove that "information at the time" was inaccuate? 2015? 2020?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

And Walt's information said that Zack Stewart was not a ML pitcher, so that makes it a good trade. (No way to prove it otherwise, right?).

At what point can you concede that you overrated Zach Stewart? I'm not trying to rub it in your face, but if you still insist that he was an overpay based on how you rated Zach... At what point does actual performance prove that "information at the time" was inaccuate? 2015? 2020?

I have already said I overrated Stewart. It doesn't matter that my information at the time was inaccurate, it was the information plenty of people in the Reds organization believed as well.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

By that logic, no one ever loses a trade.
In every trade, both GMs are making what they feel is a logical move based on the incomplete info they have.
People use this logic to say that the Reds didn't lose the Josh Hamilton-Volquez trade.. It really makes no sense. The actual results say that the Reds overwhelmingly lost that trade.

Likewise, the actual results say the Reds won the Rolen trade hands down.

The point is that results-based analysis is a flawed approach to evaluating decisions because stuff happens and stuff confuses the issue. In other words, good decisions can turn out poorly. Likewise, bad decisions can turn out spades. But simply viewing a trade through hindsight would lead to a wrong conclusion concerning the decision making process. The proper way to evaluate a trade is by evaluating the decision making process that led to the trade.

I agree with Doug 100% on his stance about evaluating decisions. That said, based upon evaluating what was known at the time, I reached a different conclusion about the trade than he did.

Concerning the Volquez trade, based upon what we knew at the time, I thought both teams were taking a risk to address needs but that the Reds were assuming much greater risk by swapping a position player for an arm. In hindsight it's perfectly obvious that Volquez was enigmatic and Hamilton wasn't going to relapse and his body wasn't going to break down before July and the trade looks like one of the dumber decisions ever. But the reality was that it was a tougher decision than results suggest.

[Griffey012]

Not too concerned about what we gave up. We have traded a bundle of relief prospects over the last few years and so far none have amounted to anything to sweat about...at all.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

By that logic, no one ever loses a trade.
In every trade, both GMs are making what they feel is a logical move based on the incomplete info they have.
People use this logic to say that the Reds didn't lose the Josh Hamilton-Volquez trade.. It really makes no sense. The actual results say that the Reds overwhelmingly lost that trade.

Likewise, the actual results say the Reds won the Rolen trade hands down.

I think there's both sides to this. GM's win and lose trades all the time, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the decision. We lost big on the Hamilton trade, but the risk of him getting caught with drugs doesn't retroactively disappear just because he's stayed clean for five years. Trading him made sense at the time.

But you also have to tip your cap when hidden talent is noticed by scouts or coaches, Jose Bautista for example. Zach Stewart may very well have been a situation where the Reds scouts didn't see the guy amounting to as much as everyone said he would.

[757690]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I wouldn't put him at the back end of the bullpen. Of course I wouldn't put Broxton there either and I guess that is the difference. Broxton to me profiles as a guy who should be pitching in the 6th inning. If the best asset you have is that you allow a lot of groundballs, you aren't a back end of the bullpen guy.

Lots of great closers weren't high K guys:

Quiz
Sutter
D. Smith
Franco
Shaw

Just off the top of my head.

GB's lead to DP's which are better for a reliever in a rough spot.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by 757690

Lots of great closers weren't high K guys:

Quiz
Sutter
D. Smith
Franco
Shaw

Just off the top of my head.

GB's lead to DP's which are better for a reliever in a rough spot.

GB's also lead to hits and runs. I'd rather my late inning reliever not be in tough spots so much.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by 757690

Lots of great closers weren't high K guys:

Quiz
Sutter
D. Smith
Franco
Shaw

Just off the top of my head.

GB's lead to DP's which are better for a reliever in a rough spot.

Unsure who said this but... a pitcher was once asked what was his best pitch and he replied, "The one that makes the guy ground out to Cox." (Billy Cox 3rd baseman)

[757690]

Originally Posted by Superdude

GB's also lead to hits and runs. I'd rather my late inning reliever not be in tough spots so much.

Isn't that why you have them, for high leverage spots?

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by jojo

The point is that results-based analysis is a flawed approach to evaluating decisions because stuff happens and stuff confuses the issue. .

Some people called the Hamilton trade a bad one on the day it happened.
Some said the Reds made out like bandits getting Volquez.
Both were using information at the time... Seems like a contradictory way to judge trades, and very subject to people's opinions/prejudicies.

Trades and player projections are an inexact science.. It's not as if we can input information into a computer and get some kind of score to guarantee a good trade (other than a freak injury)..

You probably had the Toronto GM loving Stewart, while the Reds were kind of meh on him.. That's how trades happen. In that case, one person has to be wrong.

In the long haul, the GM's primary job is to increase the talent base of the organization.. Even with some bad luck, most good GMs succeed in doing this. Bad GMs , even when given a lot of money, tend to see the team's win differential, W-L record, etc decline over time.
If you can't judge GMs on results.. I am not sure how you can judge them, because every trade can be rationalized as good "at the time".

DanO thought signing Milton was a good idea at the time. Many on Redszone disagreed, but he thought it was a good move..

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Trades are made with the information you have at the time. If we knew what would happen afterwards no one would ever make a bad or good trade. They would all be perfect trades for both sides. But it doesn't work that way.

Absolutely. But the Reds had a different opinion than you did about Stewart with the information they had at the time of the trade. That information led them to believe Stewart was not the commodity you believed.

Just because you (and I mean this as a general statement applying to anyone, really) might perceive Stewart's value to be one thing, doesn't mean an organization shares the same perception.

Trades are made with the information you have at the time. I wholeheartedly agree. But the information the Reds have and the opinions they believe are not always what you or I perceive. So for anyone to say a trade is wrong based on your perception of value is a fallacy to begin with.