Reds named 'Organization of the Year' by Baseball America

[mdccclxix]

Thanks Scrap. Also, you have to give the rest of the coaching staff credit when these players are coming here and revive their careers.

[M2]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

What separates Cincinnati from KC, Pit, Colorado, Seattle, Toronto, etc? All these teams had great prospects and opportunities to emerge, but the Reds have played their cards better than any thus far.

To be even more specific, the Reds have made good major league decisions. Ramon Hernandez and Scott Rolen were quality additions. Ryan Ludwick was an outright steal. Jonny Gomes and Orlando Cabrera plugged holes without creating new ones. Arthur Lee Rhodes and Sean Marshall have been dynamite bullpen investments. Keeping Bronson Arroyo paid off. Miguel Cairo and Laynce Nix turned in some solid work from the bench (and maybe Xavier Paul will follow in their footsteps).

Latos is the biggest deal Jocketty made, but Walt's done a nice job of acquiring useful pieces that have helped the Reds become a good baseball team rather than a team hoping for a pot of gold at the end of a prospect rainbow.

[mdccclxix]

Originally Posted by M2

To be even more specific, the Reds have made good major league decisions. Ramon Hernandez and Scott Rolen were quality additions. Ryan Ludwick was an outright steal. Jonny Gomes and Orlando Cabrera plugged holes without creating new ones. Arthur Lee Rhodes and Sean Marshall have been dynamite bullpen investments. Keeping Bronson Arroyo paid off. Miguel Cairo and Laynce Nix turned in some solid work from the bench (and maybe Xavier Paul will follow in their footsteps).

Latos is the biggest deal Jocketty made, but Walt's done a nice job of acquiring useful pieces that have helped the Reds become a good baseball team rather than a team hoping for a pot of gold at the end of a prospect rainbow.

And there were calls and complaints about signing these types of vets in favor of 'finding out what we really have'. Not that the finding out was a bad idea, but it's pleasant to look back and see what developed.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I like Scott Rolen, but the trade to acquire him doesn't look like a great move at all. The trade paid off well for a couple months immediately after the trade, but since then it has been a huge steal for the Blue Jays. I would generously consider that trade a wash for the Reds.

I agree with this view of the trade. I think it's a wash, and only because of intangibles.

Let's face it, EE has become a pretty big hitter for the Blue Jays. Whether or not he was once waived, today he has serious value. He's an AL player, he isn't good defensively, but he hit 42 homers with 110 RBI and a .941 OPS last year. Serious numbers.

Josh Roenicke has some value, he was recently picked up by the Twins from the Rockies, he led basebal in relief innings last year and had good numbers, especially for a Colorado pitcher. The Rockies let him go thru waivers in a contract disagreement and lost him.

Oddly, Zach Stewart was probably the toughest for the Reds to trade, and he's the one who hasn't panned out as well to date.

Rolen had a good 2010 with the Reds, .854 OPS in 537 PAs. Since then, not much production and lots of injuries. But his intangibles are huge and have really influenced the team in a positive way.

On the numbers, I give the trade to the Rockies, particularly because EE is still in his prime and Rolen is near or at retirement. Given Rolen's intangibles and influence on the team, it's a wash.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Whether or not he was once waived, today he has serious value. He's an AL player, he isn't good defensively, but he hit 42 homers with 110 RBI and a .941 OPS last year. Serious numbers.

But the point is that the waiver process effectively marks the end of the trade value for the Blue Jays. From trade to waiver wire process, the Reds won. After that, it's moot.

Originally Posted by Kc61

Josh Roenicke has some value, he was recently picked up by the Twins from the Rockies, he led basebal in relief innings last year and had good numbers, especially for a Colorado pitcher. The Rockies let him go thru waivers in a contract disagreement and lost him.

Again, once the waiver wire process hit, the trade "ended".

Originally Posted by Kc61

On the numbers, I give the trade to the Rockies, particularly because EE is still in his prime and Rolen is near or at retirement. Given Rolen's intangibles and influence on the team, it's a wash.

The Jays lost the original trade fairly handily, but made a great waiver wire pickup with EdE later on. That's my opinion, anyway.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

But the point is that the waiver process effectively marks the end of the trade value for the Blue Jays. From trade to waiver wire process, the Reds won. After that, it's moot.
.

I disagree with this analysis, sorry.

I look at what the Reds gained in the trade compared to what the Reds gave up in the trade. I'm evaluating the trade as a Reds' fan, from the Reds' viewpoint.

The fact that the Jays may have mishandled EE isn't the Reds' concern. The question is what the Reds got, and what the Reds gave.

If the Reds had not made the trade, and today had EE, they would have a huge asset to trade or use. They don't. That has to go into the calculus of the trade from the Reds' point of view.

Blue Jays' poor move AFTER the trade doesn't influence it IMO. That's a separate matter.

Say the Reds traded Joey Votto to the Dodgers for a lousy minor leaguer. The Dodgers then dumped Votto for some silly reason. Doesn't change the fact that the Reds would have made a terrible trade.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I don't understand the offense at another person saying one is displaying ignorance on the topic at hand when that same person referred to another person as an "ignoramous" in their primary job of field manager. Why is your derogatory remark acceptable but you are so offended at my pointing out that your opinion is not well informed, in my opinion of course? I'd love to hear the distinction you make.

BTW, you do realize that Jocketty has only been GM since in season 2009, so he hasn't even been GM long enough to have "several years" of anything.

Finally, there are always things to be critical of anyone doing a job. But I found little other than contrarianism in your criticisms.

First of all, I am not the one who started the Dusty Baker is an ignoramus thing. I just agreed that he does a lot of dumb things in addition to the things he does well.

You are the one that is intolerant of other Redszoners' opinions and feels the need to hurl personal insults. I guess if you can't make a good case for your viewpoint you have to resort to calling names.

Definition of "several" from dictionary.com -- "Several: being more than two and less than many in number or kind." Obviously Walt Jocketty has been in Cincinnati for several years considering he was hired in April of 2008, which means Jocketty has been here for five seasons, so I can't imagine why you want to quibble with my usage of the word "several". So before you criticize someone's use of a word make sure you improve your vocabulary and basic comprehension of the English language or else you come off looking pretty foolish.

Obviously I am not of the opinion that Dusty Baker does a good job in all aspects of managing. Many, many people are able to comprehend how his lineup construction and in-game strategy reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of basic tenets of modern baseball. I guess you fail to comprehend them too since you can't see it. I have complimented Dusty in the past in many threads for his people skills and off-the-field leadership in terms of motivating players and making sure they are prepared mentally and physically to perform well on the field.

You can feel free to disagree with me anytime you like. Just try to do it without calling me names and hurling personal insults -- especially when you are clearly wrong.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by Kc61

I disagree with this analysis, sorry.

I look at what the Reds gained in the trade compared to what the Reds gave up in the trade. I'm evaluating the trade as a Reds' fan, from the Reds' viewpoint.

The fact that the Jays may have mishandled EE isn't the Reds' concern. The question is what the Reds got, and what the Reds gave.

If the Reds had not made the trade, and today had EE, they would have a huge asset to trade or use. They don't. That has to go into the calculus of the trade from the Reds' point of view.

Blue Jays' poor move AFTER the trade doesn't influence it IMO. That's a separate matter.

Say the Reds traded Joey Votto to the Dodgers for a lousy minor leaguer. The Dodgers then dumped Votto for some silly reason. Doesn't change the fact that the Reds would have made a terrible trade.

The fact that EE was put in waivers and didn't have many/high dollar FA suitors shows what his true value was during that period. Comping this to Votto vs a lousy minor leaguer isn't really fair...I know what you are trying to say, but the example is too much of a stretch.

Yes he bloomed, but well after the statute of limitations expired here. As mentioned above, he was not a valuable commodity at the time. And second, his defense and Votto would have prevented his emergence as a Red. Just one of those "What can you do" scenarios that really didn't have a good solution knowing what we know now.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Kc61

I disagree with this analysis, sorry.

I look at what the Reds gained in the trade compared to what the Reds gave up in the trade. I'm evaluating the trade as a Reds' fan, from the Reds' viewpoint.

The fact that the Jays may have mishandled EE isn't the Reds' concern. The question is what the Reds got, and what the Reds gave.

If the Reds had not made the trade, and today had EE, they would have a huge asset to trade or use. They don't. That has to go into the calculus of the trade from the Reds' point of view.

Blue Jays' poor move AFTER the trade doesn't influence it IMO. That's a separate matter.

Say the Reds traded Joey Votto to the Dodgers for a lousy minor leaguer. The Dodgers then dumped Votto for some silly reason. Doesn't change the fact that the Reds would have made a terrible trade.

I agree. The Reds gave up too early on a player that had a ton of potential. He has now realized that potential for another team and the Reds missed out. It is too bad the Reds coaching staff didn't have the skills to nurture, develop and harness Edwin's talent as has occurred in Toronto.

I place a lot of value on what Scott Rolen brought to the Reds. Even though his statistical performance on the field was a big letdown and his frequent injuries kept him off the field, he still brought a lot of leadership-by-example and I think his presence has helped the Reds. However, this value is what made the trade even for both teams. If you don't value the leadership as highly as I do then the trade was a big net loss for the Reds. I don't see a case for claiming the Rolen trade was an example of Walt Jocketty's excellence as a GM. I score that trade a wash and don't count it as either a positive or negative toward Jocketty's record.

[kaldaniels]

In the very post where "several seasons" was originally mentioned, the GM job was specifically referenced. Now we are invoking Walt's tenure before he became GM so it fits your case.

Goalposts. Moved.

I'm sorry for going after your point of view but I just think it is an unfair take.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

The fact that EE was put in waivers and didn't have many/high dollar FA suitors shows what his true value was during that period. Comping this to Votto vs a lousy minor leaguer isn't really fair...I know what you are trying to say, but the example is too much of a stretch.

Yes he bloomed, but well after the statute of limitations expired here. As mentioned above, he was not a valuable commodity at the time. And second, his defense and Votto would have prevented his emergence as a Red. Just one of those "What can you do" scenarios that really didn't have a good solution knowing what we know now.

This is sensible. I can see "discounting" EE's later development because it happened long after the trade. I can see an argument that EE would likely have been moved anyway, it's too long for the Reds to have waited, his near term results after the trade are more important.

But on the other hand, the Reds traded EE as a fairly young player. He still isn't quite 30 years old. The Reds had to consider his ultimate maturation and development.

Whenever you trade a young player, before they are fully formed, you take a risk that with maturation will come improvement. The Reds took that risk, and in that respect the trade did not succeed.

So it's fair, perhaps, to say that EE's subsequent development has to be "discounted" in evaluating the trade. But it can't be ignored altogether. It's a factor.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Kc61

I disagree with this analysis, sorry.

I look at what the Reds gained in the trade compared to what the Reds gave up in the trade. I'm evaluating the trade as a Reds' fan, from the Reds' viewpoint.

The fact that the Jays may have mishandled EE isn't the Reds' concern. The question is what the Reds got, and what the Reds gave.

If the Reds had not made the trade, and today had EE, they would have a huge asset to trade or use. They don't. That has to go into the calculus of the trade from the Reds' point of view.

Blue Jays' poor move AFTER the trade doesn't influence it IMO. That's a separate matter.

Say the Reds traded Joey Votto to the Dodgers for a lousy minor leaguer. The Dodgers then dumped Votto for some silly reason. Doesn't change the fact that the Reds would have made a terrible trade.

Let's get the facts straight here.

EE was due over $5M the next season, and considering his poor defense and inconsistent offense, the Reds wanted to dump his salary. At the time of the trade, in order to take EE and his salary, the Jays demanded the Reds include Stewart in the trade. If the Reds didn't include EE and his salary, a lesser prospect would have been included instead of Stewart. EE was a liability.

And after the 2010 season, any and every team would have non-tendered EE. He simply wasn't worth what he was going to get in arbitration. The Jaya didn't mishandle EE when they traded him to the A's, they actually got lucky that he was able turn his declining career around after they signed as a free agent when he was non-tendered by the A's.

You're right that what happened to EE after the trade isn't the Reds concern. What is is that at the time of the trade, EE was a liability that Jockety smartly got off of the books, while at the same time acquiring an All-Star in Rolen.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

In the very post where "several seasons" was originally mentioned, the GM job was specifically referenced. Now we are invoking Walt's tenure before he became GM so it fits your case.

Goalposts. Moved.

I'm sorry for going after your point of view but I just think it is an unfair take.

The word several means more than two (Definition of "several" from dictionary.com -- "Several: being more than two and less than many in number or kind.") Before 2012 Jocketty had been GM for 4 seasons. How is that not several? Jocketty was the GM of the Reds for several years before the 2012 season.

Here is a link about Walt's hiring: Jocketty Hired as GM

Jocketty was hired as a special assistant in January 2008 and became the GM of the Reds only three months later in April of 2008. He has now had five seasons in charge of the Reds as the General Manager.

It seems you are just not aware of how long Jocketty has been the GM of the Reds.

Prior to last winter's burst of belated activity, Jocketty had made very few moves. Of those moves, only 1-3 were truly helpful (depending on what your opinions on the Chapman, Hernandez and Rolen moves were going into last season). That is not much over such a long period, especially when you consider the glaring holes the team had at the time. It is fair to characterize that period as being inactive and wonder if Jocketty was "asleep at the switch" as the original poster stated. My opinion after the 2011 season was that the Hernandez trade for Freel was a good move, the Chapman signing was still questionable at that time given the $30 million cost for a middle reliever (now it looks like a great move), and the Rolen trade was a wash (now it looks worse).

Happily for Reds fans, Jocketty sprang into action in 2012 (his 5th season) and justified his leadership with a flurry of moves that nearly everyone agrees were excellent and helped launch the team over the top.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by 757690

Let's get the facts straight here.

EE was due over $5M the next season, and considering his poor defense and inconsistent offense, the Reds wanted to dump his salary. At the time of the trade, in order to take EE and his salary, the Jays demanded the Reds include Stewart in the trade. If the Reds didn't include EE and his salary, a lesser prospect would have been included instead of Stewart. EE was a liability.

And after the 2010 season, any and every team would have non-tendered EE. He simply wasn't worth what he was going to get in arbitration. The Jaya didn't mishandle EE when they traded him to the A's, they actually got lucky that he was able turn his declining career around after they signed as a free agent when he was non-tendered by the A's.

You're right that what happened to EE after the trade isn't the Reds concern. What is is that at the time of the trade, EE was a liability that Jockety smartly got off of the books, while at the same time acquiring an All-Star in Rolen.

All I am saying is that you cannot ignore EE's subsequent development in evaluating this trade.

We cannot act as if his 2012 does not exist.

Fact is that today Scott Rolen is near or at retirement and EE is coming off a 42 homer 110 RBI season and is not yet 30 years old.

It may have been smart at the time, maybe this development happened too late, all of that may be true.

But if you want to fairly look at this trade, you simply can't make believe EE's 2012 didn't happen. It happened. And today he is a valuable asset, which the Reds don't have.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Jocketty was the GM of the Reds for several years before the 2012 season.

Jocketty was hired as a special assistant in January 2008 and became the GM of the Reds only three months later in April of 2008. He has had five seasons in charge of the Reds as the General Manager.

It seems you are not aware of just how long Jocketty has been the GM of the Reds.

I certainly know all that, but am just trying to be clear here.

What seasons was Jocketty's work as GM suspect?

2008?
2009?
2010?
2011?
All of the above?

When does a season start in terms of this anyway. You liked his 2012, but he didn't do much after Opening Day 2012, so I take it you liked his 2011 offseason moves.