Reds named 'Organization of the Year' by Baseball America

[M2]

Originally Posted by Kc61

I'm guessing the Reds never thought EE would hit 42 homers and 110 RBIs in a major league season.

I'm guessing neither did the Jays nor the 28 other organizations in MLB. If anyone had, he would have been a hot commodity when he hit the waiver wire or after the A's released him. It's safe to say that what Encarnacion did in 2012 was something no one saw coming, so I don't see the point in faulting the Reds for not having a crystal ball that no else had.

Yes, his 2012 happened, long after the Reds moved him and every other team in baseball had a chance to bite his apple.

Seems to me the Reds scouted this one perfectly. Encarnacion was not going to stick at 3B and had no long-term place with the Reds. So the team moved him for a 3B who proved to be an immediate and perfect fit. With that deal, the Reds made the decision that it was time to stop the endless rebuilding cycle and to start behaving like a grown up, contending team. It worked. Pretty good self-scouting/awareness when you get right down to it.

[backbencher]

Originally Posted by Kc61

And had the Reds seen his long term potential more clearly, they undoubtedly would have made a different trade.

Not so.

In 2009, Encarnacion had no trade value. None. There was no "different trade" to make, because no other team was available to trade with.

[Revering4Blue]

AtomicDumping and Kc61 have more or less conveyed my views on the Rolen deal, but I'll add this:

My concern with dealing EE for Rolen was that by the time the Reds were in a position to actually win a World Series - unlike 2010, no glaring weaknesses - EE was more likely to be a more significant contributor than Rolen, which has proven to be true, regardless of whether the Blue Jays initially gave up on EE, or not. And if Frazier hadn't emerged last year, the EE-Rolen deal and more specifically, the ensuing extension for Rolen would have garnered even more scrutiny than they already have.

If I'm keeping score, I'd rate the Hernandez deal ahead of the Rolen trade from the standpoint of on-field production the Orioles received in return, and I'm kind of surprised that the Griffey for Masset deal hasn't been mentioned as an overlooked solid deal. It still boggles the mind that WJ was able to acquire more for Griffey than for Adam Dunn.

[M2]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

EdE's 793 OPS with the Reds was better than Rolen's .771 OPS with the Reds in limited action due to frequent injury. Edwin has an 839 OPS as a Blue Jay. Over that time period EdE has an OPS+ of 124 compared to Rolen's 104.

And Encarnacion's Toronto numbers are almost entirely built on last season.

Prior to 2012 Encarnacion's slash line with the Jays was .257/.320/.461. Perfectly fine in a general sense, but nowhere near the kind of production required for a 1B/DH.

Encarnacion never would have been a Red last year. The team had no need for a 1B/DH. It's a fluke he was even with the Jays, who lost him via waivers and only got him back because the rest of MLB thought he deserved an even more severe pay cut than the one he got by going back to Toronto (had his salary cut by more than 50%).

It's not like the Reds traded away this guy who had been a consistent performer since the trade. The Reds traded away a guy who disappointed, got taken on waivers by another team, got cut, had to accept a major pay cut, followed that with a non-descript season and finally had a big year long after he'd have become an irrelevance if the Reds had kept him.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by M2

And Encarnacion's Toronto numbers are almost entirely built on last season.

Prior to 2012 Encarnacion's slash line with the Jays was .257/.320/.461. Perfectly fine in a general sense, but nowhere near the kind of production required for a 1B/DH.

Encarnacion never would have been a Red last year. The team had no need for a 1B/DH. It's a fluke he was even with the Jays, who lost him via waivers and only got him back because the rest of MLB thought he deserved an even more severe pay cut than the one he got by going back to Toronto (had his salary cut by more than 50%).

It's not like the Reds traded away this guy who had been a consistent performer since the trade. The Reds traded away a guy who disappointed, got taken on waivers by another team, got cut, had to accept a major pay cut, followed that with a non-descript season and finally had a big year long after he'd have become an irrelevance if the Reds had kept him.

The Reds traded away a 26 year old above average major league hitter for a 34 year old injury-plagued player earning more than 4x as much money. Then watched as that young hitter eventually developed into a star for another team while the expensive player they acquired struggled to stay healthy enough to play. Not exactly a recipe to be proud of. I don't call it a bad trade, but it certainly wasn't a brilliant success either. It was a trade that didn't pan out that well for either team.

The reason this trade came up in this thread is because it was one of the very few moves made by Jocketty during his prolonged period of inactivity from 2008-2011. During this 4-year period Jocketty made 1 move that very clearly was brilliant and was a key part of building the 2012 team that won 97 games -- signing Aroldis Chapman to a $30+ million contract. Jocketty made another good trade that helped the team for awhile but didn't impact the 2012 team -- trading Ryan Freel for Ramon Hernandez and later signing him to a new contract. If you want to include the Rolen/Encarnacion exchange as a net positive even though Rolen didn't contribute much to the 2012 club then that would be a third positive move for Jocketty in that 4-year lethargic period. Either way, it is not a very impressive body of work for a good GM to make only three substantive moves over such a long period. That is why people were concerned that Walt was either asleep at the wheel or had lost his touch. Thankfully he came to life in 2012 and helped launch the team over the top with some player acquisitions that turned to gold.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

My concern with dealing EE for Rolen was that by the time the Reds were in a position to actually win a World Series - unlike 2010, no glaring weaknesses - EE was more likely to be a more significant contributor than Rolen

Playing where? Encarnacion is a terrible defensive player. He's not a 3B anymore and it's likely a fool's errand to play him in LF. And if you tried to stick him in those positions, I'm reasonably certain his defensive miseries would follow him to the plate and detract from his hitting. We saw that play out first-hand during his time with the Reds.

The only place where Encarnacion would fit with an NL team is 1B and the Reds have their franchise player at 1B. So how was EdE going to contribute anything to the 2012 Reds?

I suppose he could have been an expensive bench player who could have stepped in briefly during Votto's injury (and it's an extremely implausible set of theoretical hoops you'd have negotiate to make that scenario play out), but the Reds had Frazier. And the Reds also had Frazier, Francisco and Soto in the pipeline when they dealt Encarnacion. The organization was probably pretty confident it would have a replacement on hand for when age overtook Rolen. Whether the confidence was based on a specific one of those kids or just liking the odds of having three potential replacements, I can't say, but trading Encarnacion didn't create any sort of long-term concern at 3B.

[Kc61]

Funny thing about this discussion is that I never was an EE fan and I was delighted to see him traded for Scott Rolen. My concern with the trade, when made, was the pitching the Reds were giving up.

But I have to be realistic. Fact is that EE is now a big hitter and not yet 30; and Rolen is retiring after two tough years. I can't just ignore that.

Whether EE is a one-year wonder, I don't know. Time will tell.

It's all about when you evaluate a trade. In a year? In three years? After all the players are retired? It's just a matter of opinion and individual judgment. There's no right or wrong answer.

[Tom Servo]

We made the trade in 2009. We made the playoffs in 2010 and 2012. In 2012 Edwin Encarnacion had a good year. I'll take that tradeoff any day.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by M2

Playing where? Encarnacion is a terrible defensive player. He's not a 3B anymore and it's likely a fool's errand to play him in LF. And if you tried to stick him in those positions, I'm reasonably certain his defensive miseries would follow him to the plate and detract from his hitting. We saw that play out first-hand during his time with the Reds.

The only place where Encarnacion would fit with an NL team is 1B and the Reds have their franchise player at 1B. So how was EdE going to contribute anything to the 2012 Reds?

I suppose he could have been an expensive bench player who could have stepped in briefly during Votto's injury (and it's an extremely implausible set of theoretical hoops you'd have negotiate to make that scenario play out), but the Reds had Frazier. And the Reds also had Frazier, Francisco and Soto in the pipeline when they dealt Encarnacion. The organization was probably pretty confident it would have a replacement on hand for when age overtook Rolen. Whether the confidence was based on a specific one of those kids or just liking the odds of having three potential replacements, I can't say, but trading Encarnacion didn't create any sort of long-term concern at 3B.

Or he could have been dealt for a player who would have been able to help those 2012 Reds. Instead Jocketty dealt EdE for a broken-down older player making a ton of money that might have been better used to acquire younger players who could contribute to a winning team during the Reds projected window of opportunity to compete.

I don't think it was a bad trade, but it has been bandied about as an example of a Jocketty trade that helped build the 2012 team that won 97 games. I disagree. As far as 2012 goes, that Rolen/Encarnacion trade had a negligible impact. Rolen was unable to play most of the season (only 294 ABs) and played poorly when he was on the field (88 OPS+). On the positive side it allowed Rolen to come over here and share his experience and work ethic and leadership to provide an example for the Reds' young players. On the negative side it used up a ton of money that could have been used to build the squad. I think it is a neutral trade that was a wash as far as building the team goes.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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.

I did not see a response in your explanation. It's in play for you to refer to Baker as an ignoramous in performing his job, but me pointing out that I feel your opinion shows ignorance on this topic is "hurling personal insults." BTW, a personal insult would have been "you are stupid," not "you show ignorance on this subject." If you do not want your arguments analyzed, you are in the wrong place. But I think its more in the line of "dish it out but can't take it." All you did here was explain why you feel the insult of Baker is accurate. So, did you not understand the question or simply think that you deserve more respect than Mr. Baker, a human being just like yourself?

BTW, I was incorrect on my WJ timeline, I had him starting in '09. Regardless, saying he has had several years to do anything is misleading, esp. since since half of his full-time tenure, from 09-12 has had his team in the postseason 50% of the time.

[M2]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The Reds traded away a 26 year old above average major league hitter for a 34 year old injury-plagued player earning more than 4x as much money. Then watched as that young hitter eventually developed into a star for another team while the expensive player they acquired struggled to stay healthy enough to play. Not exactly a recipe to be proud of. I don't call it a bad trade, but it certainly wasn't a brilliant success either. It was a trade that didn't pan out that well for either team.

A) Two division titles and complete franchise trajectory change later, I don't care what Rolen got paid. He was the perfect fit in 2009 and 2010 (not to mentioned a better hitter than Encarnacion in those seasons). If the Reds don't surge forward at that precise moment in time, we might be looking at roster where Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto got moved in the name of another rebuilding phase.

B) You're still avoiding that there is just about no realistic scenario in which Edwin Encarnacion would have remained a Red through 2012. Whatever he did in 2012, it was invariably going to happen for a team playing in another city.

C) I'll say it again, two division titles and a complete franchise trajectory change. That looks like pretty brilliant success given that the Reds were on their way to becoming the Pirates v2.0 prior to the Rolen trade. In fact, you can pretty trace back the Reds' rebirth to August 23, 2009 when Rolen came back from a brief DL stint and the Reds began to furiously claw their way up from a 51-71 record. They went 27-13 the rest of the way. Walt Jocketty made a deal which turned around his entire franchise, one of the finest examples of surgical focus in the history of baseball.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I did not see a response to your explanation. It's in play for you to refer to Baker as an ignoramous in performing his job, but me pointing out that I feel your opinion shows ignorance on this topic is "hurling personal insults." All you did here was explain why you feel the insult of Baker is accurate. So, did you not understand the question or simply think that you deserve more respect than Mr. Baker, a human being just like yourself?

The difference is I was responding to someone else calling Dusty Baker an ignoramus and was not talking directly to Dusty Baker in a rude and confrontational manner. My comments about Dusty were tongue-in-cheek while your insults were quite clearly based in anger and an intolerance of my opinion. I also clearly stated that Dusty is only an ignoramus with regard to one issue (sabermetrics and in-game strategy), while giving him props for being good at other things. You responded with mocking sarcasm and personal insults. You said I was ignorant even though I was right and you were wrong. Feel free to disagree, just don't resort to personal insults of your fellow Redszoners because someone doesn't share your opinion.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by M2

A) Two division titles and complete franchise trajectory change later, I don't care what Rolen got paid. He was the perfect fit in 2009 and 2010 (not to mentioned a better hitter than Encarnacion in those seasons). If the Reds don't surge forward at that precise moment in time, we might be looking at roster where Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto got moved in the name of another rebuilding phase.

B) You're still avoiding that there is just about no realistic scenario in which Edwin Encarnacion would have remained a Red through 2012. Whatever he did in 2012, it was invariably going to happen for a team playing in another city.

C) I'll say it again, two division titles and a complete franchise trajectory change. That looks like pretty brilliant success given that the Reds were on their way to becoming the Pirates v2.0 prior to the Rolen trade. In fact, you can pretty trace back the Reds' rebirth to August 23, 2009 when Rolen came back from a brief DL stint and the Reds began to furiously claw their way up from a 51-71 record. They went 27-13 the rest of the way. Walt Jocketty made a deal which turned around his entire franchise, one of the finest examples of surgical focus in the history of baseball.

Rolen led the way in turning the franchise from a "just show up for the games, hope we win" mentality to a professional, excellence, expecting-to-win franchise. He took the mentality of the GM that traded for him and the manager he played for and displayed what it looked like on the field.

In contrast, EE was exactly part of the "just show up for the games, hope we win" type of player that was the norm at the time.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by M2

A) Two division titles and complete franchise trajectory change later, I don't care what Rolen got paid. He was the perfect fit in 2009 and 2010 (not to mentioned a better hitter than Encarnacion in those seasons). If the Reds don't surge forward at that precise moment in time, we might be looking at roster where Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto got moved in the name of another rebuilding phase.

B) You're still avoiding that there is just about no realistic scenario in which Edwin Encarnacion would have remained a Red through 2012. Whatever he did in 2012, it was invariably going to happen for a team playing in another city.

C) I'll say it again, two division titles and a complete franchise trajectory change. That looks like pretty brilliant success given that the Reds were on their way to becoming the Pirates v2.0 prior to the Rolen trade. In fact, you can pretty trace back the Reds' rebirth to August 23, 2009 when Rolen came back from a brief DL stint and the Reds began to furiously claw their way up from a 51-71 record. They went 27-13 the rest of the way. Walt Jocketty made a deal which turned around his entire franchise, one of the finest examples of surgical focus in the history of baseball.

Gold Star for Robot Boy

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The difference is I was responding to someone else calling Dusty Baker an ignoramus and was not talking directly to Dusty Baker in a rude and confrontational manner. My comments about Dusty were tongue-in-cheek while your insults were quite clearly based in anger and an intolerance of my opinion. I also clearly stated that Dusty is only an ignoramus with regard to one issue (sabermetrics and in-game strategy), while giving him props for being good at other things. You responded with mocking sarcasm and personal insults. You said I was ignorant even though I was right and you were wrong. Feel free to disagree, just don't resort to personal insults of your fellow Redszoners because someone doesn't share your opinion.

There was no personal insult. Seriously, I'm on a computer, so are you, I'm responding to someone who I know is not named Atomic Dumpling. The insult is of your arguments, not you personally. What is so hard to understand here?