Reds named 'Organization of the Year' by Baseball America

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by backbencher

Making moves is not the same thing as making progress.

Jocketty chose the latter.

What cost him in the press (and with some overactive fans), he made up in the standings.

The team progressed despite him not doing anything. That means he is not responsible for the progress.

As I said earlier, nobody wanted him to make moves just for the sake of making moves. It is reasonable to expect a good GM to find/create/manufacture ways to improve the team. Other teams were able to do it over the same timespan. For a long time Jocketty couldn't do it.

[M2]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Like I said, even if you want to roll with the unlikely theory that it was a brilliant trade it was still one of only three substantively good moves over that extended period of 4 seasons. It doesn't change the narrative that Jocketty was largely inactive for a long time.

I'd say he didn't make many major moves. He wasn't inactive. He brought in guys like Hernandez, Gomes, Nix, Cairo and Rhodes. He plugged the SS hole with Cabrera (which kind of worked) and then Renteria (which kind of didn't). He extended Arroyo. He handed a lot of jobs to young guys and kept the right kids.

Add in the Rolen trade, the Chapman signing and bringing Leake straight to the majors - which were his biggest moves - and you've got a tidy bit of business.

Much as I'd have loved for him to do a trade-and-sign for Jose Reyes prior to 2011, I can't fault him for paths not taken given recent results. I certainly am not going to complain about the current state of the franchise and, that being the case, it's important to recognize that Walt's actions and inaction got us to this place.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Are you saying Edwin is not a star? He had an MVP candidate type of year in 2012. Since he is a star now he was a future star in the past.

In that case, everyone's a future star until they never become one.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by M2

I'd say he didn't make many major moves. He wasn't inactive. He brought in guys like Hernandez, Gomes, Nix, Cairo and Rhodes. He plugged the SS hole with Cabrera (which kind of worked) and then Renteria (which kind of didn't). He extended Arroyo. He handed a lot of jobs to young guys and kept the right kids.

Add in the Rolen trade, the Chapman signing and bringing Leake straight to the majors - which were his biggest moves - and you've got a tidy bit of business.

Much as I'd have loved for him to do a trade-and-sign for Jose Reyes prior to 2011, I can't fault him for paths not taken given recent results. I certainly am not going to complain about the current state of the franchise and, that being the case, it's important to recognize that Walt's actions and inaction got us to this place.

OK. He brought in some roster filler and some short-term fixes. He inherited a strong system and didn't screw things up.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the current state of the franchise. I am a fan of Walt Jocketty. My comments in this post were in response to post #7 where it was said that those people who were claiming at this time a year ago that Jocketty had been asleep at the switch during his first four seasons were off base. Clearly there was in fact a strong argument to be made that Jocketty had failed to improve the team during his first 4 seasons due largely to a lack of activity. The team had glaring holes each year that were not filled with adequate options. In 2012 he was finally able to add Latos, Marshall, Ludwick, Paul and Broxton to the solid core of the team that was here when he took over and help launch the Reds to the top of the league. These were the types of moves that people had been clamouring for since Jocketty took over. He finally took action and did a great job.

[M2]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The main target for the Blue Jays was unloading the injured Scott Rolen and his huge salary. Getting the future star EE was gravy. For the Reds, not only did they lose the future star and the prospects they also committed $27 million to Rolen.

As I have said, the leadership they got from Rolen is what makes the trade a wash, his performance on the field was inferior to EdE's and Rolen's salary was a loss for the Reds.

So the Jays saved money and the Reds won divisions. I'd rather be the team that spent the money and won.

And it wasn't just leadership the Reds got from Rolen. It got an essential bat early in the deal and a great glove throughout the deal. In 2009 and 2010 Scott Rolen vastly outproduced Edwin Encarnacion. If you're a WAR fan (and I'm not) Rolen had more value in 2011 as well. Encarnacion is entirely a figment of his 2012 season. You're trying to make it sound like the Reds didn't get the better of this deal from a pure production standpoint for 2+ seasons, when they most certainly did. What happened in 2012 with Encarnacion is irrelevant to the Reds. He had been cut loose twice prior to that. Had no trade value to speak of prior to being cut loose. And would have had no role on the 2012 Reds had he (improbably) stayed around.

Rolen's 2012 even had more relevant value to the Reds since no one in their right mind would have strapped a glove to Encarnacion's left hand and sent him out to play 3B for any significant period of time.

[M2]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

OK. He brought in some roster filler and some short-term fixes. He inherited a strong system and didn't screw things up.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the current state of the franchise. I am a fan of Walt Jocketty. My comments in this post were in response to post #7 where it was said that those people who were claiming at this time a year ago that Jocketty had been asleep at the switch during his first four seasons were off base. Clearly there was in fact a strong argument to be made that Jocketty had failed to improve the team during his first 4 seasons due largely to a lack of activity. The team had glaring holes each year that were not filled with adequate options. In 2012 he was finally able to add Latos, Marshall, Ludwick, Paul and Broxton to the solid core of the team that was here when he took over and help launch the Reds to the top of the league. These were the types of moves that people had been clamouring for since Jocketty took over. He finally took action and did a great job.

I see where you're coming from (even agree with pieces of it). Yet I don't think it makes a lot of sense to take that stance and then fret over the Rolen trade. If anything, the desire for Walt to be more aggressive (mostly prior to the 2011 season) would mean more crazy brilliant, immediate payoff deals like the one he made for Rolen.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The team progressed despite him not doing anything. That means he is not responsible for the progress.

As I said earlier, nobody wanted him to make moves just for the sake of making moves. It is reasonable to expect a good GM to find/create/manufacture ways to improve the team. Other teams were able to do it over the same timespan. For a long time Jocketty couldn't do it.

Ramon. Rolen. Cabrera. Gomes. Leake. Rhodes. Chapman. Masset. All key members of the 2010 Division Champs.

[backbencher]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Clearly there was in fact a strong argument to be made that Jocketty had failed to improve the team during his first 4 seasons due largely to a lack of activity.

If you believe that there is a "clear" argument that Jocketty failed to improve the team, make it. If you have a 2008-2011 move that should have been made, identify it; it shouldn't be hard with the benefit of hindsight.

Me, I would argue that no organization in baseball has grown stronger, top to bottom, from 2008 to 2012 than the Reds. A large part of that is Jocketty figuring out which parts of the garden to nourish, which to prune, and which to replace.

[Blitz Dorsey]

In my mind, the Reds-Jays trade of Zach Stewart (the main piece from the Reds), Edwin Encarnacion and Josh Roenicke for Scott Rolen was up for verdict as soon as Encarnacion was DFA by the Jays. Anyone in baseball could have had him then. At that point, the trade was a resounding success for the Reds. Even the Reds could have had EE back if they wanted him at that point.

Just because EE -- by some miracle (cough, cough) -- is now putting up big numbers doesn't mean the Reds lost the trade. Let's say the A's would have picked up Encarnacion when he was available to all of MLB and he ended up having his career turnaround there. Would that have meant that the Blue Jays won the trade? Nope.

What the Blue Jays "won" was getting the PED-enhanced, er, I mean the vastly-improved Edwin Encarnacion after he was basically on the MLB scrap heap for anyone to have. As I said, the Reds could have taken him back if they wanted and used him as a backup to Rolen. They definitely won the trade. It's revisionist history to pretend otherwise. The only "mistake" Jocketty made was not making a move on EE when he was available for nothing. But there are 28 other GMs who could say the same thing. And really, EE would only be a good fit for an AL team, so I don't think it was a mistake not going back after him. No one saw this coming from Encarnacion. Unless you also saw it coming from Melky Cabrera if you know what I mean.

This would be different if Encarnacion went to the Jays and immediately starting putting up big numbers. But he didn't. He tanked. Then they were ready to release him. Then they decided to keep him on the cheap because no one else in MLB wanted him. Then he somehow turned his career around. The verdict was in as soon as Encarnacion was DFA'd ... and it was a "win" for the Reds.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by M2

So the Jays saved money and the Reds won divisions. I'd rather be the team that spent the money and won.

And it wasn't just leadership the Reds got from Rolen. It got an essential bat early in the deal and a great glove throughout the deal. In 2009 and 2010 Scott Rolen vastly outproduced Edwin Encarnacion. If you're a WAR fan (and I'm not) Rolen had more value in 2011 as well. Encarnacion is entirely a figment of his 2012 season. You're trying to make it sound like the Reds didn't get the better of this deal from a pure production standpoint for 2+ seasons, when they most certainly did. What happened in 2012 with Encarnacion is irrelevant to the Reds. He had been cut loose twice prior to that. Had no trade value to speak of prior to being cut loose. And would have had no role on the 2012 Reds had he (improbably) stayed around.

Rolen's 2012 even had more relevant value to the Reds since no one in their right mind would have strapped a glove to Encarnacion's left hand and sent him out to play 3B for any significant period of time.

By that logic you could say any of the other moves the Reds made were brilliant as well. The Reds won so every move must have been perfect right?

When we examine it deeply we can see that Rolen had very little to do with the Reds success in 2012. Rolen's play on the field in 2012 was not good, even when he wasn't hurt.

The Reds made both good and bad moves during the build-up to 2012. The Reds were losers in 2011, so does that mean the Rolen trade was a bad deal since the team was bad? The Reds have gone through good times and bad times during Rolen's tenure, so if you want to give him all the credit for the good times you should blame him for the bad ones too.

Rolen has been a part time player for a long time, partly due to injury and partly due to age. He is surrounded with a full cast of very good young players, many of whom were here prior to Jocketty's arrival. Rolen arrived at a time when the young Reds team was on the brink of success. It is a mistake to believe the winning started because Rolen came to town. Claiming Rolen is a major reason why the Reds have a good team this year just doesn't add up.

When weighing the trade we can see that Encarnacion's hitting stats in Toronto have been superior to Rolen's in Cincinnati -- advantage Jays. Rolen played great defense -- advantage Reds. Rolen provided great leadership -- advantage Reds. Rolen cost a lot more money than EE that could have been spent elsewhere -- disadvantage Reds. It is clearly a wash in my opinion. Going forward the Blue Jays' relationship with Encarnacion is going to continue paying dividends, whereas it looks like Rolen is finished helping the Reds.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Ramon. Rolen. Cabrera. Gomes. Leake. Rhodes. Chapman. Masset. All key members of the 2010 Division Champs.

Ramon, Rolen yes. The rest no. Those guys were filler or decent parts that rode the coattails of the stars in 2010.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

In my mind, the Reds-Jays trade of Zach Stewart (the main piece from the Reds), Edwin Encarnacion and Josh Roenicke for Scott Rolen was up for verdict as soon as Encarnacion was DFA by the Jays. Anyone in baseball could have had him then. At that point, the trade was a resounding success for the Reds. Even the Reds could have had EE back if they wanted him at that point.

Just because EE -- by some miracle (cough, cough) -- is now putting up big numbers doesn't mean the Reds lost the trade. Let's say the A's would have picked up Encarnacion when he was available to all of MLB and he ended up having his career turnaround there. Would that have meant that the Blue Jays won the trade? Nope.

What the Blue Jays "won" was getting the PED-enhanced, er, I mean the vastly-improved Edwin Encarnacion after he was basically on the MLB scrap heap for anyone to have. As I said, the Reds could have taken him back if they wanted and used him as a backup to Rolen. They definitely won the trade. It's revisionist history to pretend otherwise. The only "mistake" Jocketty made was not making a move on EE when he was available for nothing But there are 28 other GMs who could say the same thing. And really, EE would only be a good fit for an AL team, so I don't think it was a mistake not going back after him. No one saw this coming from Encarnacion. Unless you also saw it coming from Melky Cabrera if you know what I mean.

You are ignoring the huge salary hit the Reds took. That trade cost them many millions of dollars and hence the good players they could have bought with that money.

Do you really think the Jays would have MVP candidate EE right now if the Reds hadn't traded him to them? EE is in Toronto because of the relationship they established with him after the trade.

I won't comment on the unfounded steroids accusations.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

You are ignoring the huge salary hit the Reds took. That trade cost them many millions of dollars and hence the good players they could have bought with that money.

Do you really think the Jays would have MVP candidate EE right now if the Reds hadn't traded him to them? EE is in Toronto because of the relationship they established with him after the trade.

I won't comment on the unfounded steroids accusations.

You are ignoring that anyone in baseball could have had Encarnacion for nothing. That's when it was time to give the trade a final grade. The Reds won. Everything after that is irrelevant to the trade itself. Like I said, the Reds could have re-acquired EE and used him as Rolen's backup if they wanted. Think about that for a second.

So, IMO, you can argue that the Reds erred in not re-acquiring EE when he was available for nothing. But arguing they lost the trade is a big stretch and revisionist history.

[757690]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The team progressed despite him not doing anything. That means he is not responsible for the progress.

As I said earlier, nobody wanted him to make moves just for the sake of making moves. It is reasonable to expect a good GM to find/create/manufacture ways to improve the team. Other teams were able to do it over the same timespan. For a long time Jocketty couldn't do it.

The biggest problem with Bowden, O'Brien and Krivsky is that from 2001-2007 they were always going all in, trying to win the division each year, when in reality, the Reds were never close. What was needed was to sit back, restock the farm system and wait for the team to rebuild.

It cost the Reds millions in wasted contracts, a destruction of their farm system, MLB talent in Kearns, Lopez, Hamilton, etc, all for losing seasons they were destined to have regardless.

Jocketty was the first GM to have the patience to sit tight, keep all the team's prospects, and rebuild the foundation for long term success.

I have no doubt that if Jocketty wasn't the GM in 2008-9, some combination of Votto, Cueto, Bruce and Bailey, would have been traded for mediocre middle relief and starting pitching. Seriously, no trades or moves could have been made in those years to make the team a contender, and Jocketty was smart enough to understand that.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Ramon, Rolen yes. The rest no. Those guys were filler or decent parts that rode the coattails of the stars in 2010.

Disagree. Heisey, Nix, Cairo and similar were filler that year. Those guys started or played legit roles in 2010. Chapman probably not as he was a late call up. But the others did, like it or not.