Pirates DFA Zach Stewart

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

Either way, you -- and others --present a compelling argument that it was in the Reds best interest to keep EE.

I thought it would've been in the Reds best interest to keep EE AND to acquire Rolen. Just get Rolen for different parts. That's all. (yes, I know...easier said than done)

Just offset EE's flaw by moving him off of such an important defensive position and offset his biggest liability (his throwing accuracy) by trying him out in left. When people say that EE was a black hole defensively are simplifying the problem. He had excellent range, pretty sure hands, a cannon for an arm...he just couldn't throw it accurately and his throwing mechanics were horrific (thus leading to all his errant throws). I just always thought that his skill-set peg fit into a LF hole much easier. Of course we'll probably never know.

[M2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

This is freaking a perfect example. The mid 80's Reds and the 2009 Reds are perfect examples. What some people want to write off as "Pete Rose/Scott Rolen" others want to point out outstanding young talent getting older and in turn, performing better because that is what young guys do. That those guys just happened to come in at the right time to benefit from that talent coming to fruition.

In most cases, such as the mid-80s Reds, I'd agree with you (though that team initially got better thanks to a vet infusion - Parker, Rose, Perez, Diaz, Bell - and the youth came later).

However, the Reds were dead in the water on Aug. 22, 2009 and came to life on Aug. 23, 2009. The switch flicked on the moment he settled into the lineup.

It's not because of any magical powers he possessed. Rolen solidified the middle of the lineup and the infield defense. Perfect addition. Jocketty played his cards exactly right, so right that we literally can trace it to a specific date when it all came together.

[M2]

Originally Posted by TRF

So a player busts out, one everyone on this board including yourself touted as a prime candidate to do so just a few years ago when he was a Red, and now it HAS to be HGH?

wow.

Doesn't have to be, but Encarnacion (like Bautista) was a guy who had very little to show for his bat speed and then had it suddenly come together. There's widespread suspicion about both of them.

[M2]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

IIRC, the needle was much closer to "criminally insane" than "upset at first" at the time. Unsure of the rest of the timeline but I believe there were multiple calls for Walt's head on and after that day.

It was a like a 250-car pileup. Cyberwailing at its finest. The most fantastically disproportionate response any of us hopeful ever get to witness.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

With all due respect, I'd say that the deals for Arroyo and Phillips -- even taken into account separately -- significantly altered the state of the franchise for the better at least as much as the Rolen deal, if not more.

Those were awesome pickups (certainly greater heists in terms of getting years of performance for just about nothing), but the Reds still were lost in the wilderness until Rolen arrived. The Reds were 51-71 the day before Rolen stepped in full-time. Since Arroyo and Phillips showed up in 2006 the team had gone 277-331 (.456) up until that day.

After Rolen stepped in, the Reds closed out the season with a 27-13 run and have cumulatively gone 294-232 (.559).

Prior to that deal, I'd have told you that it was impossible to make that surgical an addition to a team. I suspect I'll never see it done again, but I can't pretend it didn't occur. One day the Reds were hapless, the next they became a baseball team. Spent a while thinking it was coincidence, just random luck. Then I finally admitted to myself the folly of denying the empirical evidence right in front of me. I saw it happen and the events were recorded.

[M2]

Originally Posted by kpresidente

"Who got the better end of the deal?" and "Was it a good deal for the Reds?" are two different questions. We may have gotten the better end because the Jays were also too stupid to know what they had in Encarnacion, but that doesn't change the fact that the Reds would be better today had we not made the deal and kept EE instead.

Wrong. Encarnacion would have no job on the current Reds team. In fact, he probably would have been released after the 2009 season. The team was not going to let him play 3B anymore and it was not going to stick him in the OF (no one ever is for any duration).

It's a fever dream to think there was some scenario in which the Reds would have kept Encarnacion.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by M2

Wrong. Encarnacion would have no job on the current Reds team. In fact, he probably would have been released after the 2009 season. The team was not going to let him play 3B anymore and it was not going to stick him in the OF (no one ever is for any duration).

It's a fever dream to think there was some scenario in which the Reds would have kept Encarnacion.

Nor should they have kept him anyway. Is everyone forgetting he hit .225/.320/.410 that year? He had bust written all over him. It took him a couple years since he left to blow up, with a couple of DFAs along the way.

[kpresidente]

Originally Posted by M2

Wrong. Encarnacion would have no job on the current Reds team. In fact, he probably would have been released after the 2009 season. The team was not going to let him play 3B anymore and it was not going to stick him in the OF (no one ever is for any duration).

It's a fever dream to think there was some scenario in which the Reds would have kept Encarnacion.

They could have kept him at 3B. Why not? His offense, even at the time, was good enough to justify it. And if he stays healthy, maybe he puts it all together sooner (he had nagging injuries holding him back for a number of years there). Then you move him to LF after a year or two, and yes, I'd absolutely play him out there today with no reservations for that bat between Votto and Bruce. Are you kidding me? Why not? This is a team that's trading Drew Stubbs' defense in center for Shin-Soo Choo and everybody agrees it's a smart move.

[kpresidente]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Is everyone forgetting he hit .225/.320/.410 that year? He had bust written all over him.

I didn't think he had bust written all over him. I chalked that year up to injuries. Why wouldn't you have? He'd had 3 or 4 consistent seasons at the plate before that.

[kpresidente]

Originally Posted by M2

After Rolen stepped in, the Reds closed out the season with a 27-13 run and have cumulatively gone 294-232 (.559).

My problem with this is, if it was all about Rolen's mere presence in the clubhouse, what happened in 2011? That team dragged, too. Losing has a way of doing that to you.

[RANDY IN INDY]

Originally Posted by kpresidente

They could have kept him at 3B. Why not? His offense, even at the time, was good enough to justify it. And if he stays healthy, maybe he puts it all together sooner (he had nagging injuries holding him back for a number of years there). Then you move him to LF after a year or two, and yes, I'd absolutely play him out there today with no reservations for that bat between Votto and Bruce. Are you kidding me? Why not? This is a team that's trading Drew Stubbs' defense in center for Shin-Soo Choo and everybody agrees it's a smart move.

Put me in the camp of liking the fact that the Reds finally have a lead off hitter. With that said, and the likelihood that it's only for 1 season, I'm not sold on the move. Defense in center is important for the pitching staff. I think they will miss that, a lot, as the season goes forward.

[kpresidente]

Originally Posted by M2

It was a like a 250-car pileup. Cyberwailing at its finest. The most fantastically disproportionate response any of us hopeful ever get to witness.

My memory says, yeah, people weren't happy about the trade, but the reasoning was more like, "why did we trade for this washed-up has-been who we could have just signed later as a FA anyway?" then it was about Zach Stewart being some kind of cy-young winner. I know that was my thought, and while I was happy to eat crow about Rolen in 2010, I still thought it was a swan-song fluke. I was way more opposed to the extension we gave him than the initial trade, and I was right about that. Hell, I was thinking of Stewart more as our closer-of-the-future than I was as some kind of ace. Scouting reports had him as a middling starter at best.

I also remember being just as unnerved about trading EE as I was about Stewart, because I thought everybody was making too big a deal about the defense in general. Not that the D wasn't a liability at the time, but everybody was talking about "changing philosophy" and I don't believe in philosophies. Issue #1 for me was just getting rid of all the negative-value players like Taveras and replacing them with players that didn't just flat out stink. And EE wasn't one of those negative-value players, so I didn't want to trade him. I'll grant that that was just me, though. Everybody else wanted to drop him like a bad habit.

[RedsfaninMT]

E5 was not just DFA'd, he was released by the Jays, picked up by the A's, then released by the A's and signed as a Free Agent by the Jays again. Seems to me as a free agent, every team in baseball could have signed him without sacrificing any player. It wasn't as if he was put on waivers and no team made an offer in trade, so he went the minors. He was a free agent.

One of my memories of Rolen coming to the Reds was BP hitting a home run and admiring his moon shot, with Rolen glaring at him in the dugout. IIRC, BP later told reporters that Rolen severely scolded him for putting his teammates in danger with his showboating, and that was not how professionals played the game. I do not see BP admiring his shots like he used to. Small? Absolutely, but it seems to me Rolen did make a difference in players' attitudes. And it wasn't something that any of the coaches or Dusty seemed to be able to do at the time.

[mdccclxix]

Rolen made like less mentally stressful for the young staff the Reds had. I still haven't seen him deliver a ball to 1b higher than the eyes or lower than the knees. The man is a robot programmed to get you out. 2010 was the beginning of the defensive era for the Reds, and it put them about a year ahead of much of baseball. They got rid of KGJ, AD and EE and brought in actually better all around players. IIRC, the Reds insisted on moving EE and TOR didn't really dig it, at least their fans didn't. EE was elated to be traded, he wasn't liked here I don't think. Especially by the fans. But, just for fun, here is the amended and untainted holy Reds lineup free from the spoilage of bartering (except where everyone feels good about it):

Choo CF
Dunn 1b
Votto LF (kept there in 2006 when AD was moved to 1b)
EE 3b
Bruce RF
Phillips 2b
Cozart SS
Mez C

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

Rolen made like less mentally stressful for the young staff the Reds had. I still haven't seen him deliver a ball to 1b higher than the eyes or lower than the knees. The man is a robot programmed to get you out. 2010 was the beginning of the defensive era for the Reds, and it put them about a year ahead of much of baseball. They got rid of KGJ, AD and EE and brought in actually better all around players. IIRC, the Reds insisted on moving EE and TOR didn't really dig it, at least their fans didn't. EE was elated to be traded, he wasn't liked here I don't think. Especially by the fans. But, just for fun, here is the amended and untainted holy Reds lineup free from the spoilage of bartering:

Choo CF
Dunn 1b
Votto LF (kept there in 2006 when AD was moved to 1b)
EE 3b
Bruce RF
Phillips 2b
Cozart SS
Mez C

EdE would be gone. Grandal at C?