Pirates DFA Zach Stewart

[mdccclxix]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

EdE would be gone. Grandal at C?

yes, this is just an effort to please the detractors of the Dunn, EE, and Hamilton departures. I forgot Hamilton and don't know where he plays with Choo, so bye bye Choo:

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

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

yes, this is just an effort to please the detractors of the Dunn, EE, and Hamilton departures. I forgot Hamilton and don't know where he plays with Choo, so bye bye Choo:

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

I always say: this team has 2 playoff appearances and a bright future since the trades. We have no idea what would've happened if they didn't make those trades. I'll take what we have over the unknown.

[mdccclxix]

Me too for sure. Crazy the power bats that have come through here though. We kept the NL bats for sure.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

yes, this is just an effort to please the detractors of the Dunn, EE, and Hamilton departures. I forgot Hamilton and don't know where he plays with Choo, so bye bye Choo:

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

That's some pretty atrocious defense for a lineup that would cost more than the entire current roster.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

Me too for sure. Crazy the power bats that have come through here though. We kept the NL bats for sure.

This franchise has been minting bats since the mid 50's and redefining fail when it came to pitching. Time to try another part of the buffet.

[mdccclxix]

Yeah, the staff ERA for that lineup would be mid 5's.

[redsof72]

There is a certain amount of revisionist history thrown out when discussing Zach Stewart. The Reds did not include Stewart in the deal because they looked into a crystal ball and saw that he would never reach the expectations that virtually everyone who saw him pitch in 2009 projected. They included him because that was what it took to complete the deal. They were willing to take the risk and once the deal was made, the Reds could only sit back and watch from a distance after surrendering their top prospect and let history run its course. It was a chance they were willing to take.

Lets not change who Stewart was on the day they traded him. He was the Reds top prospect and one of the better arms they had drafted/developed in years. What happened after that had nothing to do with the Reds or what they were giving up. There were key executives in the Reds organization who were visibly shaken by this trade at the time it was announced because of the fact that they had given up Stewart. I remember vividly speaking to one top player development exec that afternoon and voicing my surprise at the deal and he just shook his head with a look of disbelief.

I saw Stewart pitch that season and he had the most dominant look of any Reds minor leaguer I have seen. What happened after that, I am not sure. The Stewart I saw, with a 93-94 mph fastball and a lethal slider, was one heck of a prospect to give up. Your top prospect is your top prospect. That's what they gave up to complete the deal. There were no scouts at that time yelling "the king has no clothes" when the Stewart discussions were happening. Everyone saw the same thing.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by redsof72

There is a certain amount of revisionist history thrown out when discussing Zach Stewart. The Reds did not include Stewart in the deal because they looked into a crystal ball and saw that he would never reach the expectations that virtually everyone who saw him pitch in 2009 projected. They included him because that was what it took to complete the deal. They were willing to take the risk and once the deal was made, the Reds could only sit back and watch from a distance after surrendering their top prospect and let history run its course. It was a chance they were willing to take.

Lets not change who Stewart was on the day they traded him. He was the Reds top prospect and one of the better arms they had drafted/developed in years. What happened after that had nothing to do with the Reds or what they were giving up. There were key executives in the Reds organization who were visibly shaken by this trade at the time it was announced because of the fact that they had given up Stewart. I remember vividly speaking to one top player development exec that afternoon and voicing my surprise at the deal and he just shook his head with a look of disbelief.

I saw Stewart pitch that season and he had the most dominant look of any Reds minor leaguer I have seen. What happened after that, I am not sure. The Stewart I saw, with a 93-94 mph fastball and a lethal slider, was one heck of a prospect to give up. Your top prospect is your top prospect. That's what they gave up to complete the deal. There were no scouts at that time yelling "the king has no clothes" when the Stewart discussions were happening. Everyone saw the same thing.

Well said.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by redsof72

There is a certain amount of revisionist history thrown out when discussing Zach Stewart. The Reds did not include Stewart in the deal because they looked into a crystal ball and saw that he would never reach the expectations that virtually everyone who saw him pitch in 2009 projected. They included him because that was what it took to complete the deal. They were willing to take the risk and once the deal was made, the Reds could only sit back and watch from a distance after surrendering their top prospect and let history run its course. It was a chance they were willing to take.

Lets not change who Stewart was on the day they traded him. He was the Reds top prospect and one of the better arms they had drafted/developed in years. What happened after that had nothing to do with the Reds or what they were giving up. There were key executives in the Reds organization who were visibly shaken by this trade at the time it was announced because of the fact that they had given up Stewart. I remember vividly speaking to one top player development exec that afternoon and voicing my surprise at the deal and he just shook his head with a look of disbelief.

I saw Stewart pitch that season and he had the most dominant look of any Reds minor leaguer I have seen. What happened after that, I am not sure. The Stewart I saw, with a 93-94 mph fastball and a lethal slider, was one heck of a prospect to give up. Your top prospect is your top prospect. That's what they gave up to complete the deal. There were no scouts at that time yelling "the king has no clothes" when the Stewart discussions were happening. Everyone saw the same thing.

Scouts that you know. Plenty of scouts think Wil Myers is good enough to be the best prospect in baseball. But enough also have questions to where it affects his value.

Yeah he was a good prospect. You also have to give up value to get value. But let's not act like he was Homer Bailey circa 2005.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by redsof72

There is a certain amount of revisionist history thrown out when discussing Zach Stewart. The Reds did not include Stewart in the deal because they looked into a crystal ball and saw that he would never reach the expectations that virtually everyone who saw him pitch in 2009 projected. They included him because that was what it took to complete the deal. They were willing to take the risk and once the deal was made, the Reds could only sit back and watch from a distance after surrendering their top prospect and let history run its course. It was a chance they were willing to take.

Lets not change who Stewart was on the day they traded him. He was the Reds top prospect and one of the better arms they had drafted/developed in years. What happened after that had nothing to do with the Reds or what they were giving up. There were key executives in the Reds organization who were visibly shaken by this trade at the time it was announced because of the fact that they had given up Stewart. I remember vividly speaking to one top player development exec that afternoon and voicing my surprise at the deal and he just shook his head with a look of disbelief.

I saw Stewart pitch that season and he had the most dominant look of any Reds minor leaguer I have seen. What happened after that, I am not sure. The Stewart I saw, with a 93-94 mph fastball and a lethal slider, was one heck of a prospect to give up. Your top prospect is your top prospect. That's what they gave up to complete the deal. There were no scouts at that time yelling "the king has no clothes" when the Stewart discussions were happening. Everyone saw the same thing.

There are also some scouts in that very organization that never thought Stewart would cut it as a starter and his future was in the bullpen, which made him much more expendable. Let's not act as if because some folks in the organization shook their heads at the trade that everyone in the organization did so. Just like there are varying opinions about Stewart on this forum, there were varying opinions about him within the organization. Not everyone thought Stewart was going to pan out.

[camisadelgolf]

I always saw a back-end of the bullpen pitcher when I watched Stewart. A mid-rotation starter was a possibility, too. The 2009 version of Stewart was one of the most overrated Reds minor leaguers I had seen in a long time.

[RedsfaninMT]

Yep, Reds gave up their top prospect arm at the time, but prospects are just that, prospects. Delmon Young, IIRC, was overall #1 prospect. He had amazing skills his rookie year. Not much since. Stuff happens. Stewart could have turned into a Cy Young winner, but he hasn't.

That's why Walt is paid the big bucks. We, OTOH, get t micromanage his every move. It will be interesting to see how Choo works out this year and the reaction on this board if he does/does not work out.

[redsof72]

No prospect is a guarantee, obviously. My point is, the Reds were willing to trade their top prospect to close out the deal. Whether he went on to win Cy Youngs or to do what he has actually done (or not done), they were rolling the dice. Folks who want to make it sound like they somehow knew that Stewart was over-rated or whatever, that's not the case. They knew there was a chance they were going to get burned. As you might recall, they reportedly first offered Yonder Alonso instead, who was thought of pretty darn highly at that time.

Yes, there were people that saw his future as a reliever, but there was no one that I ever talked to that thought he "would not pan out." He was universally viewed by the Reds as their top prospect. Period.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by redsof72

No prospect is a guarantee, obviously. My point is, the Reds were willing to trade their top prospect to close out the deal. Whether he went on to win Cy Youngs or to do what he has actually done (or not done), they were rolling the dice. Folks who want to make it sound like they somehow knew that Stewart was over-rated or whatever, that's not the case. They knew there was a chance they were going to get burned. As you might recall, they reportedly first offered Yonder Alonso instead, who was thought of pretty darn highly at that time.

Yes, there were people that saw his future as a reliever, but there was no one that I ever talked to that thought he "would not pan out." He was universally viewed by the Reds as their top prospect. Period.

I'm pretty sure everyone universally viewed Yonder Alonso as the Reds top prospect in 2009, with Frazier not far behind.

[Wonderful Monds]

In fact here's what Sickels said about Stewart at the time:

7) Zach Stewart, RHP, Grade B-: Strong arm, command issues, could move fast in the pen. Maybe a C+?