Pirates DFA Zach Stewart

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by 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.

Reminds you of 2012 Tony Cingrani, doesn't it?

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

Reminds you of 2012 Tony Cingrani, doesn't it?

Quite a bit, yes, but Cingrani has a higher ceiling and better command.

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Quite a bit, yes, but Cingrani has a higher ceiling and better command.

I don't know if he has a higher ceiling, but he certainly has a higher floor since he's left-handed and is a level ahead of Stewart (has already thrown 5 IP in the majors)...

[membengal]

The other difference is Walt hasn't traded him either, leading me to conclude that Walt and the minor league evaluators etc. are believers in Cingrani in a way that they apparently were not with Stewart.

[lollipopcurve]

The other difference is Walt hasn't traded him either, leading me to conclude that Walt and the minor league evaluators etc. are believers in Cingrani in a way that they apparently were not with Stewart.

They promoted Cingrani straight to the majors from AA, too. Rare for Jocketty to do that.

[membengal]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

They promoted Cingrani straight to the majors from AA, too. Rare for Jocketty to do that.

Also very true.

[M2]

Originally Posted by RedEye

You don't need to convince me that Rolen was one factor in the Reds' emergence in 2010.

It seems a pretty unsustainable argument, though, to argue that he was the single stimulus when there were so many other parts of the equation that played an important role, including the maturation of the pitching, the cultivation of a more dependable farm system, etc. History just doesn't work that way. It's more complicated than that, and I don't think the testimony of Votto changes the account we need to tell. "Great Man" theories of events are always tempting, but they are usually wrong -- or at least strikingly incomplete.

I think, given the way it happened, it's fairly impossible not to see Rolen as the tipping point. Obviously no player wins games by himself, but once he showed up the collective started to work.

And 9,999 out of 10,000 I'd tell you that was highly unlikely, but (as I mentioned before) we saw it happen. We may never see it again. I can't recall ever seeing it before. Yet it happened. The Reds acquired Scott Rolen. They were 51-71 and then Rolen stepped into the lineup and, presto, they became a baseball team.

The world is almost always more complicated. This was a rare exception. Scott Rolen was the perfect fit. This one's simple. And trying to dismiss it for its simplicity doesn't alter the surgical precision of it. Believe me, I tried that. Finally had to admit that my denial was based on me not wanting to believe it happened even though I know it did.

[M2]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Sometimes one change to a group changes the group ... sometimes it's a band (Mick Taylor in Brian Jones buried)

Excellent example.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by RedEye

You don't need to convince me that Rolen was one factor in the Reds' emergence in 2010.

It seems a pretty unsustainable argument, though, to argue that he was the single stimulus when there were so many other parts of the equation that played an important role, including the maturation of the pitching, the cultivation of a more dependable farm system, etc. History just doesn't work that way. It's more complicated than that, and I don't think the testimony of Votto changes the account we need to tell. "Great Man" theories of events are always tempting, but they are usually wrong -- or at least strikingly incomplete.

Agreed. Attributing the success of the Reds to the acquisition of Scott Rolen is pure fantasy in my opinion. Rolen happened to come to the right place at the right time, when the young, talented Reds were primed for success.

I really like Scott Rolen and I place high value on his leadership. I just disagree with those who think acquiring him was a key moment in the Reds' resurgence. I don't buy it.

Forget about the players the Reds traded to get Rolen (whether or not you think letting go of Encarnacion was a big mistake). Let's just evaluate his stay here in Cincinnati. As a Red he has been a league-average player during his tenure. He had a .263/.332/.438 slash line for a .771 OPS and 104 OPS+ with 6.9 brWAR in 330 games over 3.25 seasons. That is an average big-leaguer in every respect. The Reds paid him $23-28* million over that period -- pretty steep for an average player who missed almost half the team's games. His play on the field was certainly not good enough to call him the catalyst that put the Reds over the top, especially when you consider the resources spent on him that might have been better spent elsewhere. He brought a lot of leadership and intangibles, but it is a huge stretch to say that he single-handedly turned the team around.

If Scott Rolen was such a force that inevitably propelled the Reds to the top by sheer force of will, then why did the Reds suffer such a let down in 2011 and end up with another losing record?

Votto has said nice things about Scott Rolen, but do we really think Rolen is the reason why Votto is such a great hitter? Votto was already a young stud with a 156 OPS+ the year that Rolen arrived in August. Votto learned a lot from Rolen, but Rolen didn't teach Votto how to hit.

Scott Rolen arrived in Cincy when the Reds were on the verge of breaking through as a real contender -- with Rolen or without him. The Reds have gone through good times and bad times during Rolen's tenure. I don't see much logic in crediting Rolen with turning around the Reds. It was just good timing on his part. He happened to arrive at the time when everything was coming together for the Reds.

The reasons the Reds became a contender are named Joey Votto, Jay Bruce, Brandon Phillips, Johnny Cueto, Mat Latos, Aroldis Chapman, Sean Marshall, Zack Cozart, Homer Bailey and Todd Frazier. Scott Rolen? Not so much.

* $23 million in straight salary plus $5 million deferred without interest. Comes out to less than $28 million if the Reds put down a nugget in an interest-bearing account until the payment is due.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by M2

I think, given the way it happened, it's fairly impossible not to see Rolen as the tipping point. Obviously no player wins games by himself, but once he showed up the collective started to work.

And 9,999 out of 10,000 I'd tell you that was highly unlikely, but (as I mentioned before) we saw it happen. We may never see it again. I can't recall ever seeing it before. Yet it happened. The Reds acquired Scott Rolen. They were 51-71 and then Rolen stepped into the lineup and, presto, they became a baseball team.

The world is almost always more complicated. This was a rare exception. Scott Rolen was the perfect fit. This one's simple. And trying to dismiss it for its simplicity doesn't alter the surgical precision of it. Believe me, I tried that. Finally had to admit that my denial was based on me not wanting to believe it happened even though I know it did.

And I see it as more of a perfect storm. Rolen arrives, so defense at 3B is instantly improved. But Janish also took over at SS in August, GREATLY improving the defense there. The left side of the infield suddenly got a lot better, leading to some better pitching. This was also in evidence the following season as said pitching started to mature, though it still wasn't great outside Cueto and Arroyo. The 2009 staff finished strong and continued that into 2010. that staff was good, while the 2012 staff was very, very good. But the Reds hadn't had good in so long we probably didn't recognize it.

Rolen likely was a tipping point but hardly the only one. And since the 2010 season his on field contribution has been pretty much nil. Now his off-field contributions can really only be measured by the men in the clubhouse, and he's been universally praised.

I still think the cost was too high for a guy forcing his way out of Toronto, making it known he wanted to go to a midwest team. And he had history with Jocketty. TOR took advantage of this, and demanded specific players, Jocketty agreed.

Here is where my opinion has changed slightly. I still believe it was an over pay, but I think sometimes an overpay is warranted. I was and am a bigg EE fan, but it is doubtful TOR would have accepted a trade without him in it. Pitching is especially hard to let go of. The Reds produce Roenicke's all the time, and even though he is still employed at the major league level, he was replaceable. Stewart, DESPITE what happened was the Reds top pitching prospect. While a member of the Reds system, the highest ERA he posted at any level was 2.13. He struck guys out, and gave up a total of 2 HR's in the Reds system, over 2 seasons starting at the Midwest League. There are a ton of guys with TOR stuff that never get there, but when you have hem and use them as trading chips, I think you need to leverage them for more.

So, i go back and forth on this... I do think overpays are warranted, but i also think sometimes Jocketty is known more for overpaying than anything else. This trade was very similar to his trade for Mark Mulder in terms of quantity, 3 for 1 and what happened after. Mulder had one good season and was a disaster after that. Meanwhile, Dan Haren has produced 7-8 more than solid seasons. Calero had a couple of good seasons and Barton is still employed.

So Jocketty has some history with the overpays. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. He's rarely on the other end, getting a haul for one guy. He had a still young slugger in Adam Dunn and got well.. three players in theory.

That coupled with on field success gets you labeled as respected. And I guess he should be. But this team's success will be defined by it's core players: Votto, Bruce, BP, Cueto, Bailey and Latos. Only one of those guys was acquired by Jocketty. Maybe Chapman, especially if the switch to the rotation is successful.

History might say Rolen was THE tipping point. I disagree, I say he was 1 of three, all converging at the same time.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by TRF

I do think overpays are warranted, but i also think sometimes Jocketty is known more for overpaying than anything else. This trade was very similar to his trade for Mark Mulder in terms of quantity, 3 for 1 and what happened after. Mulder had one good season and was a disaster after that. Meanwhile, Dan Haren has produced 7-8 more than solid seasons. Calero had a couple of good seasons and Barton is still employed.

I really, really disagree with your opinion that Jocketty is known for "overpaying" for veterans.

I believe he's known for incredibly astute trades, wherein he often appears to pay a high price, yet, most of the time, the prospects he trades amount to absolutely nothing.

You don't win as many Executive of the Year awards as Jocketty has by paying too high a price in prospects. With the exception of the Mulder deal, I'm hard-pressed to see any prospect Jocketty traded amount to much of anything beyond a one-year wonder.

[kaldaniels]

For the record I'm not on board with the notion that Rolen could force his way out, and only to a Midwest team at that. Sounds like a lot of hot air.

[TRF]

well, perhaps that was the one that caught my attention. I do believe he is willing to part with top prospects, HOW they turn out may not be relevant. If the industry at large perceives them to be top prospects, then they have value. And that perceived value is important. It gives the team that controls them leverage. Now maybe the Reds ML coaches knew that Stewart was going to top out as a AAA-AAAA pitcher. Maybe, but then the Reds coaches and talent evaluators were not really producing ANY credible pitching. It's the same team that thought Stubbs was a leadoff hitter despite the fact that he failed at that at every stop in the minors. but I digress...

I think EE and Roenicke should have been enough with the information available at the time. I also think EE to LF was certainly possible then, as he was/is athletic, has a powerful arm and some speed. I absolutely believe he could have replaced Adam Dunn the day Dunn was traded. But that is a serious move that requires Harbaugh like guts.

Seriously, Johnny bench had a few games in CF. EE can handle LF pretty much anywhere.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by TRF

Seriously, Johnny bench had a few games in CF. EE can handle LF pretty much anywhere.

Johnny Bench was an exceptional athlete, let's not try to allude to his appearance in CF as being proof that EE can play LF... or I'll mention Jason Kendall

[Boss-Hog]

To TRF's assertion that the Jays would not have made the deal without EE, I distinctly remember at the time of the trade that the Jays were fairly open that they did NOT want him; taking him was likely a requirement to balance the salaries and/or for the Reds to part with Stewart.

They later released him, so let's not pretend they identified some diamond in the rough that they insisted upon being included.