I dont really remember this, and ive been in a lot of these threads on this topic.Originally Posted by westofyou
I dont really remember this, and ive been in a lot of these threads on this topic.
Right, that deal to get Joe Morgan didn't do squat for the Reds in the 70's, when the Yankees got Maris from the A's nothing ever came from that after the deal was done.
Talking about the extension and Frazier/Francisco, I mean 2011 and beyond.
Right now, I'd imagine EE would be playing third. He's hurt, so we can't say what he'd be doing to this point, but if you take his career .790 OPS vs. Rolen current .840 it's not that big of a difference. And defensively, Encarnacion's career UZR/150 is actually better (-13.2) than Rolen's current (-15.4).
And then there's Roenicke, who's pitched well enough, and if he were with the Reds, we probably never would never have seen Ondrusek or Fisher, and how much have those guys hurt us?
So even if you ignore Stewart (which is unfair, I think) and just focus on the other two, how much has Rolen really added? Not much, I'd say.
That is true. But the issue is that we may think that it was a dollar that was traded but those involved may have known it was bunk.
Exactly. The value of a trade IS all about predicting if that dollar loses it's value. That's the point in trading high or low on someone.
This is the time. The real Reds organization is back.
Are you just trolling me? When trading guys what matters is at the time of the trade. If for some reason one of the players falls off the face of the earth it doesnt devalue them until that happens.
I know you guys seriously cant be suggesting that you can go back and have revisionist history in trades? Aaron Harang wasnt even the guy the Reds thought was the prize of the Jose Guillen trade, but did it work out for us? Yes. If Oakland knew what they knew now about Harang would they have ever made that trade? No I'm guessing they probably wouldnt have.
Yeah but neither of those guys won the Cy Young award!
Thats right, but you guys are ignoring that the trading 1 dollar for .50 cents still is a bad trade at any time. If for some reason you trade 1 dollar for .50 cents and all the quarters in the world get wiped out and for some reason your 2 quarters turn out to be worth 100 bucks it doesnt change the fact that the trade wasnt good at the time. It might be good now but you still didnt get a dollars worth, if you did you might have 200 bucks.
just because Stewart might not be pitching well now doesnt change the fact that at the time of the trade he was. You cant go back in time and say well "in the future Stewart wont pitch well in AA for Toronto so the deal looks good to me". And thats what a lot of you are trying to do now.
What if the 75-cent stock stays 75 cents but the dollar stock's value goes down to 50 cents? In that case, you were fortunate to sell when you did, regardless of what kind of value you could have had.
Its certainly possible, but we kinda know more of the story now and that was Stewart was basically "sold" so Toronto would send cash.
This is, of course, true but, in another way, the whole "value" analogy is not really appropriate. The stock analogy would only work if there was liquidity in the market so that it was really true that, if you didn't spend your dollar on Scott Rolen, you could spend it somewhere else. Trades are about individuals, not values, something we've forgotten because we've mystified ourselves with all the information we now have about prospects' supposed "values."
The whole package can be valued. I think we are getting off topic though. We did see the market value for other prospects during the trade deadline also. We had values to go off of in teh Victor Martinez trade, the Cliff Lee trade. Both of which said we could probably have gotten one of those 2 guys if we threw in another prospect. I think im going to back out for a while so this thread can get back on some other topic.
You can make a judgment about a trade when it happens based on how much you as a bystander like the trade.Are you just trolling me? When trading guys what matters is at the time of the trade. If for some reason one of the players falls off the face of the earth it doesnt devalue them until that happens.
You can make a judgment about how successful a trade is only after enough time has passed that you see how it has affected the teams involved.
Here is the thing. People want to be optimistic about their prospects and as such they tend to focus on a prospect's ceiling especially when things are going well. I mean there is a reason people are more excited about Aroldis Chapman than Matt Maloney despite their similar AAA number right?
At the time of the deal Stewart was percieved to have a high ceiling. He had big stuff and was an extreme groundball pitcher, both of which play very well in GAB. Throw in the fact that he was moving quickly through the system that at the time had no good power arms at the upper levels and it was pretty easy to see why people were high on him. I think I evaluate prospects pretty fairly and I know he was a guy I was very high on mainly because I focused on his upside.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote