Losing Stewart really hurts...

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

I don't know about the rest of you, but I measure success by the number of Championship Trophies the REDS get. Any goal other than that is one I find counter-productive.

Scott Rolen does nothing for the REDS towards the earning of a Championship. Josh Roenicke and Zach Stewart could have.

In a small market club the key for winning a Championship is really simple. There's some other ways, but I prefer this one:

The exact formula that worked for the 1990 REDS, and it's the formula I've felt that the REDS have had to follow since about 1984, even since it was obvious they would never be able to compete in the Free Agent Market.

That familiar formula:

1. One Uber-Ace (must be one of the 5 best pitchers in MLB that year).
2. Outstanding bullpen (must be top-5 bullpen in MLB that year).
3. One Uber-clutch power hitter, but it doesn't have to be league leading power, just Top-25 power. Adam Dunn is not clutch, so he's not the type. Bruce will be and Votto already is.
4. Great Defense all around, especially up the middle (Catcher, SS, 2B, CF).
5. A good farm system to fill out the rest of the positions and bench and many of the aabove-mentioned players.
6. Trade or acquire in Free Agency 2 or 3 of #'s 1, 3, and 4.

I do believe that Walt understands this philosophy and would like to get there. I don't believe Dusty does. I think Walt made a mistake in thinking that Rolen has enough left to still be a RED when we can reach that window.

Roenicke would have been a part of #2. Stewart would have been a part of #2 or a good replacement for Harang or Arroyo in 2011.

Cueto has a chance to be the Uber-Ace. I don't think Volquez or Bailey have that. We are very close. Rolen fixes some of the defensive problems. But, we could have gotten him for much less after the season. We'd still have Zach Stewart on the team. Walt panicked.

What is this? This reminds me of the time that Kramer worked at an office, and handed in a bunch of drivel that his employer could not decipher.

I do believe that Walt understands this philosophy

Philosophy? This is at best crib notes. I mean, you speak with staunch confidence, but this is just a bunch of random thoughts, not any type of actual plan that one could realistically follow.

I'll admit, it would be pretty funny to see Walt use the term "find an uber ace" when posed the question "what are your off season goals".

[BRM]

Scott Rolen does nothing for the REDS towards the earning of a Championship. Josh Roenicke and Zach Stewart could have.

Good point. I keep forgetting that Josh Roenicke is the next Trevor Hoffman and Stewart is the odds on favorite to win the Cy Young next year.

Rolen definitely makes the Reds better in '10 IMO. Stewart may not contribute until 2011, if at all. Roenicke is a middle reliever. The word fungible comes to mind. Stewart is still a lottery ticket at this point. He may end up a fine SP or back end reliever, or he may be the next Brett Tomko. We simply don't know yet.

[GIDP]

I like the Reds chances in 2011 a lot more than 2010s

[BRM]

Originally Posted by GIDP

I like the Reds chances in 2011 a lot more than 2010s

I don't know what the 2010 or 2011 roster will look like yet so I have no idea which year looks better.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

What is this? This reminds me of the time that Kramer worked at an office, and handed in a bunch of drivel that his employer could not decipher.




Philosophy? This is at best crib notes. I mean, you speak with staunch confidence, but this is just a bunch of random thoughts, not any type of actual plan that one could realistically follow.

I'll admit, it would be pretty funny to see Walt use the term "find an uber ace" when posed the question "what are your off season goals".

So the plan to bring in Championship trophies is to defer to players with, collectively, barely a cup of coffee in the majors over a future Hall of Famer with double-digit years of proven worth?

Does not seem like a very sound business model to me.

If we were talking about a pair of players thought to be the next transcendent icons in baseball, OK, perhaps the potential is too great. But neither started the year as consensus top 50 prospects in all of baseball. And since the success rate is (maybe) 35% on the whole, the odds were better that instead of bringing in trophies in a few short years, they could be bagging up groceries.

[Captain Hook]

Going into 2009 I remember a lot of people that didn't give the team much of a chance and felt that it was likely that 2010 would be the year that the team could make some noise.Well what has changed?

EE was one of the reasons that most people felt we wouldn't contend in 2009.His poor fielding and inconsistency at the plate was said to be a major handicap.Especially when considering he would be expected to contribute heavily for a team short on offense.A upgrade would be needed.Those people were pretty much dead on.Well the upgrade is here and he is a top 10 3rd baseman in all of baseball.We got him for guys that would not contribute in 2010 or that could be easily replaced.So what's the problem?

Many said that Bruce would need a year before before we would see him turn into an All-Star.While he has struggled as predicted he has proven to be above average in LF with good power and seems to be an adjustment or two away from turning the corner.Having someone like Gomes or Hanigan hitting behind him instead of Rosales might help as well.We can't wait forever to build around him and Votto so why not trade prospect to improve us in the short term.

Even with the Volquez injury the rotation expectations should be the about same in 2010 as they were in 2009 considering that Harang is a year removed from an arm injury and Bailey is looking like he can fill the void left by Volquez.I'm not saying that Bailey can do what Edison did in 2008 but most of us thought EV would regress some this year anyways.Cueto and Aaroyo round out a solid top 4 with plenty of nice options for the 5th spot.

It really seems like every time you hear about a bad team trading prospects for proven talent you hear critics saying that the move made no sense and that it was a bad move.Isn't reasonable to think that the bad teams are the ones that need to make more of these moves?Especially when they have a decent amount of prospects.Whenever the Yankees or Redsox do it everyone talks about their commitment to winning and what great franchise they are.All it is to me is another case of the strong getting stronger and the weak getting weaker.I for one applaud the Reds for making the move.If Stewart ends up winning the Cy Young a few years from now then so be it.IMO we have 2 or 3 guys that are much more capable of winning the award still on the team and he was only a minor league prospect with potential.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

This reminds me of the time that Kramer worked at an office, and handed in a bunch of drivel that his employer could not decipher.

"Kramer, I've been reviewing your work. Quite frankly, it stinks."

"Well I've been having trouble at home. I'll work nights. Weekends. Whatever it takes."

"No, I don't think that will do it. These reports you handed in - it's, almost as if you have no formal business training at all. I don't even know what this is supposed to be."

"I'm just trying to get ahead."

"Well I'm sorry. There's just no way we can keep you on."

"I don't really even work here."

"I know, that's why this is so difficult."

[GIDP]

Originally Posted by BRM

I don't know what the 2010 or 2011 roster will look like yet so I have no idea which year looks better.

I look at hte prospects and see the 2011 team obviously being much better off. I dont see the 2010 one being much different the current one.

[BRM]

Originally Posted by GIDP

I look at hte prospects and see the 2011 team obviously being much better off. I dont see the 2010 one being much different the current one.

Depends on what Walt does this winter.

[GIDP]

Originally Posted by BRM

Depends on what Walt does this winter.

Then we could be looking at a worse 2010 roster

[Bumstead]

Rolen is a 1-year rental...are the Reds competing for a division title next season? It's doubtful barring some extraordinary moves made by the front office including finding a manager that can manage this team reasonably...ugh...it's just re-hashing of the same argument. It's just a bad deal to give up players of that caliber (potential or not) for a rental player during a season the Reds are not competing to win in anyway. Unless the Reds suddenly become the Yankees spending-wise of course...

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

Rolen is a 1-year rental...are the Reds competing for a division title next season? It's doubtful barring some extraordinary moves made by the front office including finding a manager that can manage this team reasonably...ugh...it's just re-hashing of the same argument. It's just a bad deal to give up players of that caliber (potential or not) for a rental player during a season the Reds are not competing to win in anyway. Unless the Reds suddenly become the Yankees spending-wise of course...

Please explain why Rolen is a one-year rental. He'll be 35 next year, he seems like he could play at age 36 as well. Maybe, with ample rest, at age 37. Lots of good players are still effective at these ages if they take care of themselves. Some players are effective at even later ages.

Rolen apparently likes the Cincy area, would almost definitely agree to an extension for a year or two.

So, again, why is he a one-year rental?

[Bumstead]

uh...he has 1 year left on his contract...there is no guarantee he will re-sign with the Reds after that. Do you really want to commit money to Rolen after next season? You really want to offer 3 years $20+M? The Reds will be lucky if he plays 120 games next year and that's not likely to change as he gets older.

Bum

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

uh...he has 1 year left on his contract...there is no guarantee he will re-sign with the Reds after that. Do you really want to commit money to Rolen after next season? You really want to offer 3 years $20+M? The Reds will be lucky if he plays 120 games next year and that's not likely to change as he gets older.

Bum

Rolen will be approaching 36 after next season. He may or may not insist on a 3-year contract then. My guess is that he will insist on two years, something like $15 million aggregate. And if he is playing like he currently is playing, yes, I'd give it to him. Meanwhile, the Reds can put someone like Francisco or Frazier on the bench and they can spell Rolen as he gets older. 120 games from Rolen helps this team.

I know it's not popular around here, but the Reds cannot just rely on prospects. They need veterans. Some will be in their prime. Some, like Rolen, will be somewhat older but can contribute by their solid play. These types don't make many errors, don't often make mental mistakes, and don't tend to have deep slumps.

Look at Jorge Posada this year. Johnny Damon. Todd Helton. Manny Ramirez. Chipper Jones. And guys like Sheffield in a part time role, OPSing over .800.

It's just a disagreement of philosophy. I think the Reds will fail if they stick entirely with prospects. I think they need good veterans at different age and salary levels to compliment the kids. Like Rolen

[Bumstead]

All those veterans play on teams that theoretically had a chance to compete when the season started. All those veterans play on teams that have $$$ to spend. The Reds don't qualify in either scenario. I don't have a problem adding a player like Rolen at a time when the Reds are ready to compete; actually I wouldn't have had a problem adding him if the Reds hadn't given up so much (bidding against themselves, again). I am not interested in watching the Reds win 78 games instead of 73. If they had a chance to win 90, now you are talking. Otherwise why give away players like Stewart?

We can disagree. I don't mind. I'm not interested in watching the Reds compete for .500, I'm interested in them competing for division titles, NL titles and WS championships...Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will the Reds be. Whether you like prospects or not, with the Reds payroll structure, prospects will be the foundation of their success (or lack thereof), not free agents or trading for 34 year-old players being paid market value or above.

Bum