Loading ...
Mark Sheldon is reporting that the Reds have restructured and extended Scott Rolens contract to provide some salary relief for the Reds in 2010.
Rolen will receive $6M in 2010 instead of $11M with a $5M signing bonus spread out over the next three years. Plus they extended his contract for two additional guaranteed years in 2011 and 2012 at $6.5M per season. The payout will look something like the following.
Rolen Age Salary Bonus 2010 35 $6M $1.6M 2011 36 $6.5M $1.6M 2012 37 $6.5M $1.6M
I think this is a big gamble to lay out $8M a year on a player who will be 35 to 37 years old over the course of the contract who is already a shadow of his former self. Rolen’s career OPS is .868, but the last three seasons it’s been .729, .780, and .823. He has also averaged just 118 games played over the last three years. That’s two or three 15 game DL stints a season. If Rolen can play 128 G and OPS .823 over the next three years, this will have been a good move. But I feel that is a tall order to fill for the 35 year old Rolen who’s power appears to have disappeared since a shoulder injury in 2005.
This also brings up the question of what will the Reds do now with Juan Francisco and Todd Frazier, one of whom seemed to be the heir apparent at 3B for when Rolen’s contract ran out at the end of next season. Will they actually move Franciso to LF? Will Frazier ever find a positional home on the diamond, 2B/LF/3B? Who knows, I’m pretty sure the Reds don’t though. Perhaps one or both of them will be dealt for a similar prospect at a position of need like a SS, C, or a SP.
This is a curious move, how do you think it will pan out?
Great move by the Reds here. It is going to be very tough for Rolen to not be worth every cent of his contract if he can even play 100 games per season. I still don’t like the trade, but I am glad Scott Rolen plays on the Reds.
I don’t know what to think of it really, if he is healthy then it could be ok, but if he gets hurt a lot it will be a dumb move. All I know if they are going to make moves like this, then they better not trade Harang and Arroyo in salary dumps without getting good to great returns.
I am curious if they have a plan with the young guys…I mean two of your five best prospects are blocked by an aging Rolen and add that with another one of your best prospects in Alonso blocked by Votto. Something is got to give. Can they package two of Frazier/Alonso/Fransisco for something that will bring value to the ML roster this year?
bruble,
Scott Rolen needs to be worth about 2 wins per season to be worth his contract. Just once since 2002 has he not been worth that and it was the year he played 56 games. From 2007-2009 Rolen was worth 9.4 wins in 355 games, or about 1.3 wins per 50 games played. So if Rolen can play 100 games per season, he will more than earn his contract if he keeps similar production over that time period. If he plays more than that, the Reds make out like bandits in this deal. Its very tough for the Reds to lose out on this deal.
@Doug Gray: Doug, what kind of return could the Reds get from two of the three of Alonso/Frazier/Fransisco? Of the three I would want to keep Frazier because he can play LF/2B/SS/3B well enough, but with Fransisco’s fielding problems and Alonso being blocked by Votto, I think those two are expendable at this point.
I don’t see Rolen as blocking prospects. It makes sense to have a young guy to work alongside Rolen, give days off, and be there if/when a trip to the DL happens…
I know a lot of you guys didn’t like this trade in the first place, but all the positive comments coming from Rolen’s new team-mates are certainly worth something.
I think it depends when you trade them and to which team. Right now you would probably get less for them than if you traded them in June while both are performing well in AAA. With that said, you could probably get a pretty strong return for a package of those two guys.
@Doug Gray: Your right too, if he can produce at the same level as the last three years, it will be a good deal (value wise).
Plus, a lot of fans love him, so that is probably another reason to extend him.
@Doug Gray: If I was an AL team, I would really look at Fransisco as a DH. It will be interesting to see what they decide to do with those two in particular.
But if the prospect is Todd Frazier and he is outperforming Rolen over the final two years of the contract for about $7M less a season, is this a wise a move for the budget conscious Reds? Also, what is Frazier doing the days that Rolen is able to be on the field? He’s too good to not be getting ABs, so how is he not blocked?
I was not crazy about the Rolen trade and I do not think he will have no more than 20 home runs per season for the next three seasons; if that? However, he is solid defensively and with Janish, & Phillips in the infield I believe they will save a few runs for the pitchers. I have seen Frazier & Fransisco play and I really like Frazier. He has a live bat to all fields and he is solid in the field. Fransisco has huge power, but he is a load and erratic defensively. I have seen highlights of Alonso and I think that he is going to be a very good major league hitter. However, I feel that he is pretty one dimensional (a bit of a load like Fransisco) player and would thrive better maybe in the American league as a DH and first baseman. I really wanted the Reds pick Gordon Beckham from that draft, but that is past. So with all that said, I would deal Alonso and Fransisco if a good package presented itself. I would keep Frazier for Rolen could go down and the teams seems to be a little left handed heavy and he offers potentially a steady right bat with some pop. Also he has proven he can play the outfield too.
IMO, this is actually a short-term move. Rolen did them a solid to patch their big 2010 payroll hole. In return, he’ll be getting “starter money” for years where he’s unlikely to outplay the in-house free talent. I suppose this makes the trade somewhat more sensible, but it still doesn’t look at all like the Long-Term Plan we’re always looking for.
Good guy, decent player, bad contract. Sounds familiar, really.
In 2009, Rolen was a 3.8WAR w/ a 7.6uzr/150 (per Fangraphs).
Even w/ expected decline, a 2.5WAR – 5.0UZR/150 or better is likely over the duration of the extension. I really like this deal…I now hope that Walt can lure Tejada in for a yr at $5M or so…(His SS options are getting limited)
Say all you want about WAR value, Frazier will put up identical numbers if not better. Nice message to send to your #1 prospect. Gheesh, at least make the 3rd year an option. Rolen is ONLY a third baseman. If his production slips to the point where he isn’t an everyday player, it will have a negative effect on roster construction.
There’s just too many variables with his injury history and lack of versatility for a 3 year deal to make sense. And really, what will the Reds do with the $5mil they saved? Another retread 5th starter methinks.
It just feels like they doubled down on 16.
i find this some what confusing given the seemingly strong trade rumors for Arroyo and Harang that have been “talked” about. If the idea is to compete this year(2010), then Rolen along with Arroyo/Harang I would think need to be Reds and then Reds re-act as the season progresses. However, could the re-structured/extended contract could be a clue that one of the Reds 3B prospects are part of a potential deal along with Harang/Bronson. Or is this an early indicator of “veteran presence” mode of how Walt plans on operating the Reds org.
looks fine to me, it’s really only 6.5 mil a year since the 5 mil bonus is pretty much from this yr’s contract, which was a sunk cost anyway. also not a fan of the trade but at least we aren’t losing rolen after a year making it look even dumber
Bill James has projections for both Rolen and Frazier. He projects them to be almost identical in terms of value at the plate. Rolen should be better in the field and thus, a slightly better player overall. You can’t however, really justify spending that much money for a slight upgrade. But…
James tends to overestimate young hitter, so he might be expecting a bit much out of Frazier. It’s also worth noting that it seems to me that the Reds pretty clearly have Francisco ahead of Frazier on the depth chart. Whether we like it or not, that’s how it is. Apparently, they don’t think that much of Frazier. It could be organizational stupidity or it could be they no something I don’t. I have no idea.
In any case, I don’t think Scott Rolen will ever be the reason this team is losing. He might not help all the time, but this is not a deal that’s going to hurt the Reds. It’s a fine deal, I think. Not great, because Frazier is right there, but okay.
attention to all ye who bash rolen as a player…
you all bash him now, but when he is dominating next season you’ll praise him again, then if he makes a mistake, you’ll bash him.
Learn the cycle of all of our stupidity and lets all just have some pie… yeah some good ol fashioned pumpkin pie…
@Jose: I like it
I like it. If he stays decently healthy it will certainly be worth it. I think a lot of this is because of: 1) his “leadership” role on a team that otherwise has no leadership and 2) he wants to be in Cincinnati, close to is home an family in Indiana.
@JasonL: I don’t know if it is a case of the organization favoring Fransisco over Frazier, just that Frazier can play about anywhere when Fransisco is limited to 3B right now.
I agree with Chris, my first thought was that it was help in the short term with this club to free up some cash. I hope this means something is in the works for 2010 right now.
I’ve been saying for the past year or so that Frazier’s role, if it is with this team, will be similar to Ryan Freel. He’ll play some second, short, and outfield maybe 3-4 times a week. He has a strong bat with no real position which makes him a super utility guy.
Francisco will probably marinate in AAA with Heisey in LF next season. He has to work on defense and get his K:BB ratio under control.
That said, I still don’t see Alonso and Francisco on the big league club. My preference is to deal one or both for starting pitching.
All things considered, I love this deal. Rolen deferring money should pay dividends and his contract is tradeable if necessary.
It’s a gamble obviously, but I can’t complain. I’ve been screaming at WJ to do something creative. It frees up some much needed money for 2010. I don’t see an expanding move toward “veteran presence.” For one thing, we can’t afford it. Rolen is IT in terms of veteran presence. One good effect of the trade for Rolen is that it is has shut up BP about being the team leader, maybe he can start acting more like a veteran now. (I love his enthusiasm, don’t get me wrong on that.)
I see Francisco as the most likely to be traded, but as suggested above, ideally we would wait on that until he’s shown he can hammer AAA pitching and get on base a little more.
I really like Alonso, our lineup could so use his bat. But the org doesn’t seem to want to move Votto from 1st base, and maybe they shouldn’t. So ….
Anyway I’m surprised that the move has been as well received as it has on the blog, makes me feel better about it.
like the I thought the trade would be unpopular on our blog, glsd
Funny, I thought this team was broke.
Last line of the above was meant to be deleted.
The only consistent theme I can see in all of this is that the team sees itself in real money trouble next season. They don’t bring gomes back, they are looking to trade Harang and now they extend Rolen out through his age 36 and 37 seasons to reduce the hit this year. Maybe the money they are saving gets used somewhere else, but I will believe it when I see it.
I do like the move. I like freeing up the money this year and I like keeping Rolen around. I think this assured that we will not be dumping salary, and should not have to dump salary.
Heck, we might now be a factor for a free agent or two!
I should’ve been more clear. This frees up money for 2010, but that money will not be used to add talent. It will be used to keep the lights on, and possibly avoid trading BOTH Harang and Arroyo. From what I’ve been told, things are pretty bleak over there, and Big Boy’s insistence on getting Rolen didn’t help things at all.
This is a great deal for the Reds. It would seem to save them as much or more than was rumored in the Harang-to-Dodgers deal, and gives the team a known answer at third base for the next three years.
It is not a bad contract and it shows me that the Reds have a plan, not that they lack one.
Am I missing something. Why don’t we let Fraiser play at least one big league game before we compare him favorably to even a 35 year old Scott Rolen. Remember Gookie Dawkins, Chris Gruler, Ryan Wagner, Austin Kearns? All Baseball America #1 Reds Prospects. Would you trade Rolen even up for those guys? You can say Fraiser is better than those guys, but until he does it no we can’t. Heck they can’t find a place where he can place defense. Remember the esteem Austin Kearns was held in until he had a prolonged opportuniy to play.
This was a great signing and even makes Rolen more tradeable if it should come to that.
As far as Francisco goes he probably has a better shot at making the team this year with Rolen there. If Scott can only play 120 games there is a need for 42 more and his ability to platoon in left while hitting lefthanded with power, makes it a possibility. I think Jocketty even alluded to tis possibility when talking at Redsfest.
Now, I think we all understand that w/ Harang & Arroyo have buy-outs that will be exercised, after 2010…If they are not moved sooner. So, I could see CIN keeping both as long as possible…Knowing that they can spend $5M on those buy-outs & clear $19.5M off the pay-roll, going forward.
But that doesn’t help solve the problems of 2010…
And if Bob is so broke in 2010…Maybe he should consider selling the franchise to someone that has the funds to run the club properly…Or at very least, be willing to do what is necessary in the short-term to insure the club makes profit.
(That would be by finding a way to bring some excitement to the fan base & compete in 2010!)
If Bob is willing to spend w/ the blind faith that a winner puts butts in the seats…He can do that!
Put a winning product on the field..And I guarantee it pays for itself & then some via the turnstiles!
(The difference in pulling 1.75M vs the NL AVG of 2.5M is staggering for a small market club, when all revenue streams are added up. At a estimate of $50/person (tickets, concessions, souvenirs, etc)… that difference adds up to an extra $37.5M. That would do wonders to the bottom line even if $8-10M had to be spent in 2010 to facilitate that.)
I didn’t like the trade when it was made and I don’t like the extension now. Yes, they save some part of $5M this year (part of which seems like it’ll be paid as a bonus this year), but it’s still sunk into the next three years. And even if they did save the entire $5M, what is that going to get them?
If this team is going to go young, having a 35-37 year old third baseman who can’t stay healthy doesn’t make much sense to me. There is a good chance that you’re going to be paying him $6.5 M (plus the part of the bonus) for being a bench player by the end of the deal…
It is a Catch 22. I think even more difficult to project in light of the economy. I don’t think I would get rid of Harrang or Arroyo unless it makes the team better. I think Harang is shot so moving him would make the team better (plus free up some money) and make a lot of sense. If everything is the same Lehr was a better option last year and probably will be again in 2010.
Arroyo on the other hand is in one of thos sell high positions. The sell high philosophy works about 50% of the time, but in light of his contract it might be the right time to try.
@catcard202: Optimistic idea, but I just can’t see how an $8-10 million bump in payroll (basically just an extra player or two) would bring in 750,000 more fans. Especially with the sluggish economy. I don’t think there’s a good chance of much of a “bounce” in attendance here, at least, not yet.
But, I’m with you on being willing to spend more to win. Not that it’ll put THAT many butts in the seats, but just b/c owning a team is somewhat like owning a house!! You lose money year-by-year on it… but it (generally) appreciates in value! You’ve got an asset that’s getting more and more valuable every year, so, come on, let’s be willing to stomach some reasonably small losses annually.
Let’s address this now. The problem is not that they can’t find a place where he can play defense. The problem is that he’s such a well rounded solid defender, that they can’t find a place where he can’t play defense. Todd Frazier is not a utlity man and his bat will play to any position.
@Tom Diesman: The Mark DeRosa parallels for Frazier really might work out. That would be cool.
Or… even better… maybe Jeff Kent?? (If Frazier has Kent potential — who believe it or not is probably a Hall of Famer, I think — I’d hope that either Phillips could be shuffled over to SS, or traded.)
A potentially slugging Frazier has a lot more value at a place like 2B than he would in, say, LF, b/c corner outfielders who can hit fairly well just aren’t that scarce, but middle infielders who can slug a little are quite rare.
I hope the Reds realize that — if they commit Frazier to LF at some point (even though he could play 2B or 3B) would intentionally lower his value.
@Tom Diesman: Hmmm… I should add though, apparently the Reds have decided that Frazier can’t play SS. That’s a bummer.
I could live with Frazier being used defensively as DeRosa has the last four seasons. But that is definitely not something I’d tag with the “Utility” tag. DeRosa has basically been an every day starter over the last four seasons used pretty evenly between 2B/3B/OF while putting up about an .800 OPS. I’m still hoping that Frazier’s bat will be more in the .825 to .850 OPS range. I agree also that he is more valuable as a 2B, then a 3B, then an OF.
2006-2009 GS/Year 136
DeRosa GS
2B 194
3B 179
OF 155
1B 11
SS 4
First, I am not a proponent of moving Phillips to SS. However, what is the harm in letting Phillips play at Short for 1/3 of the Spring Training games? Put Frazier at second during those games and let’s see how they work at a DP tandem.
Great idea in my opinion! I’ve never said that I’m sure that Phillips would make a good SS, but I’ve been an advocate for 2 years now of at least TRYING IT OUT. What’s the harm? I really think the final 40 or so games of the season, both of the last 2 years, should’ve been used to try stuff like this. Then we’d know!
Personally, this past season, I would’ve wanted to see how Phillips at SS and Sutton at 2B would’ve worked out. But sure, Phillips/Frazier has just as much merit, if not more.
Frazier hasn’t played 20 games in the minor leagues at 3B. The Reds just haven’t tried to get him time there despite talk that they know he can play there I get the feeling they want him elsewhere. However even if he were to play there (and I think he could) I don’t think its a given at all that he would outproduce Rolen in 2011 or 2012 if we account for defense as well (if Rolen can stay relatively healthy… big if, I know). But of course, we do have Frazier at that point if Rolen were to go down. If not, he still has LF or 2B.
They saved money by making this deal, so I completely fail to see your point.
Mark, the only guy you mentioned worth comparing to is Kearns. Gruler was a pitcher who had an arm injury and was 18 years old in a system full of nobodies. Wagner was a relief pitcher in a system full of nobodies. Kearns was a legit prospect and before he hurt his shoulder was a .945 OPS bat for a full season in the major leagues. After that though, his bat slowed down and he lost some power and the rest is history. There is a large difference between being a #1 prospect for a team that has no one and being the #1 prospect for the Reds now. Its like being the best player on Charleston Southern and trying to say because he didn’t make it then the best player on Texas won’t either. Things aren’t created equally.
With all of that said, I do think its a bit early to suggest Frazier can outperform Rolen today. I think he can hit as well as Rolen can, but defensively I don’t think so and that is the big difference right now.
I hope Francisco gets time with the Reds this year…. in September. He has a ton of work to do still.
I meant to call Mr. Castellini “Big Bob,” not “Big Boy.”.
What saves this team more money in the long haul? Letting Rolen’s contract run out and cutting him loose before a possible major decline after his $11M in 2010 and going with Frazier/Francisco for minimum. Or shelling out $13M more over two additional years, blocking your prospects who can most likely match his performance for league minimum?
No, no, no… While Frazier appears to be a capable defender at SS, 2B and LF (maybe 3B), if he was a plus defender at any of these positions, then he wouldn’t be moved all over the field.
Ryan Freel or JHJ were similarly average defenders at multiple positions, giving the Reds flexibility as to where they were played. While Frazier’s bat may be far more advanced than either Freel or JHJ, that has nothing to do with his position defensively.
You seem to place a negative connotation on the phrase “utility player.” However, JHJ, Mark DeRosa and Ryan Freel are utility players. I see nothing to indicate Todd Frazier won’t be used defensively in exactly the same fashion.
I fail to see the problem. If Frazier plays 120 games between 2B, SS, LF and 3B what’s your issue?
@David: I watched him a year in Dayton and did not have the range or hands for a big league shortstop. He was a challenge in leftfield, at least early in the season for Carolina and I saw him late in the year at 2b when they played in Columbus. The best that can be said is at this point he is a hitter.
“If Frazier plays 120 games between 2B, SS, LF and 3B what’s your issue?”
If Frazier is needed at an average of 30 games at those 4 positions, then the issue is that we lack a steady contributor at those 4 positions.
@Tom Diesman:
We pretty much know what we have with Rolen, we have no idea if Frazier can play on this level. Also what’s to say we don’t deal Brandon at some point and put Frazier there? Also if Frazier is that good of an all around athlete, how hard can it be to learn LF?
How do you know this?
While Frazier and Francisco might be able to match Rolen’s offensive output (which I doubt), neither can shake a stick at Rolen’s defensive capabilities.
I’d also like to add that in years past, for ex. when the Reds signed players like Patterson or Taveras, the overwhelming battle cry from this board’s members was “OBP, OBP, OBP… The Reds don’t care enough about OBP.” Well all Jocketty has done this season, by targeting Counsell and extending Rolen, is address OBP. Yet, nobody’s happy with these players and they’re very good OBP and in the case of Rolen excellent defense.
Tight my butt. They are handed, yes handed 80 million dollars each season from MLB before any tickets are sold, or any other local revenue comes in. They get millions of dollars, this whole thing of crying poor is lame and old and now even their fellow owners are calling these cheap owners out. Don’t tell me you are poor when you are signing players like Willy T. to the money you are. Aint’ going to fly.
Personally, I’d like to see them take a run at Chein-Ming Wang or Erik Bedard. Both are certainly a risk, BUT, if the Reds are able to structure a year long incentive based deal, it could be worth the risk. I don’t imagine that this will cost much more than what was saved by the Reds.
Agreed.
“Personally, I’d like to see them take a run at Chein-Ming Wang or Erik Bedard. Both are certainly a risk, BUT, if the Reds are able to structure a year long incentive based deal, it could be worth the risk. I don’t imagine that this will cost much more than what was saved by the Reds.”
I’d rather have Ben Sheets.
Correct, I do place a negative connotation on utility player. No player with aspirations of being a major league regular wants that tag. If utility player is to be simply defined as a player who can adequately play multiple defensive positions, so be it. Then Frazier, Freel, Hairston, DeRosa, Figgins, Rosales, and Pete Rose can all be lumped together.
I see a clear distinction however in players who are regular starters who are versatile enough defensively to play multiple positions, see Rose, DeRosa, Figgins, etc…. and bench players who don’t hit enough to be regular starters who are versatile enough to come off the bench and fill in at multiple defensive positions as needed, see Hairston, Freel, Rosales, etc…. Frazier bat appears to have him destined to be a member of the first group of utility players who are regular starters.
As I stated earlier, I have no issues with Frazier being used as DeRosa has the last four years where he has started 136 games/season split between 2B/3B/OF.
Unless the Reds are deep in contention this year, I think we can expect Brandon Phillips to be traded to a contender. His salary bump is gigantic in 2011. Even though the Reds money position will be greatly relieved next year, with no Harang or Arroyo contracts, I still don’t see us paying $11 million (from memory) for BP. That makes Todd Frazier the starting 2B. Sounds good to me.
Maybe now they can afford him. Before, they definitely couldn’t.
I think I would see if I could try to sign Pedro Martinez on the cheap. He is probably a quality 5 to 6 inning guy for that fifth spot, might put some butts in the seats, and would be a good mentor for Cueto and Volquez. He definitely could show the staff how to throw inside and he knows how to win. Since this is just a fix until Volquez gets back in August he could also have some trade value for the August 31 deadline, if they are not in contention.
Pedro would most likely rather retire than come play for a non-playoff team like the Reds.
Juan Francisco has about a 1% chance of ever having a season comparable to the one that Scott Rolen just had. He is Edwin Encarnacion type questionable in the field at 3B, if not worse (check out his .871 FP% this season at AA). At the plate, unless he makes drastic changes to his plate approach (start walking or cut his strikeout rate literally in half) he will struggle to OPS over .850 which he would clearly need to be able to do in order to match a plus defensive guy who had a .800 OPS.
Frazier can play multiple spots. I don’t see him as being blocked at all. As for matching Rolen’s production…. we figured Rolen is about 5-10 runs more valuable than average in the field. Frazier at best is likely dead average given his 18 starts there since being drafted. So over 550 PA he would need to out OPS Rolen by 30-50 points. Rolen currently projects out at a .780-.800 OPS next season. For 2010, do we expect Frazier to hit for an .810-.850 OPS? I know that I don’t. Looking at 2011 its probably more in the .800-.840 range and then we are in an area where I feel comfortable saying yes, its plausible to say Frazier can do that. Francisco, I won’t say that until his plate discipline resembles something that is questionable rather than something that is atrocious.
Now of course here is the problem with that…. Rolen needs to stay close to healthy (120 games a year), Frazier needs to be league average defensively (still to be seen and honestly is a bit to expect given his lack of experience there) and that Frazier can’t take the LF spot by the horns (or even 2B if the Reds move Phillips before he gets to 11+M a season in 2011).
Doubt they can afford him. Dude still wants 10+M a season. He has a serious case of denial at this point.
Sheets thinks he can get $10m per season? Yikes, and good luck with that. But there will be someone attractive who’ll sign in the $5m range, and the Reds (theoretically) have that flexibility now.
I absolutely agree that Rolen is still likely to outperform Frazier or Francisco over the life of this extension. Even with lower HR totals, he works counts and hits for high average and some power, and his defense is terrific. Leadership is hard for fans to quantify, but people inside of baseball really seem to value it.
And having Frazier around to help keep Rolen fresh will only help both players. It’s awfully valuable to have a guy who can competently field multiple positions and provide league-average offense or better at each. He’ll play plenty.
I could see a $5 million base with $5 worth of incentives
One nice thing about this is that we will have an answer to the financial questiion by the beginning of the season. If they use the money saved to add a player, great. If not, then at best the savings let us keep Harang/Arroyo when they would have had to trade one of them otherwise. Given that this came right the reports the deal with LA was not going to happen, the timing is a little interesting.
Whether it works as a baseball move, that we’ll have to wait until that age 37 season to figure out.
Is Jared Saltalamachia still worth a gamble after his injuries? If so, I wonder what they would have to give the Rangers to get him.
I’m not so much concerned with 2010, we were stuck with Rolen for $11M for 2010 regardless and neither Frazier or Francisco is ready to take over right now anyway. It’s very probable that one or both would be ready by 2011 though, and if they ever balled up and made a decision on who was going to play where, they could even get Frazier considerable time at 3B this season at AAA so his transition as Rolen’s replacement would be much smoother and we’d know exactly how well he can handle 3B.
The concern is extending Rolen at $6.5M per year at ages 36 and 37 for the 2011 and 2012 seasons. The question is whether Rolen will not only be able to stay healthy, but will he be able to maintain his current level of play, which is a far cry below what he did in his prime? He used to OPS .900 about every season, he is more of a .800 OPS guy now, with his diminished SLG causing the big decline. Through 2005 he was putting up a UZR/150 in the low 20s, 2006-2007 it dipped into the mid teens, and the last few seasons he’s been about 7-8. There’s no question that his skills are declining, the question is, will they continue to decline in 2011 and 2012?
If Rolen can maintain his current level for the next three years then he may very well outproduce Frazier over that time period. But then the question is, is the difference between the two’s performance over the last two years of the contract going to be worth $6M per year?
If Rolen continues to decline, we are just saddled with another unwanted contract through 2012 for a player who will be run out there as often as possible due to the contract for who we have a better player available.
I really dislike the two year extension for Rolen. We could have saved the same $3M in 2010 by not re-signing Ramon Hernandez.
Tom, If Todd Frazier could only play 3B then I might be on board with you. But since he can play other spot I am not really going to hop on your train just yet. Francisco is a non factor for me. Odds are incredibly good he hurts this team for a few seasons before he helps it because they don’t know what OBP is and he simply doesn’t either. We will wind up with a #4 hitter who fails to reach first base 30% of the time if he gets time in the majors before 2012 is my guess.
I don’t read the two with as much optimism. You don’t restructure a guys deal in a couple days, rather, the negotiations were likely ongoing over the course of the past offseason.
I tend to believe the two deals are mutually exclusive. This is probably Rolen’s last contract, and I’m sure the deal was seen to both sides as beneficial. The Reds reduce the contract hit and Rolen retires a Red.
New York is making a push for a starter and has explored Carlos Zambrano. Given the comparable similarity between Harang and Zambrano I wouldn’t be surprised if the Yankees also sent out feelers to the Reds.
I know it is a small sample, but if the September call up is any indication, Francisco has very good potential to help this team right now. I would love for him to get extensive work in LF this offseason and ST to see what he can do. With Stubbs and Bruce out there, you can hide some defensive deficiencies in LF.
Rivercity,
It wasn’t an indication at all. The guy has more intentional walks in the winter league than unintentional ones and still a near 4-1 K/BB rate. He isn’t close to being ready to help a team every day. As for him in left field…. think about him being Dunn esque bad in the field but without the offensive abilities. Francisco has had 5 games in left field in his career and 4 of them weren’t even full games.
Think about this. Francisco has had 100 at bats or more at 4 levels. At no place was he ever able to OPS .825 over that time frame. He isn’t ready to help any major league team out at the plate, much less when you account for his terrible defense.
Looks like the Reds lost a middle infielder, not that it’s bad thing…
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/marlins-sign-danny-richar.html
The Reds are basically doing very little to bring some star power to the Queen City. I can’t believe that the buzz in this town is about Francisco and Frazier, minor leaguers, who don’t even have a position to play for a losing team.
Walt needs to start moving some bodies.
Why is Phillips still on this team? Coco? It looks like the management of the Reds is just maintaining the status quo, sell some tickets, and hope that the youngsters “continue to develop.”
Why would you buy any tickets to this mess? Oh, most of you don’t.
And the irony of the whole thing is that even if Plan A works, players such as Votto and Bruce won’t be around in a few years. The Yankees and Red Sox and Mets and Phillies will see to that.
It continues.
That is why the window is SO small for small market teams, even if you do an outstanding job developing your own talent, you can only keep them for so long before the evil empires buy them. Small market teams anymore have to hope to hit a great couple of drafts where they all land into the majors at the same time and click for 1-3 years before all the talent prices themselves out.
bruble, you say basically the same things as WORLD but without the hostility. Hanging on to the true major-league players on the roster while watching what the young ones can do is what any small-market team does.
@brublejr: Too bad the greatest game is being ruined by the business of baseball. Why doesn’t the NFL and NBA have this problem??? I don’t have to say it. Everyone knows. But baseball will continue to slip into the void of irrelavence until something can be done about keep baseball competitive in small to medium sized markets. I really feel that MLB has been reduced to about 5 to 10 teams. The rest of us have to put up with watching AAA+ teams who’s only purpose is to fill out the major market teams’ schedules. THAT SUCKS!
With contracts like Arroyo, Harang, Philips, Cordero, Rolen, and Hernandez all going away over the next few years I don’t see how it’s a foregone conclusion that either Bruce or Votto will be gone their first run through FA.
What “star” power do you want? Why would you deal Phillips? If you can not get excited about the young talent on this team and you need “star” power to follow, then you might want to follow either the east coast or west coast teams. This is a team game, with some good young talent here, if you can not get excited about that, why are you here?
As for the future with these players, if management is smart they will start locking them up for 5-7 years real soon.
right now players are making gobs of money, owners are making gobs of money, what would motivate them to change?
I’ve made this argument before, but a salary cap is not the answer. In the last 25 years only like 7 franchises have won NBA titles. Why are the New England Patriots good every year? Either they are smarter, they care more, or both.
Other small market teams find ways to compete year over year (A’s, Twins, Rockies, Brewers etc). If you’re talking about building dynasties, yes, a lack of a salary cap will hurt. But you are against dynasties, right? I mean, you wouldn’t be making the salary cap argument if you weren’t, so doesn’t this system work?
If the Reds were smarter with the resources they currently employ, they could be just as effective and relevant as the Twins every year. I want the Reds to be competitive, of course, but given the same constraints, would you still see the same outcomes?
Wouldn’t the Reds stil sign Willy Taveras, just to a smaller contract? Wouldn’t they still sign Cordero to a contract that is too large in relation to the rest of the budget? No, salary cap doesn’t change anything. It just gives more money to the owners and another excuse (We can’t compete against the Yankees. Poor us.) for bad decision making.
Yes the Pats had a good run, but how many different teams have been in the playoffs in the NFL? How can team A compete with Team B in MLB when Team A payroll is 80 million and team B’s is 200 million. There has to be a floor and a ceiling for their to be true fairness in the system.
@Josh: I never meantioned a cap, but a hugh difference in budgets is a problem. The Yankees make bad decisions as often as anyone else. The problems with the small market teams, unlike the Yankees, they can’t afford to make bad decisions. Also, I don’t see signing Coco as a mistake. In one year the front office turned a liability into the strongest segment of the team.
Anyway, regardless of how it is fixed, and regardless of the fact that owners and players are making “gobs” of money, it is short sighted. In my lifetime baseball has gone from the number one sport to being passed by NFL football, NASCAR, and College Football. Lookout, here comes College Basketball, NBA, and Soccer! If they do not stop dissing the fan base, it will go away. And so will the contracts and the profits. Baseball will become as relevant as the NHL.
ESPN is part of the problem too. If it doesn’t make the news in New York or Atlanta, it is not important to them. Bud needs to turn off ESPN and start looking how to keep baseball healthy in the not so long term.
Tell that to Cleveland, Oakland, KC, Tampa, Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis . . .
I’m not sure how this topic morphed into one on the salary cap, but you are 100% incorrect. The MLB saw a larger number of teams win a championship than the NFL or NBA this decade.
Moreover, have you seen the players in FA? Small market teams have figured out that they can hold guys back in the minors long enough that the clocks don’t start running until they are 23, 24, and 25 meaning the small market teams gets the grand majority of these guys during their primes.
Lastly, I’m all for the Yankees spending huge dollars on guys into their 40s. Maybe that’s all fun in the sun when steroids prolongs a career, but the day of the 50 HR 40 yr old is done. Eventually, this business model is going to catch up to these teams.
@Chris Garber:
Since Tampa, Oakland, and St. Louis have been in the SB over the last 10 years and 2 have won. I dont think that statement applies
While baseball may have had a lot of different teams make the playoffs, which teams make the playoffs year after year? Its not the teams spending less than $95M outside of 2 teams (Twins/Athletics…. the two best run teams in baseball). Fact is, if you want to compete for a longer period of time you either need to be much smarter than everyone else, much better at developing talent than everyone else through your farm system or spend a lot more money than most teams in baseball.
Baseball & Basketball are ridiculous because every player that signs a contract is Guaranteed weather they live up to there contract or not. Football on other hand is year to year only guaranteed money is the signing bonus. Most teams who have been on top for along time will go through a rebuilding process because players age and the free agent market isnt the same compared to other sports.
There needs to be a salary cap in baseball, i’m sure the Yanks don’t mind paying a 25 mil luxury tax when there spending 224 mil and winning the WS.
Salary cap is the bear minumum of what needs to be done in baseball
Let’s just call a spade a spade. What we are really saying is that the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, Dodgers and Angels should be penalized. Understand these teams don’t make their money at the turnstyles. These teams rake because they have other sources of income. The Reds’ fan base does not extend as far as these clubs. However, if the Reds put a winner on the field, like, oh say, the Big Red Machine, maybe they would see revenues increase.
As you pointed out, creating a consistent winner can be accomplished in other ways than simply spending… Of course, that would require a well run organization with top notch talent evaluators.
Also, FA’s aren’t what they are made out to be. Would you trade any FA 1B for Joey Votto. For that matter, would you trade any of the FA 1Bs Yonder Alonso. If the argument is well Votto will leave one day, that’s going to happen in any sport. You think Cleveland’s going to hang onto King James?
Additionally
, I don’t necessarily think that a $95 million payroll is out of whack. The NFL salary floor, yes floor, is $107 million. What make you think that if MLB went to a cap the teams crying poor could “afford” the floor?
I think you’ll be surprised to learn that the top income producing teams are who they are.
@david: “However, if the Reds put a winner on the field, like, oh say, the Big Red Machine, maybe they would see revenues increase.” In today’s game, the best players of the ’75-76 Reds would not be playing for the Reds.
No way the Reds would even be close to affording the Great 8 starting lineup. It’s not clear that even today’s Yankees could afford that lineup.
When free agency began, after the 1976 season, the Yankees immediately picked up Don Gullet. The Reds lost Rose after the 1978 season. They lost Morgan soon after, and their entire OF (Foster, Griffey, Collins) moved to NY after the 1981 season.
@david: “Also, FA’s aren’t what they are made out to be.” Last year the Yankees picked up Sabatthia, Texeira, and Burnett as free agents. Without those players, they were a good team that won 89 games and finished in 3rd place in 2008. With those players, they were a dominant team that won 103 regular season games and the WS.
@Doug Gray: Agreed.
@pinson343: You make sense as always.
Lets see, Oakland was just in the SB this decade as was TB and they won it. The Chiefs were in the playoffs in 2006. Buffalo made 4 straight SB appearances while St. Louis has 2, with one being a win. So that leaves Cleveland and Detroit. So yes two teams have sucked, but more teams have had opportunities to be in the playoffs.
To me it’s simple, what ever the NFL is doing, copy it. I mean come on, there is no other pro sport that can compete with the NFL in how their league is run and how much fan support they get. It’s time for structure in MLB and time for the league to have a minimum and maximum salary system.
@pinson343:
That was a choice, plain and simple. The Reds had plenty of money at the time.
I was responding to someone’s point that the NFL had some magical system where parity is ensured. And this year, at least, it’s the farthest thing.
If all you want is “an opportunity to make the playoffs once a decade,” which is what I’m hearing, then stop looking at football. Baseball already has THAT.
Baseball had 14 different teams in the World Series during the 2000s. Only Boston won more than once. Eight teams won the NL pennant; six won the AL.
But here’s the only real difference: The NFL lets 12 of 30 teams into the playoffs. Baseball has 8 of 30. Create 2 extra wild cards, per season, per league, and you’ll have a damn lot of playoff teams.
Let’s just look at the past two seasons. Twelve of the 30 teams made the playoffs in one of those 2 seasons. If MLB added 2 WCs per league, the number would’ve jumped to NINETEEN. That’s 63% of the league who’d have been in the playoffs in two years.
If you add 2007, every team in baseball would’ve made the NFL-style playoffs except the total weak sisters (BAL, KC, PIT, CIN, WAS), and two teams that everyone acknowledges are well-run, but just in a down cycle (ATL and OAK) – and ATL would’ve missed the expanded playoffs by 1 game in 2009; Oakland won their division outright in ’06.
That’s three years, not 10. No salary cap needed. Wild Cards win all the time, in football and baseball. Expand the playoffs, and a few of those 84-85 win teams win pennants, and baseball would have exactly what football has.
Over at Red Reporter, they’re reporting a surprisingly positive reaction to the Rolen extension in blog world.
The more I look at the salary numbers, the better it looks, honestly. I still think its a bad move. Just not crippling.
“Just not crippling.”
That’s about as close to a ringing endorsement as recent business moves have gotten.