PDA

View Full Version : LaRue = Web Gem (at 3rd)



He got it!
04-16-2007, 08:41 PM
Don't know if any one else saw this. I was flipping back and forth between the Reds and Tigers/Royals game and Jason LaRue just made a diving stop at 3rd base and got to his feet to gun out Ordonez. Who knew he had it in him. In addition to finding it humurous to see LaRue diving around at 3rd, I also find it humurous that the Royals are so hard up for offense that they are finding LaRue a place to play in the field just to get his BAT in the lineup. HMMM.

ghettochild
04-16-2007, 08:43 PM
i'd take larue over ross or valentin any day.

hebroncougar
04-16-2007, 08:52 PM
i'd take larue over ross or valentin any day.

You wouldn't have any day last season.:)

westofyou
04-16-2007, 08:56 PM
i'd take larue over ross or valentin any day.

.136/.167/.273 - 22 at bats

harangatang
04-16-2007, 09:14 PM
Don't know if any one else saw this. I was flipping back and forth between the Reds and Tigers/Royals game and Jason LaRue just made a diving stop at 3rd base and got to his feet to gun out Ordonez. Who knew he had it in him. In addition to finding it humurous to see LaRue diving around at 3rd, I also find it humurous that the Royals are so hard up for offense that they are finding LaRue a place to play in the field just to get his BAT in the lineup. HMMM.LaRue had 3 starts at 3rd base for the Reds in 2001. He has also played some outfield before as well for the Reds.

redsrule2500
04-16-2007, 09:18 PM
LaRue had 3 starts at 3rd base for the Reds in 2001. He has also played some outfield before as well for the Reds.

crazy how i forget that....my excuse is I was 13 :D

Doro
04-16-2007, 09:18 PM
i'd take larue over ross or valentin any day.

From the performance of our pitchers since LaRue took over in Cincy and then the change when he was not the everyday catcher I would beg to differ.

justincredible
04-16-2007, 09:20 PM
LaRue had 3 starts at 3rd base for the Reds in 2001. He has also played some outfield before as well for the Reds.

I vaguely remember him in the outfield for the Reds a few years ago. The Royals are definitely trying to make chicken soup out of chicken sh...well you know the rest.

TC81190
04-16-2007, 09:38 PM
I want to see this.

Falls City Beer
04-16-2007, 09:44 PM
Larue is a very good athlete.

remdog
04-16-2007, 09:46 PM
.136/.167/.273 - 22 at bats

Beats what Ross has put up so far.

Rem

ghettochild
04-16-2007, 09:47 PM
From the performance of our pitchers since LaRue took over in Cincy and then the change when he was not the everyday catcher I would beg to differ.

the two catchers we've had are one year wonders. ross isn't even hitting my little brothers weight, and valentin is a great pinch hitter, but not very good defensivly.

remdog
04-16-2007, 09:50 PM
From the performance of our pitchers since LaRue took over in Cincy and then the change when he was not the everyday catcher I would beg to differ.


Beg all ya' want but I'll take LaRue as well.

Rem

harangatang
04-16-2007, 10:03 PM
Watch Krivsky trade Encarnacion straight up for that slick-fielding LaRue.:eek:

BoydsOfSummer
04-16-2007, 10:12 PM
Gordon get sent out? That's odd.

Always Red
04-16-2007, 10:19 PM
Beg all ya' want but I'll take LaRue as well.

Rem

me too.

Cedric
04-16-2007, 10:25 PM
If a GM can't do any better than Larue or Ross he should just give up. Neither is a good option.

Reds Freak
04-16-2007, 11:12 PM
A country boy can survive...

smith288
04-17-2007, 12:01 AM
Beats what Ross has put up so far.

Rem
Thats like comparing a turd with a pool of vomit (sorry for the visual...but its close to true)

Johnny Footstool
04-17-2007, 01:30 AM
It was kind of a laugher. Royals 2B Esteban German left with a sore shoulder, and the Royals moved Gordon to SS, Pena to 2B, and put Larue in at 3B. They could have brought in Reggie Sanders to play RF and moved Teahen to 3B or used Angel Sanchez at SS, but the game was pretty much going nowhere at that point, so they went with a comedy special.

Redskinalum02
04-17-2007, 01:19 PM
Larue is a very good athlete.

If you count hunting as an athletic sport.

EDIT: Please not the sarcasm. He did make some pretty athletic plays behind the dish as a Red. That said, I'll take the Ross/Valentin combo any day. I was extremely happy they dealt LaRue. Some of you live and die by every game, it's a 162 game season. At the end of the season (or even a couple seasons down the road) you will look back and see it was a good move to get rid of LaRue.

remdog
04-17-2007, 01:35 PM
If you count hunting as an athletic sport.

EDIT: Please not the sarcasm. He did make some pretty athletic plays behind the dish as a Red. That said, I'll take the Ross/Valentin combo any day. I was extremely happy they dealt LaRue. Some of you live and die by every game, it's a 162 game season. At the end of the season (or even a couple seasons down the road) you will look back and see it was a good move to get rid of LaRue.

At some point it will have been a good move to get rid of anyone currently on this team. (shrug) I just think that they should have kept LaRue and moved Ross, who many recognized as coming off of a career year and isn't a whole lot younger than LaRue. Plus, LaRue is better defensively and you wouldn't have to spend $3M to get rid of Ross.

Rem

jimbo
04-17-2007, 01:50 PM
(shrug) I just think that they should have kept LaRue and moved Ross, who many recognized as coming off of a career year and isn't a whole lot younger than LaRue.

Rem

He is coming off of a career year based on what? A total of 13 games? I hardly think that is enough of a sample size to come to that determination. Saying that now is basically just an assumption or prediction.

With all due respect to LaRue, because I was a big fan of his when he was a Red, but he can't even win a starting job with the Royals. Even considering Ross's slow start, I'd still take what we have now at catcher over LaRue.

Joseph
04-17-2007, 01:56 PM
He is coming off of a career year based on what? A total of 13 games? I hardly think that is enough of a sample size to come to that determination. Saying that now is basically just an assumption or prediction.

With all due respect to LaRue, because I was a big fan of his when he was a Red, but he can't even win a starting job with the Royals. Even considering Ross's slow start, I'd still take what we have now at catcher over LaRue.

I think the term 'coming off of' refers to the fact that last year was a career year and is not indicative of his current season.

remdog
04-17-2007, 01:59 PM
He is coming off of a career year based on what? A total of 13 games? I hardly think that is enough of a sample size to come to that determination. Saying that now is basically just an assumption or prediction.

With all due respect to LaRue, because I was a big fan of his when he was a Red, but he can't even win a starting job with the Royals. Even considering Ross's slow start, I'd still take what we have now at catcher over LaRue.

He was coming off of a career year based upon his entire career in MLB. That's hardly a small sample size. (And this was stated repeatedly by myself and many others before this season even started.)

And the Royals acquired LaRue to do exactly what he could have/should have done for the Reds---split time at catcher. (shrug)

Rem

jimbo
04-17-2007, 02:11 PM
He was coming off of a career year based upon his entire career in MLB. That's hardly a small sample size. (And this was stated repeatedly by myself and many others before this season even started.)

And the Royals acquired LaRue to do exactly what he could have/should have done for the Reds---split time at catcher. (shrug)

Rem

Fair enough. When I hear of "career year" though, I think of a player who had one great season and never repeated it again. With Ross, you can make the argument that he may have just finally came into his own last season. I think it's still too early to claim he will never do it again.

As far as splitting time at catcher, I still prefer Javier/Ross, and part of the reason why LaRue wanted out of Cincinnati was because he did not want to share catching duties. (shrug)

durl
04-17-2007, 02:12 PM
Larue is hitting .125 with an OBP of .154 this year. He has 9 strikeouts and 1 BB. And he was making something like $5 million in Cincinnati for a .194 BA in 2006.

I like the guy's attitude, but when he hits like that, I just don't see how a team could justify paying $5 mill for those numbers. You can't blame management for choosing Ross when he put up better numbers, handled pitchers better, AND costs a lot less money.

remdog
04-17-2007, 02:16 PM
Larue is hitting .125 with an OBP of .154 this year. He has 9 strikeouts and 1 BB. And he was making something like $5 million in Cincinnati for a .194 BA in 2006.

I like the guy's attitude, but when he hits like that, I just don't see how a team could justify paying $5 mill for those numbers. You can't blame management for choosing Ross when he put up better numbers, handled pitchers better, AND costs a lot less money.

Add $3M to Ross' salary ('cause that's the equivelent of what we are paying KC) and that number is pretty much a wash. (And, it would be off the books at the end of this season.)

Despite those terrible numbers for LaRue, Ross's are even worse.

Rem

Joseph
04-17-2007, 02:16 PM
Larue is hitting .125 with an OBP of .154 this year. He has 9 strikeouts and 1 BB. And he was making something like $5 million in Cincinnati for a .194 BA in 2006.

I like the guy's attitude, but when he hits like that, I just don't see how a team could justify paying $5 mill for those numbers. You can't blame management for choosing Ross when he put up better numbers, handled pitchers better, AND costs a lot less money.

Handled pitchers better is subjective.

Ross put up better numbers last year no question about it.

This year they are roughly even. For that production the Reds are paying something like 6 million. A part of LaRue's salary, and all of Ross'. Wouldn't it be better to only be paying ONE of them for that kind of production than paying both of them for it?

Falls City Beer
04-17-2007, 02:18 PM
At the end of the season (or even a couple seasons down the road) you will look back and see it was a good move to get rid of LaRue.

I doubt it; and anyone who's looking at just last year to put his stock in David Ross is clearly not looking at a big picture.

jimbo
04-17-2007, 02:21 PM
This year they are roughly even. For that production the Reds are paying something like 6 million. A part of LaRue's salary, and all of Ross'. Wouldn't it be better to only be paying ONE of them for that kind of production than paying both of them for it?

Excellent and valid point. But I don't think that the money aspect should be the deciding factor. It should be about who are the better options. Too many fans are totally writing off Ross based on what he has done in 13 games and that is just a bit unfair in my opinion. If his numbers are still putrid a couple of months into the season, then the discussion is more warranted.

Joseph
04-17-2007, 02:26 PM
And thats a very valid defense of the Ross position. Likewise it was probably time for a change of scenery for the hard nosed LaRue if nothing else.

jimbo
04-17-2007, 02:35 PM
Likewise it was probably time for a change of scenery for the hard nosed LaRue if nothing else.

Couldn't agree more. I want nothing more than to see LaRue have a great season in Kansas City and force me to eat a little crow. He gave us Reds fans a lot of great years and always played hard, which I for one appreciate.

Redskinalum02
04-17-2007, 02:39 PM
I doubt it; and anyone who's looking at just last year to put his stock in David Ross is clearly not looking at a big picture.

I'm not looking at just last year and putting my stock in David Ross. In fact, I'm looking at this longer term than you.

I'm looking at LaRue's career progression (or digression as the case may be) and weighing the upside of the Ross/Javy combo versus what we know LaRue would give the Reds. Maybe you are not the one looking at the big picture...

Lets give Ross more than 13 games in 2007 before we pronounce his career dead, shall we?

Redskinalum02
04-17-2007, 02:40 PM
Couldn't agree more. I want nothing more than to see LaRue have a great season in Kansas City and force me to eat a little crow. He gave us Reds fans a lot of great years and always played hard, which I for one appreciate.

Agree 100%. I root for the guy, I just think it was time for the Reds (and maybe Jason) to move on to other options.

Joseph
04-17-2007, 02:53 PM
Lets give Ross more than 13 games in 2007 before we pronounce his career dead, shall we?

How about looking at his second half from '06 as well then? Is that enough to proclaim problem more than slow start?

BRM
04-17-2007, 02:57 PM
How about looking at his second half from '06 as well then? Is that enough to proclaim problem more than slow start?

Has has been in a bit of a tailspin since August of last year.

Rotater Cuff
04-17-2007, 03:06 PM
It's kind of deja vu. Larue's trials and tribulations at the plate in early 2006 are so much like what Ross is going through this year that it makes me smile to think about it.
Only difference is Ross doesn't have a guy like Ross challenging him for the starting role.
Larue slowly pulled himself out little by little until he ended up in the low 200's, which I hope Ross can do more quickly. Ross definitely has more pop in his bat.

camisadelgolf
04-17-2007, 03:29 PM
I'll leave out my two cents on LaRue/Ross/Valentin, but on a related subject, LaRue played three games as a third baseman for the Reds in 2001.

Redskinalum02
04-17-2007, 03:33 PM
It's kind of deja vu. Larue's trials and tribulations at the plate in early 2006 are so much like what Ross is going through this year that it makes me smile to think about it.

It does? It makes me do this: :bang:

Falls City Beer
04-17-2007, 04:14 PM
I'm not looking at just last year and putting my stock in David Ross. In fact, I'm looking at this longer term than you.

I'm looking at LaRue's career progression (or digression as the case may be) and weighing the upside of the Ross/Javy combo versus what we know LaRue would give the Reds. Maybe you are not the one looking at the big picture...

Lets give Ross more than 13 games in 2007 before we pronounce his career dead, shall we?

But how can you detect a "progression" in Ross when last year was his only full year behind the dish? You usually need more than one full season to declare true trending.

For the record, I think Ross will be okay with the bat, but as others have said, I find it a bit ironic that a guy like Larue was left for dead by virtually every poster on this site last year after similar struggles.

I'd have liked a Ross/Larue combo or a Larue/Valentin combo, but I think they got the worst of all worlds with a Ross/Valentin combo.

JMO.

Redskinalum02
04-17-2007, 04:19 PM
I never said I detected any progression in Ross. I was referring to LaRue's career. The context in which I made the point was to say that we knew what we would get from LaRue versus the upside of Ross/Javy.

remdog
04-17-2007, 04:29 PM
I never said I detected any progression in Ross. I was referring to LaRue's career. The context in which I made the point was to say that we knew what we would get from LaRue versus the upside of Ross/Javy.

So are you saying that you didn't know what you would get from Ross? 'Cause that's what it sounds like to me; ergo, from that position it would imply that you didn't know if you would get the 'good Ross' or the 'bad Ross'.

Rem

durl
04-17-2007, 05:07 PM
Handled pitchers better is subjective.

Ross put up better numbers last year no question about it.

This year they are roughly even. For that production the Reds are paying something like 6 million. A part of LaRue's salary, and all of Ross'. Wouldn't it be better to only be paying ONE of them for that kind of production than paying both of them for it?

Good points. Those who have watched the games more than I have (and I get to watch most of them) might have a different take on Larue's skills as as catcher, but to me it seemed like Larue had a great arm and not much else. He had 15 passed balls a couple years back and maybe that's why I feel the way I do about him behind the plate.

Another part of the pay equation (and correct me if I'm wrong, here) was that I believe Larue was at the end of his contract and you can't help but think that the Reds didn't want to re-sign him for another $5+ million/year for his bat. At least by trading him the Reds got something in return.

Joseph
04-17-2007, 05:12 PM
Good points. Those who have watched the games more than I have (and I get to watch most of them) might have a different take on Larue's skills as as catcher, but to me it seemed like Larue had a great arm and not much else. He had 15 passed balls a couple years back and maybe that's why I feel the way I do about him behind the plate.

Another part of the pay equation (and correct me if I'm wrong, here) was that I believe Larue was at the end of his contract and you can't help but think that the Reds didn't want to re-sign him for another $5+ million/year for his bat. At least by trading him the Reds got something in return.

Did they get something [of value] in return or did we pay 3+ million for a PTBNL?