As has been said a number of times, why not take that money and go get someone who hasn't been on a big decline for two seasons?
Who would you have gotten instead for $4 million?
It was Ortiz for $4 million, or Hancock for the league minimum in the rotation. I'd rather have Ortiz at $4 million.
I'm completely not one of those people who says over and over that you can't criticize the front office because you don't know that better deals were out there ... but this time I am.
I haven't seen any better deals that O'Brien has turned down. Clement wasn't an option. Hudson wasn't an option. Mulder wasn't an option. Not if you really want the Reds to be thinking long term.
Tell me, anyone, what you'd prefer the Reds have done. Who should they have signed, that's already signed somewhere else? Out of the people who've been traded in the past few weeks, who should the Reds have nabbed?
These moves make 2005 a little more interesting.
I haven't seen anyone show how they hurt 2006 or 2007.