Originally Posted by SteelSD
Above average players are acquired by teams all the time. Many as Free Agents, many via trade.
I could throw out the names "Matt Clement" and "Odalis Perez", but all that ends up leading to is claims of "Oh, the Reds couldn't have had either of those players at any price...etc...etc." Defeatist rhetoric.
I disagree with that reasoning, but it appears to be pervasive. I fail to see the logic behind the concept that, because the Reds didn't sign Player A that means they couldn't have possibly signed Player A. The fact that something didn't happen in no way means that it couldn't have.
Same tune, different notes as last season. Last year the defense was that O'Brien needed time to evaluate and that the Reds didn't have any money to spend. But now that he's had that time and has the money, what does he do? Spend it on average-to-below-average players, that's what.
And O'Brien's praised for making the hampster-wheel "effort" to make the team better. I'll be supportive of the guy as soon as he actually DOES make the Reds significantly better.
157 Runs. That's the improvment it'll take just to get the Reds to 81-81 in 2005. I don't see anything achieved this offseason that will significantly impact that number. Nada.
Good General Managers make things happen that truly benefit their clubs. They find ways to do it.
And it's not like folks have unrealistic expectations. Identify and acquire an above average performer who'll really help the Reds. Make it happen.
O'Brien hasn't. Maybe...just maybe...some of the negativity from folks is tied to that one simple concept?
Just a thought.
Defeatist Rhetoric??? What if it's the truth? "The fact that something didn't happen in no way means that it couldn't have." It doesn't mean it could have either. Ok so let's assume for the sake of it, that Perez and Clement and Miller said no to the Reds, what would you have done differently, who would you have signed, for what offer? What leads you to believe that your deals could have been done?