Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
But instead of stretching credulity, why not try to approach something that resembles a consensus of criteria.
What if I decided that the only criterion that matters is "dollars spent?"
I'd be free to do that--give the Reds an "A" and a big ole "gO Rdz!!!" But I'd be stupid for arriving at that conclusion.
I'm just not sure I understand the logic that D connotes improvement, that's all. It's always meant regression to me (and virtually the universe). Now if your argument is that by not signing Dunn, the Reds have countervailed all other moves this offseason, and so deserve a "D" then fine. But that takes some pretty tortuous logic, seeing that Dunn'll still be suiting up in red and black this season.
Well, maybe it's just me FCB, but standing in place certainly doesn't get you anywhere. Not sure in what class you were given a "C" for non-starting.
Each offseason is an opportunity to produce a championship-caliber ball club. Period. Do little to nothing to improve your club to to a playoff level ballclub and you don't get a sniff of a B or an A from me. Do only that which would produce an outside chance at finishing .500 and you don't get a C from me either.
It appears you think everyone had the same assignment this offseason and thus should be graded as such. I wholeheartedly disagree with that methodology. And no, I don't really care that the Reds' "assignment" was more difficult than the Cardinals'.
Very simply, the Reds didn't do enough to get where they needed to be. The offseason wasn't a failure IMHO, but it wasn't enough to pass the course either.