Rolen is a guy that wore out his welcome in Philly and St. Louis ... IMO that conflicts with the entire leadership thing. If he was a leader then why did LaRussa want him gone?Originally Posted by pedro
Rolen is a guy that wore out his welcome in Philly and St. Louis ... IMO that conflicts with the entire leadership thing. If he was a leader then why did LaRussa want him gone?
He didn't wear out his welcome in Philly. He was surrounded by imbeciles.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
If you're right, and the Reds are altered for the better, then this trade for Rolen will be a good move. I guess my question is how do we get there? If we accept the narrative that the F.O.'s hands are tied by immovable contracts to players who are unlikely to improve, then how does the team change appreciably?
I'd like to like this move, as I wanted to trade EdE last season when his value was at an all-time high (Walt doesn't think proactively though, it's more wait until the bottom drops out maneuvering). How do we add the requisite talent, when we have so much locked up in guys who are no more affordable/coveted this off season than they are now? Rolen just ate a big chunk of whatever limited flexibility we may have had, and all the major holes remain on the roster.
IMO believing that the deal would still be there in the winter is akin to thinking, Hey, she's hot, but I'll hit up on her next week when my hair looks better.
the heavy lifting has yet to be done. I have no confidence in this FO being able to identify what needs to be done much less pull it off.
Even if prospects are truly overvalued(likely) it doesn't excuse getting a lower return than everyone else did for their overvalued prospects.
no rolen, then go out and sign Beltre in the off-season. I am sure $11M would go a long way in his case.
Bruce is probably going to figure it out eventually, it's possible he won't, but in the end the outcome of his career is not going to be affected by having Scott Rolen as a teammate for a season.
I don't think it's BS. I just don't think leadership > talent. IOW, you can't make up for a lack of talent with leadership.
I was travelling all day so I didn't get to respond unless you call almost wrecking when I glanced at my Blackberry and saw the news. At 2:45 CST I kept thinking please don't trade Stewart or Alonso...Anyone else I can handle (minors).
It just seems to me that this deal could have been done at the end of the season for a heck of a lot less talent going to the Jays. Seriously though when was the last time a team that had absolutely no chance to win made a deal at the deadline that was so clearly the opposite of what they should have been doing....I have never seen a team trade young talent for an old guy at the trade deadline when they were clearly out of contention. (I do seem to remember a late trade by the Pirates to get Matt Morris - Great now we are trying the Pirates method of winning)
Tim McCarver: Baseball Quotes
I remember one time going out to the mound to talk with Bob Gibson. He told me to get back behind the batter, that the only thing I knew about pitching was that it was hard to hit.
The players that stick are almost universally studious. I realize it's unclear, but learning is part of developing as a hitter. It's not just reps.
I've seen some clueless hitters in my day, and frankly, Bruce (May-July 2009) is right there at the top. Maybe he can't help Bruce, but right now I'd be throwing the kitchen sink at the kid because it's not pretty.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
I wonder if Bruce's sophomore slump had anything to do with that Big Texan getting traded?
Maybe nothing to it at all, but I do see some coincidence.
Hopefully Bruce can learn plenty from Rolen.
In this case, somebody else swooping in and taking "her" to the prom could be seen as a good thing.
But the heavy lifting got simpler. We're now down to one position where we have no credible possibility for next year: SS. In the outfield we have Bruce in right, one of Stubbs/Heisey/Dickerson in CF, and, at worst, a Gomes/Dickerson or Gomes/Dorn platoon or one involving Balentien, Heisey--or Frazier, either as part of a platoon or everyday. This until Alonso solves that problem by moving Votto to left. In the infield we have Votto, Phillips, and Rolen, with even the faint possibility of a move of Phillips to SS and Frazier to 2nd. At C, we've got Hanigan and there'll need to be a decision about Hernandez. If you put a good SS on this team, it's got a chance in 2010.
Baker has already said he will bat Rolen 5th.......how does that grab you. Can't even be bothered to move BP down or to the 2nd slot.
Who bat's 2nd now? It should be Hanigan but now it will be AG?
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
