This thread is just filled with the type of stuff that drives me crazy - on BOTH sides of the Matt Latos discussions
Crazy Point #1 - "We should have traded for X, instead of Latos" (X of course being someone who has outpitched Latos this season, which lets face it is ANYONE not named Tim Lincecum). The success rate for people who make predictions AFTER an event has happened is pretty close to 100%. If anyone can to provide a post from back in December saying we should have gotten Gio Gonzales rather than Matt Latos feel free to rant. If not most folks are not impressed by your hindsight. The other point on this is, unless you are in the front office you do not know who the Reds were trying to get, who they could have gotten or who was not available.
Crazy Point #2 - "The guys we gave up were blocked anyway so its no loss trading them for Matt Latos". Pure insanity. The players the Reds traded, at the time of the trade had significant value, especially to teams who wanted them. Whether they are blocked, or turn into dust once they are traded is irrelevant to their value at the time of the trade. If you trade that value and get little to nothing back for it, its a loss no matter how you try to rationalize it. It also ignores the opportunity cost of value you could have gotten in exchange.
For full disclosure, and you can check my posts from the past, I was luke warm on the Latos deal. I thought he could help but that the Reds paid far too much for him. So far he has been a major disappointment regardless of how you spin it.
Yes im out of my mind because i expect success from my team that has the talent to make some noise this season, i dont understand how such a post is negative. I guess i dont have the loser mentality that 90% of the posters on here have and they misinterpret such posts as negativity. Good thing you guys arent the head of a big corporation just being content with mediocrity because you wouldn't last long