Originally Posted by cincrazy
Hey I think it's a valid point. Scott Rolen at this stage of his career or David Freese? It's not like they're saying they'd take Lance Berkman over Jay Bruce over the next five years. Scott Rolen is beat up. He faded down the stretch last season, is battling a bad back and shoulders, and may not have much left in the tank. That's just a fact.
David Freese isn't a world beater, but he's a solid player that's going to be in the lineup every day (barring further ankle problems, of course). Personally, I probably still take Rolen. But I had to seriously think about it. Third base is a huge problem for us. And we're unlikely to duplicate the production we got from it last year. That's a big problem.
I think it's closer than a lot of people think it is. Both Rolen and Freese have their advantages. Rolen has superior defense, experience, leadership, and can still be an offensive threat even though he is older and isn't as durable as he has been in the past. Freese is younger, cheaper, above average defensively, is showing he is good with the bat, but still unproven. Freese also hasn't shown yet that he is durable, but he is under team control for years to come. I think Rolen is good for the Reds because he provides that veteran leadership similar to what Berkman is doing for the Cardinals this year. I'd prefer Freese, but I can understand why some would choose Rolen.