01-05-2009, 09:37 PM
<!--quoteo(post=9231:date=Jan 5 2009, 07:32 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Jan 5 2009, 07:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=9230:date=Jan 5 2009, 07:25 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 5 2009, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->A guy like DeRosa who can hit and play nearly anywhere on the field sure will be useful as insurance if we sign a guy like Bradley.
Oh. Oops.
Don't fucking sign Miles, keep DeRosa, and we're SO much better off. I simply can't get my head wrapped around this thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Me neither. Now that we've signed Bradley to play 99 or 100 games a year for us, the DeRosa trade actually makes LESS sense than on the day it happened, if that's possible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couldn't agree more. The only way it makes sense is if it was the only way to get the necessary pieces to get Peavy. But even then, it doesn't appear we got equal value in return for DeRosa.
Oh. Oops.
Don't fucking sign Miles, keep DeRosa, and we're SO much better off. I simply can't get my head wrapped around this thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Me neither. Now that we've signed Bradley to play 99 or 100 games a year for us, the DeRosa trade actually makes LESS sense than on the day it happened, if that's possible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couldn't agree more. The only way it makes sense is if it was the only way to get the necessary pieces to get Peavy. But even then, it doesn't appear we got equal value in return for DeRosa.