03-12-2010, 04:14 PM
<!--quoteo(post=82506:date=Mar 12 2010, 01:56 PM:name=Rappster)-->QUOTE (Rappster @ Mar 12 2010, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82502:date=Mar 12 2010, 01:49 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Mar 12 2010, 01:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82497:date=Mar 12 2010, 12:24 PM:name=Andy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Andy @ Mar 12 2010, 12:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82484:date=Mar 12 2010, 10:59 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Mar 12 2010, 10:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82481:date=Mar 12 2010, 10:53 AM:name=givejonadollar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (givejonadollar @ Mar 12 2010, 10:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think we missed out here. Time will tell.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keith Law said it was one of the better signings of the offseason. I know a lot of people aren't all that fond of Law, but given Lopez's salarly/length of salary, and our shortcomings (no pun intended) in the infield, I think Lopez would have been a really good signing for us.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm with ya. But I think the deciding factor wasn't money or production, so much as Lopez is known to be a mini-Bradley as far as locker room issues go. Apparently he's pretty divisive. With Bradley fresh in their thoughts, I think Hendry and crew were looking to escape that as much as possible this year.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hadn't heard that there are any personality issues. If true, I guess I can understand why Hendry would shy away from Lopez.
Oh well.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would be like adding another you to this board...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So...I'm confused now. You mean...adding Lopez would have meant a virtual lock to win the NL Pennant? Why on earth would we pass on that?
Keith Law said it was one of the better signings of the offseason. I know a lot of people aren't all that fond of Law, but given Lopez's salarly/length of salary, and our shortcomings (no pun intended) in the infield, I think Lopez would have been a really good signing for us.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm with ya. But I think the deciding factor wasn't money or production, so much as Lopez is known to be a mini-Bradley as far as locker room issues go. Apparently he's pretty divisive. With Bradley fresh in their thoughts, I think Hendry and crew were looking to escape that as much as possible this year.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hadn't heard that there are any personality issues. If true, I guess I can understand why Hendry would shy away from Lopez.
Oh well.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would be like adding another you to this board...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So...I'm confused now. You mean...adding Lopez would have meant a virtual lock to win the NL Pennant? Why on earth would we pass on that?