05-09-2009, 04:39 PM
If the DeRosa move were only a money move, I guess I can understand it (though I do tend to think that we could have made it work with DeRosa's contract on the team).
If the move were to get more left handed or to get Fontenot more at bats, that's the idiotic part. It's not like Fontenot is Chase Utley with the stick or Sandberg with the glove. He's a good player, but whatever he does with a full season is probably not going to be as valuable as what DeRosa would have done both at the plate and with the versatility he gave us.
As for the more left-handed thing, that's always been something that I've not understood. Give me better players, no matter what side they hit from. It's this same sort of thinking that gets teams stuck with a Neal Cotts in the pen when there are probably better options available, but they stay away because they're right handed.
I tend to think the DeRosa move had a lot to do with the Peavy push, personally.
If the move were to get more left handed or to get Fontenot more at bats, that's the idiotic part. It's not like Fontenot is Chase Utley with the stick or Sandberg with the glove. He's a good player, but whatever he does with a full season is probably not going to be as valuable as what DeRosa would have done both at the plate and with the versatility he gave us.
As for the more left-handed thing, that's always been something that I've not understood. Give me better players, no matter what side they hit from. It's this same sort of thinking that gets teams stuck with a Neal Cotts in the pen when there are probably better options available, but they stay away because they're right handed.
I tend to think the DeRosa move had a lot to do with the Peavy push, personally.