When has there ever been a sign and trade in baseball?

 

It was sarcasm brother. It was to point out the mess that was yesterday and that the baloney the maternal reptile spewed.

What would you have done this offseason if you were GM? What would have been your priorities given the money the Reds spent?

 

Without being privy to Walt's knowledge it's tough to make that call. However, no chance I'd have given Homer that contract. I said it before, it's not something new.

The sign and trade was a little off, no doubt but some of the other points Lizard makes, although a little crude at times, has some validity.

 

Again, throw enough turds, some stick.

I can't believe we are already pointing fingers at the Homer contract. So the Cardinals never pay/keep their talent?

 

Sure they do. Who said they didn't?

I can't believe we are already pointing fingers at the Homer contract. So the Cardinals never pay/keep their talent?

 

I will point fingers at this one all day. Just my opinion but I do not think that was a wise decision by the Reds. He has never proven to be a consistent stopper to pay him that kind of money. I would have rode his current contract and planned on using that money on Latos, Cueto, or maybe even Cingrani. I do think the Cardinals consistently prove that they keep the right players and that they are not afraid to cut bait when a player is getting close to the down side of their career. They make tough yet necessary decisions better than the Reds do.

Again, throw enough turds, some stick.

 

You can use that same quote on about two thirds of the people on this board.

You can use that same quote on about two thirds of the people on this board.

Sure. But to act like the junk discussed yesterday wasn't absurd is silly. You agree?

I think Lizard has some very valid points although most on here do not want to hear them. The Cardinals would not have tied themselves up with the Bailey contract and went out and found a piece in left field that would help the team or would have made the tough decision to ride Baileys current contract and then use that money on other players that are more consistent and would anchor the staff or line up for years. The Cardinals are not that much bigger market than the Reds, they just sign tougher players and make the tough decisions that help their club. (See Pujols, Edmonds, Beltran, Freese, Ludwick, etc, etc, etc)

Sure they do. Who said they didn't?

 

...

I will point fingers at this one all day. Just my opinion but I do not think that was a wise decision by the Reds. He has never proven to be a consistent stopper to pay him that kind of money. I would have rode his current contract and planned on using that money on Latos, Cueto, or maybe even Cingrani. I do think the Cardinals consistently prove that they keep the right players and that they are not afraid to cut bait when a player is getting close to the down side of their career. They make tough yet necessary decisions better than the Reds do.

 

So you're saying Homer hasn't been consistent enough to give him the money but you want to throw it at Cingrani who has yet to pitch a full year in the bigs and Cueto who hasn't stayed healthy in 2 years.

 

 

It was a tough decision to let Choo go but it was necessary.

Sure. But to act like the junk discussed yesterday wasn't absurd is silly. You agree?

 

Some of it may have been very silly. To be honest spindoc, I do not have the energy to go back and look through all of that mess. My point is that although a little absurd, there is some truth to the basic fundamentals of the posts concerning the Reds lack of solid baseball decisions.

If you want to point out some bad decision you can look at the Bronxton contract and maybe even Marshall. To start harping on the Homer contract already is silly.

 

 

How about the great decision to lockup Bruce when they did or the Latos trade?

So you're saying Homer hasn't been consistent enough to give him the money but you want to throw it at Cingrani and Cueto who hasn't stayed healthy in 2 years.

 

I am just saying that in my opinion Cueto and Cingrani have more upside to be that #1, #2 pitcher that can carry you through a post season. I would wait and see on both. They may not be the players that I throw the money at. I am just saying I would not have thrown it at Bailey either. I know that Bailey has thrown a couple of no hitters and that he has looked good in stretches, but I just don't think he was worth the money they just spent.

If you want to point out some bad decision you can look at the Bronxton contract and maybe even Marshall. To start harping on the Homer contract already is silly.

 

 

How about the great decision to lockup Bruce when they did or the Latos trade?

 

Great points above. I agree with you on all counts except the Bailey contract.

Homer has the best stuff on the team. It's still, and always has been, a matter of what's between the ears with him IMO.

Who has the highest payroll in the NL Central?