GDT 7/12/22: Braves vs Mets - Turning It Around and Bringing the Heat

CyYoung31 said:
Maybe because Rosario had a career .800 OPS vs RHP, and Duvall mashes lefties. He got Rosario for free last year because he was hurt and on an expiring contract. Context matters.

Having said that, I always wanted another outfielder and a Rosario/Duvall platoon after Rosario was signed. And before he was signed, I wanted someone better. But, still, your constant overstating of how bad Rosario is is annoying. A Rosario/Duvall platoon if they play to their career averages is more than acceptable.
Click to expand...

Not when they give a fill in guy 2 years to be a platoon bat.

Sorry, there’s no defending that contract. It’s the 2nd worst contract AA has given out for the Braves…which is actually pretty good.
 
Last edited:
Enscheff said:
Not when they give a fill in guy 2 years to be a platoon bat.

Sorry, there’s no defending that contract.
Click to expand...

Fine, but that’s not the issue here. You’re constantly lamenting how bad of a player Rosario has been and the fact that we got him for “free” at the deadline last year. The former isn’t really true, and the latter isn’t that simple.
 
CyYoung31 said:
Fine, but that’s not the issue here. You’re constantly lamenting how bad of a player Rosario is and the fact that we got him for “free” at the deadline last year.
Click to expand...

The fact he was available for free means he isn’t good. The fact he was given 2 years despite not being good is a problem. Being free is one of ways we know he isn’t good, so that fact is pointed out whenever the claim he isn’t good is made. It’s called backing up a statement with a fact.

This logic isn’t very hard to follow. It wasn’t a good contract.
 
The Braves are not going to pay Rosario that much money to be a 5th outfielder wasting a spot on the roster. So what team will be willing to take him back in a trade?
 
I think the home run derby will be good for Acuna. He can get to elevating the ball again and relax.
 
Enscheff said:
The fact he was available for free means he isn’t good. The fact he was given 2 years despite not being good is a problem. Being free is one of ways we know he isn’t good, so that fact is pointed out whenever the claim he isn’t good is made. It’s called backing up a statement with a fact.

This logic isn’t very hard to follow. It wasn’t a good contract.
Click to expand...

So, we’re just going to ignore his time with the Twins where he was a decent player? That’s a fact.

Again, he was given away because he was hurt all of last year, on the IL at the time he was traded, and isn’t a superstar. This logic isn’t hard to follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top