Which is it, Dusty?

8 Responses

  1. per14

    I had only a little bit of respect for him already as a baseball man, but it’s statements like these that make me lose that little bit.

  2. GregD

    With an OF full of CFers, why did they need to sign Taveras? I disagree with your early defending of Taveras, Chad, because the Reds should not have been so narrowly focused in the first place. Dickerson could have held CF and allowed the Reds to look for a corner OFer. Now with a CFer in CF and LF and as a 4th OFer, where’s the offense going to come from?

  3. Matt WI

    Lost in Dusty’s double speak about our 6 or zero CF’s, depending on the hour, is a nice little jewel in there about needing “a true SS behind your SS.” So you start a SS who can [supposedly] hit and play the field, but if he goes down, you only want someone who can field. I get what he’s saying, it’s just the way he says it. And if that philosophy is so dear to him, why didn’t Janish play all of last year instead of Hairston and Kepp?

  4. rpa

    according to dusty, the difference this year is that janish has worked out really hard in the offseason. whatever.

    i still think dusty and/or uncle walt don’t realize that with a 5 person bench you might not want a defense-only shortstop on the bench unless you have two or three super-utility types that can hit really well and play every other position on the field.

  5. RiverCity Redleg

    I think what Dusty meant to say (or should have said), is with Taveras down, he needed a Right-handed Center Fielder. Since Dickerson, Bruce and Nix are all lefties and Hairston is more suited for the infield and Gomes can only play the corner spots. That leaves McDonald as the only logical (in Dusty’s mind) choice for CF vs a lefty and Taveras is not available.