Scott Rolen rumors..

[a700hitter]

Whether the Reds wanted to keep. Rolen or not is pretty much open to opinion. The fact is that it looks pretty certain that he is not going back, so that is at least some evidence that the Reds didn't want him. There have been various statements from the organization this off season that are subject to interpretation.

 

Opinions regarding the reasons for Rolen staying or going are no more unfounded than opinions held by some here that Robbie Cano will be signing with the Dodgers. In that case, there are no statements to interpret by the Dodgers or any other team. Any such statements would constitute tampering. Anyone stating that they think he will be with the Dodgers is clearly "making it up". But wait it's just an opinion so BFD.

[Spitball]

What was Baker supposed to say...GLAD HE'S GONE? WE DIDN'T WANT OR NEED HIM ANYMORE? Dusty was being classy and politically correct in lauding Rolen.

 

Fred, Fred, Fred, you are asking us to believe your word over Dusty Baker's. That doesn't make sense.

 

The fact is if he really wanted him back they could have offered him a minor league contract with an invitation to Spring Training. T hey didn't do that and they didn't do it because they want Todd Frazier to play third base and not have Rolen around for a distraction because he would not he satisfied with sitting on the bench.

 

No, this isn't a fact. A fact can be looked up for varification. You are making this up. In fact, if you even bothered to look it up, you would know Baker had nothing to do with Rolen coming back. As I said before, it was between Walt Jocketty and Rolen. Rolen announced his retirement and the Reds went on and reached budget. When Rolen changed his mind. It was too late...and you can look that up on Google.

[Dojji]

Whether the Reds wanted to keep. Rolen or not is pretty much open to opinion. The fact is that it looks pretty certain that he is not going back, so that is at least some evidence that the Reds didn't want him. There have been various statements from the organization this off season that are subject to interpretation.

 

Yes, but that doesn't entitle you to go out there and claim, as fact, that the reason Rolen was let go was a specific personality conflict with specificallly Dusty Baker.

 

And if you're going to go out on a limb like that, don't be afraid to be man enough to admit it when you're caught in an inaccurate statement. Or at least have the dignity to change the subject.

[BSN07]

Yes, but that doesn't entitle you to go out there and claim, as fact, that the reason Rolen was let go was a specific personality conflict with specificallly Dusty Baker.

 

And if you're going to go out on a limb like that, don't be afraid to be man enough to admit it when you're caught in an inaccurate statement. Or at least have the dignity to change the subject.

 

Your better off trying to convince a stop sign it's green.

[a700hitter]

Yes, but that doesn't entitle you to go out there and claim, as fact, that the reason Rolen was let go was a specific personality conflict with specificallly Dusty Baker.

 

And if you're going to go out on a limb like that, don't be afraid to be man enough to admit it when you're caught in an inaccurate statement. Or at least have the dignity to change the subject.

I claimed nothing as fact, so I don't understand your response.

[a700hitter]

Your better off trying to convince a stop sign it's green.

This from the guy who expects Cano to be a Dodger based on no evidence at all.

[VA Sox Fan]

I claimed nothing as fact, so I don't understand your response.

 

He was referring to what sbf posted. It appears Dojji doesn't agree with your post defending sbf.

[a700hitter]

He was referring to what sbf posted. It appears Dojji doesn't agree with your post defending sbf.

I didn't defend SBF. I said that it was a matter of opinion whether the Reds wanted Rolen back.

[seabeachfred]

You were WRONG. You made something up. You claim to know what Baker is thinking without any information, as usual.

 

Now, who was the one talking out of his ass?

 

Give me a break.

 

Now just post some more about how you coaching 13 year olds applies to MLB. We're all ears...

 

You're beyond hopeless, just a very sad case of frustration and stupidity bringing up coaching 13 year olds which I haven't done in 50 years. I know if Baker wanted Rolen he would sure as hell prevail on the Reds front office to get him resigned to either a minor league contract or a new Major League one. Since neither was done it stands to reason for someone who can reason that Baker did not want Rolen that badly, more likely, he didn't want him back at all. That's simply common sense 101, but you are so out to lunch that you can't even see it for what it is. You've become pathetic.

[seabeachfred]

Yes, but that doesn't entitle you to go out there and claim, as fact, that the reason Rolen was let go was a specific personality conflict with specificallly Dusty Baker.

 

And if you're going to go out on a limb like that, don't be afraid to be man enough to admit it when you're caught in an inaccurate statement. Or at least have the dignity to change the subject.

 

And Dojii, if you are going to out on a limb be sure you know what the hell you're talking about. I mention NOTHING about Rolen's conflict with Dusty Baker. I don't know whether there was or not. If you were reading this correctly you will have noticed that I said he had problems with Larry Bowa when he played for the Phillies and with Tony LaRussa, one of the greatest managers in the past quarter century, when he played for the Cardinals. It was my opinion that the Reds did not w ant Rolen back because he is not back with them and right now is searching for a place to play, just as it was your opinion that Rolen should be signed by the Red Sox "to push Middlebrooks", which to me is a recipe for disaster.

 

Dupree said this thread should end so this is my last missive on this topic. IN MY OPINION, Rolen would be a bad fix for the Red Sox. We don't need anyone pushing Middlebrooks. That is no way to show confidence in a player we are going to need going on from this point forward.

[mvp 78]

The Reds gave Rolen the choice to come back. They were waiting on him to accept an offer. Rolen didn't want to go back. How the hell does that show the Reds didn't want him back.

 

Clearly, I'm not the hopeless one.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

MVP arguing with SBF was annoying at first, now it's comical. It's like watching Stephen A Smith vs Skip Bayless on first take.

[BSN07]

MVP arguing with SNF was annoying at first, now it's comical. It's like watching Stephen A Smith vs Skip Bayless on first take.

 

[mvp 78]

MVP arguing with SNF was annoying at first, now it's comical. It's like watching Stephen A Smith vs Skip Bayless on first take.

 

Troy Aikman is gay!

 

/runs away

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

You got it all wrong MVP, you're Stephen A Smith.

[Spitball]

I know if Baker wanted Rolen he would sure as hell prevail on the Reds front office to get him resigned to either a minor league contract or a new Major League one. Since neither was done it stands to reason for someone who can reason that Baker did not want Rolen that badly, more likely, he didn't want him back at all. That's simply common sense 101...

 

How could Baker have undermined his team at that point? When the Rolen decided to come back, the Reds had already reached or exceded their budget for 2013. Jocketty had Frazier and Donald in place as the third basemen. It was Jocketty's job to put the roster together and Baker's job to manage them.

 

We are not talking about the Dodgers, Angels, Yankees, or Red Sox here. Forbes Magazine recently ranked them 24th in team value. They have to play their own form of Money Ball. From 2004 through 2011, the Reds ranked 12th, 13th or 14th in N.L in attendance. Jocketty, who built winning teams in St. Louis, is doing pretty well in Cincinnati with a very limited budget. Baker's job is to manage the players he has been given and not to mingle in Jocketty's job which he does well.

 

Rolen would never have signed a minor league deal and would have been foolish to have signed a discount for Cincinnati when there are other options out there. This story is about money and not about Baker's desires.

[a700hitter]

MVP arguing with SNF was annoying at first, now it's comical. It's like watching Stephen A Smith vs Skip Bayless on first take.

I thought the thread was about whether Rolen would be a good fit for our bench, but everyone is arguing over whether Dusty Baker wanted Rolen back? WTF!! Just ridiculous. It isn't germane to the thread. It's just another stupid game of attempted gotcha. If Fred had said that Rolen hated clam chowder, the same people would be arguing over that like it was a meaningful fact. BTW, I hear that he hates the stuff, can't stand the smell and doesn't like to be within 500 yards of it.

[mvp 78]

What is germane to this thread is people shouldn't just make s*** up and claim it to be the truth. Feel free to back up your bud, but even you know his original point was wrong. It's not "gotcha" it's just "don't make s*** up."

[mvp 78]

You got it all wrong MVP, you're Stephen A Smith.

 

No doubt!

[a700hitter]

What is germane to this thread is people shouldn't just make s*** up and claim it to be the truth. Feel free to back up your bud, but even you know his original point was wrong. It's not "gotcha" it's just "don't make s*** up."

It's just a really stupid argument.

[mvp 78]

It's just a really stupid argument.

 

No doubt!

[Dojji]

It's just a really stupid argument.

 

Indeed, if SBF had the cojones to match his pride, he'd admit that and move on rather than constantly trying to defend himself and lashing out at people like a petulent child...

 

but then, that wouldn't be very interesting would it.

[a700hitter]

Whether the Reds wanted to keep. Rolen or not is pretty much open to opinion. The fact is that it looks pretty certain that he is not going back, so that is at least some evidence that the Reds didn't want him. There have been various statements from the organization this off season that are subject to interpretation.

 

How would you interpret the statement below from January 8th?

 

Scott Rolen hasn’t told the club whether he wants to play or retire, but manager Dusty Baker sounds prepared to move on without the veteran. “It’s getting late,” Baker said. “Life goes on and business goes on. Since we signed [Jack] Hannahan, it’s getting crowded. Plus, (Todd) Frazier deserves a chance to play,” said the skipper.

http://fm100thefan.com/1760/no-word-from-rolen-yet-baker-ready-to-move-on/

 

This is a far cry from the verbal flowers Baker threw Rolen's way after he formally announced that he would not be returning. It's not made up either.

[Dojji]

Even the most generous interpretation of that doesn't give SBF the right to declare as God's truth that there was tension between Rolen and Baker.

 

Any time he wants to back off that point, we can all move on.

[Spitball]

It's just a really stupid argument.

 

Being honest is stupid???

[seabeachfred]

Even the most generous interpretation of that doesn't give SBF the right to declare as God's truth that there was tension between Rolen and Baker.

 

Any time he wants to back off that point, we can all move on.

 

What is between your ears Dojii????? Never once did I say that there was tension between Baker and Rolen. I said Baker now didn't want Rolen back, and that article from January 8 that 700 referred to pretty well says most of what I had been saying. It wasn't God's truuth either; it was a statement that was backed up by that Jan. 8 article and the fact that the Reds did not offer Rolen a contract before January 8 to entice him or afterward.

 

Besides, you first brought this topic up with the suggestion that we think of signing Rolen to "push Middoebrooks" and to me that was just plain dumb. You hire a reserve who is used to being a reserve to man such a spot. Rolen has no interest of coming to Boston to be such a factor.......and he shouldn't come here. We don't need him. We have enough reserves with what we have. If we need anything it is another starter.

[a700hitter]

Even the most generous interpretation of that doesn't give SBF the right to declare as God's truth that there was tension between Rolen and Baker.

 

Any time he wants to back off that point, we can all move on.

I don't think he said that.

[a700hitter]

Even the most generous interpretation of that doesn't give SBF the right to declare as God's truth that there was tension between Rolen and Baker.

 

Any time he wants to back off that point, we can all move on.

Here's what he said:

 

If he won't accept a bench role for the Reds, who are a better team right now than we are, it sure as hell stands to reason he will not accept one with us. Then there is the Lucchino factor. He loves veterans and should Scott start playing well there we have Middlebrooks on the bench wasting away for sent down "for more damn seasoning". No Spitball, you may be right about Rolen's character despite his problems with managers and the fact that his current one, Dusty Baker, doesn't really want him back either, but we must not put any roadblocks in Will's way. It is the surest way to ruin a good young player. My hope is that Rolen will go elsewhere, like to LA.

BTW, it was Spitball that had referenced the problems with 2 other managers. SBF, never did.

 

Can I get a GOTCHA from my fans!! Maybe from my biggest fan, Dutchy?

[a700hitter]

Being honest is stupid???

No, stupid is stupid. I didn't see dishonesty on anyone's part. Opinion is opinion.

[Spitball]

How would you interpret the statement below from January 8th?

 

 

http://fm100thefan.com/1760/no-word-from-rolen-yet-baker-ready-to-move-on/

 

This is a far cry from the verbal flowers Baker threw Rolen's way after he formally announced that he would not be returning. It's not made up either.

 

It is very similar to the Youkilis/Middlebrooks situation. Frazier played his way into the starting job when Rolen was injured.

 

It was about the Reds' budget and the inexpensive Frazier's production...and not about the tension between Baker and Rolen.