Re: Looking back at the Arenado trade
Posted: 08 Aug 2025 15:32 pm
Mehl said that.Bomber1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:26 amIn your first post you stated that both teams lost the trade.renostl wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 22:25 pmYou have no more right toMelville wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 21:33 pmA few points.renostl wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 20:01 pmMelville wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 19:01 pmOutstanding question.
Very interesting.
One of the rare trades in which both teams lost - badly.
It is true the Rockies rid themselves of a malcontent cancer - but the return never worked out for them.
It is also true that STL gained a "me first, never a leader" personal stat counter - but he did not make the team a post season threat as intended.
Right now, both teams are suffering from the fallout.
The Rockies turned to Kris Bryant as the bat to replace N/A - and that has been a disaster for them.
And it is now the Cardinals who are stuck with a malcontent cancer.
If both organizations had a crystal ball, neither would have pulled the trigger on the deal.
Then again, Super Slo Mo isn't very bright and when he falls in love, he falls hard....
Enough with the cancer analogy.
Cancer is serious.
This is baseball and the player is gone in a couple years at most.
Does high pay equate to leadership? I think that ideally it does, but it's
not a prerequisite. Are Ohtani, Soto, Trout, Guerrero, Seager or Judge overt leaders on their own teams?
That's questionable, but since they are putting up massive numbers it
doesn't become a question.
Ideally, IMO, ideally, NA would be a fantastic overt leader for us all to
see. I, unlike yourself, can accept that he isn't an overt leader even
when he unknowingly is. We have seen how the man does when he just
plays ball.
Is it on him not being what you, I, and others may like
from him or in the management in not continuing to complete the roster?
It's a question, after decades of developing staffs I place on myself. You might assume
after years of dialog that I may have developed staffs in different
genres.
I've had NA's on staff. HOF'ers that I hoped for but didn't receive that next step that I wished for.
When I put them back in their zone, I got the production needed for the job, the great
production that made me want more from them in the first place.
i.e. we don't ask WC, BD, AB, Libs, to be our leaders, they're not HOF, we ask HOF or highest paid
to be leaders, instead of assessing if they are.
Let's not be overly sensitive.
The word "cancer" is not an analogy.
It has meanings other than the medical application.
Now, as to N/A - I am agnostic with all players.
Never for, never against.
N/A himself stated that he is no leader and begged Super Slo Mo to acquire others to fill that role.
It is not incorrect therefore to say what he himself has stated.
Nor is there anything wrong with stating unvarnished truth - he failed the organization's goal of being a post-season threat (and yes, he has admitted that as well).
Over the past 4 decades, I have employed thousands of associates.
Further, I have been a consultant (and still am) to billion-dollar companies who employee thousands of their own employees.
Success is quite literally my business.
It is never about others being what I want them to be (that, of course, has long been one of Mo's fatal flaws as I was first to understand and explain to all who gather here) - I am far too good a leader for that.
But it is about correctly understanding individuals for who they are - their strengths, their weaknesses, their potential - and placing each in a position which maximizes their contribution to the organization's goals.
And identifying those who will seek their own personal goals and agenda rather than that of the organization.
N/A has a 13 year record of words, deeds, and results by which to evaluate him.
My original analysis above is both fair and accurate.
And my overall reply to Shady was spot on.
insensitivity than I to being overly sensitive.
To move on.
We have some like views of NA some very different.
In NA 12 PA's as a Cardinal he has almost no production. That's a given
but not the point. Nor is what either of what we have done in our careers.
Those can range from falsehoods to fact irrelevant but should be respected.
When NA says he isn't a leader why not accept what he says and be
the agnostic self you are claiming? Money and contracts do not mean leader. Sometimes even ideally
they may. Agnostics certainly wouldn't conclude that a player what a player
intentions are and why that player wanted to leave a losing organization
in order to go to a winning organization. He was after all accumulating
every personal achievement he could want in an ideal environment for
him in CO.
Do I have issue in a player not wanting to be a part of the solution. Absolutely.
Is there reason for a player to be a malcontent about his very own extremely
short career that organizations don't much concern themselves with? Again
absolutely. Neither the Rockies or the Cardinals have been committed to winning
on NA's tenure as certainly MO promised during their LA meeting when NA had a opt out.
There was a verbal that MO didn't adhere to and now he's a malcontent.
The Cards won that trade. They were attempting to win and lost nothing in acquiring NA.
“Badly”
Now you say the Cardinals won the trade.
Please don’t respond. I don’t want to know how you believe they both “won” and “lost” this trade.
I never stated a winner or loser, only challenged Mel
on his POV.