Tater

December 24th, 2009 at 8:47 AM ^

...for Rodney. He lost five miles off his fastball when the drug rules went into effect. He has constantly struggled, failing to maximize results out of a decent set of tools. Like recently departed Edwin Jackson, who I watched down here a lot, he teases with potential and disappoints with his failure to reach it. Maybe the change of scenery will do him good, but I doubt it. I can't really feel sorry for him because $11 million is a nice consolation prize. I do feel sorry for any Angels fans who think he is the missing piece in their bullpen.

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

victors2000

December 24th, 2009 at 9:39 AM ^

No, he wasn't the best closer we've ever had, but he had some good moments. Actually, it might be difficult to replace him; who are the alternatives? Zumaya? Perhaps if he's healthy, but he can be erratic. Ryan Perry? Is he ready for that kind of stage? I don't see us throwing out money on a closer from elsewhere if we weren't going to pay Rodney; it might of been cheaper to keep him in the long run. Oh dear, it might be a rough year ahead for the Tigers.

Joined: 03/21/2009

MGoPoints: 12782

wishitwas97

December 24th, 2009 at 10:01 AM ^

have the stuff to be a dominant closer. The problem is he is either on or he is way off. If he's on, he's basically unhittable because of his outstanding changeup and his 95 mph fastball. He's better than what we have on the roster, regarding on who gets to close out the game. The Tigers wanted him back and were willing to sign him from arbitration.

Joined: 01/29/2009

MGoPoints: 91

loosekanen

December 24th, 2009 at 12:05 PM ^

The ultimate problem is that no matter where you used Rodney, you could actually use the guy in the bullpen. This creates depth issues at the back of the pen. If you move Zumaya, you'll be stuck with "random old dude gas can" or "young guy that won't reach his potential" in his place. Yikes.

Joined: 10/03/2009

MGoPoints: 923