Round 1: Chicago Cub Mike Fontenot vs. Cleveland Indian Mark DeRosa
A hot debate in Chicago over the winter was the decision to trade Mark DeRosa to the Cleveland Indians for prospects, some of whom have been labeled not worthy of such a swap.
At the time, many thought Aaron Miles would be the everyday second baseman. That assumption ended up being wrong and Mike "Little Babe Ruth" Fontenot was awarded the starting second base job.
Mark DeRosa on the other hand went to Cleveland as the starting third baseman, with no competition of it ending up otherwise. The Indians fans felt good on their end, for Derosa was coming of two solid years in Chicago.
Cubs fans felt betrayed. Derosa may have been the Cubs MVP over the past two seasons. Playing first, second and third base, along with both corner outfield spots, he reminded me of Jose Hernandez, with a slightly better average and less strikeouts.
Not only was DeRosa that valuable, but how could "Mighty"' Mike Fontenot, a guy that has never had a starting job, dethrone Derosa and all the value he brings?
That answer was right under the nose of anyone who paid just a little attention to Fontenot's very solid 2008 campaign. Despite not even having 250 at-bats, he put up very solid numbers. His nine home runs were one shy of the Cubs left-handed leader in home runs, Kosuke Fukudome.
So here we are, both players merely four early games into the season. Both have new jobs and both are off to a much different start.
Mike Fontenot has started the season hitting .412, with one home run, two doubles, and four RBI in his 17 at-bats.
Mark DeRosa on the other hand, has the same amount of at-bats, but lacks the same success. He has batted .059, with one single, that's it.
Now obviously four games is not going to tell the full picture. So from time to time, I will come back to this classic battle of woulda-coulda-shoulda Cubs debate of two second basemen.
Round One goes to 'Mighty' Mike Fontenot!
Fontenot - 1
DeRosa - 0
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?