Scott Rolen For Troy Glaus a Steal For St. Louis Cardinals in Hindsight
When Cardinals fans and media groups ripped the St. Louis club for trading Scott Rolen for Troy Glaus in the off season last winter, I was in shock.
Rolen was absolute garbage at the dish last season, hitting a measly .265 with eight HR and 58 RBI in 112 games, and openly didn't like manager Tony La Russa. Plus, his replacement, Glaus, was a proven power hitter who could possibly provide protection for Albert Pujols. With the salaries at a virtual match, the deal was great in my eyes.
In hindsight, Troy Glaus has been everything that Scott Rolen was not last season, and the move was a complete theft for the St. Louis Cardinals.
First of all, finally healthy, Glaus has the most ABs on the Birds this season, and is putting up the numbers to show for it. Scott Rolen has only played in 70 games, although the finger injury he suffered in spring training was a freak accident.
Glaus is hitting .282, and has been on an absolute tear lately, as I mentioned in my most recent article. And his power numbers, which have developed as the season has progressed, already sit at 17 HR and 61 RBI. I guarantee you that Rolen, who has six HR and 28 RBI, will not eclipse these current numbers that Glaus possesses.
But wait! Glaus can't field, remember? That was the calling cry of all the Glaus-haters in the spring. Well, a funny thing. Glaus is leading the MLB in fielding percentage at the third base spot, which means he's currently fielding better then Scott Rolen. No, he doesn't have the same range, but I'll trade the lack of range for a hitting threat behind Albert.
In what was one of the first real moves of John Mozeliak's GM career, I say this one passes with flying colors. In addition to all the production right now, Glaus' contract expires after 2009, perfect timing for youngster Brett Wallace to take his spot.
Way to go, John. It's moves like these, the Brian Barton pick, and the Kyle Lohse signing, that give me faith in your trade dealine decisions.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?