
Catcher is their weakest position, with the possible exception of second base.
They have a chance to simultaneously replace their biggest offensive problem
spot with a well-above-average offensive player *and* acclimate a highly
promising potential star with no pressure on him to carry the team, and they
want to play *Olson* and *Berryhill* instead?!


"A catcher's defensive reputation will be inversely proportional to his
 recent offensive level of performance."  Thus, Mickey Tettleton goes (in
 the media) from being a no-hit defensive whiz to a slugging thumb-finger
 in two short years.  The rule doesn't apply to perceived "superstars", who
 get the Gold Glove Offensive Transfer effect instead.  Greg Olson is probably
 considered to be a good defensive catcher precisely because he can't hit.



Aren't they the same thing?


Either that or just stupidity.


Of course.


One could make the same sort of argument in other cases.  Pete Rose, in
pursuing Ty Cobb's record, was a huge gate attraction (and national media
magnet).  The Reds made a lot of money off that; they also wasted the prime
of Eric Davis.  That may be "good business", but that doesn't mean I don't
loathe them for it.


