clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

The Line Between Stability, "Our Guy", And What's Best

New, comments
Getty Images

I've seen where we resigned Snelling and Biermann and I'm as excited as anyone to have both of those men back. I think they're both very serviceable players and will do good things for us.

However, a growing concern among some fans has been whether we are too committed to what we would call "their guy" or, in a sense, someone that the coaches have grown too fond of and are looking past their performance in an attempt to keep them here because they like them.

I'm not pointing at either of these gentlemen and saying they fall into that category but I think there is reason for debate as to whether that is one of the weaknesses of our team. Are we sacrificing what we could be getting in favor of someone who's already here?

Is it possible that some moves are being made because we would rather keep "Smitty's guy" or is it because we don't want a lot of turnover within the players in the organization?

We have talked about how MM and BVG were "Smitty's guys" and probably hung around longer than they should have, and perhaps the same could be said about some players, but do they do that because they want stability in the organization? Or is it because they're "Smitty's guy"? Do either of those warrant sacrificing what's best for the team, if it is not either of those decisions?