clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Littlefield on Tike Redman

New, 7 comments

Here's an odd bit from today's Tribune Review:

Had Redman produced over the course of five seasons the way he had throughout 56 games in 2003, the Pirates likely wouldn't have parted ways with a player that some experts had once pegged the club's center fielder of the future.

Littlefield was not among those experts.

"I would definitely take issue with anybody who thought that about Tike," Littlefield said. "I'm not sure who pegged him as the center fielder of the future -- it certainly wasn't the Pirates."

Well, okay. It was pretty plain to lots of fans that Redman never should have been considered the centerfielder of the future. But it clearly wasn't to Littlefield, who's either splitting hairs or rewriting history here.

In 2004, Littlefield had no particular contingency plan if Redman flopped - Jason Bay played all of five games in center that year, and Ruben Mateo got DFAed even though he played well for the Pirates while Redman played poorly. Meanwhile, the club spent its money on Randall Simon and Raul Mondesi, who would have blocked a far superior player to either in Craig Wilson, had Simon and Mondesi stayed healthy and on the team. If Redman was never part of the future with the Pirates, why wasn't any player brought in to help in case he flopped? Why were the Pirates viewing Wilson, rather than Redman, as a problem that needed to be addressed?

Then, in 2005, why did Redman get over 300 at bats despite an amazing abundance of evidence that he could not play at all? And why, again, did the Pirates insist on beginning the season with Redman batting third? Jason Bay and Rob Mackowiak soaked up some at bats in center before Chris Duffy arrived, but if Littlefield realized Redman wasn't the centerfielder of the future, why did he wait through two years of terrible play until a full-time replacement finally seemed to arrive?