I wouldn't go that far. But Pena would still not be a good signing, no matter how much Rizzo wishes for it to be so, and particularly not as a replacement for Dunn. His only virtue is that he is cheap, and if the Lerners are serious about improving the ballclub and money is not a major obstacle (which seems to be the case after the Werth deal), they should go after LaRoche over Pena.
I fail to see exactly what makes Pena a poor signing, but LaRoche a good signing?
They are pretty similar players. To me, it's a toss up. So if going 'cheap' means taking the player on a lesser deal, then that is the route that I would go. Overpaying isn't necessary in every move. To land someone like Werth, it's ok. Doesn't mean it becomes standard operating procedure.
The only real difference in comparing LaRoche is that his batting average is noticably better than Carlos Pena's.
However, Pena has a much better eye at the plate, and walks a lot more. Pena's on base percentage is actually a shade higher, because of the walks.
So LaRoche's one large advantage, is basically evened out by Pena's ability to draw a walk.
Pena's power is a bit better as well.
I am not arguing that Pena is better. If all things are equal, I probably would go for LaRoche. Only because he has spent pretty much all of his career in the national league, and he has been more consistent. We should have a pretty good idea of what we're getting.
However, if Pena is going to come at a one year deal, as opposed to 2 or 3 for LaRoche, then I think Pena is the way to go. Neither player is someone we should commit to long term, so if the big issue is the length of the contract, I go for the shorter one. The players are relatively similar in their age, style of play(left handed power, solid defenders), and in their overall production.
I think either would be a solid addition, so the one we can sign for a lesser deal, is the best way to go IMO. Like I said though, all things being equal, I probably would go LaRoche too, but that doesn't mean Pena is a bad signing.
