I agree with a lot of what's in your post beyond these two points, and I think some people have tended to evaluate DM with one-sided negativity. But: (1) You're completely missing the point about why the Carroll move stinks. Hairston, right now, is probably our best option at four positions: cf platoon partner, 2b, ss, and 3b. Obviously he can't play all four. Lopez is decent cover for 2b, as these things go. Carroll was decent cover for the cf platoon, as these things go. At ss and 3b, we have . . . well, we know what we have. Dumping Carroll forces the cf platoon to the top of Hairston's to-do list. This is especially inexcusable when we're carrying not one, not two, but three bad shortstops. Even if you think Yuni should get more rope, there's no strategic value in carrying both Wilson and Counsell over Carroll. (2) Your "beyond rational" accusation is ridiculous. You really think "all" (your word) of those carefully thought-out assessments of Melvin's mistakes are entirely outside the realm of reason? That they're random collections of nonsensical words? Come on. There's a big, really important difference between "not what I think" and "not rational," and when you ignore that difference, your own credibility suffers a lot, at least IMHO. I totally agree that neither Counsell nor Wilson serve any purpose whatsoever on this roster and they just tempt Roenicke to occasionally use them. They'd be better off with Carroll and Farris. Farris at least has some value as a PR (something that is missing without Gomez), and Carroll was likely to provide solid D and at least as much offense as Gomez. Plus that would have freed up Hairston to move all around the IF.