Yeah, that's exactly why the article is silly. The premise was using a whopping two scoreless innings as evidence that the Sox would regret the loss of a guy who had been riding the waiver wire.
Meanwhile the Sox have multiple lefties who have thrown a whole THREE scoreless innings! With multiple strikeouts/inning instead of Rolinson's 0!
Like @WestEddy said, it's just filler content. If they kept Rolison over Eisert, you could write the same article and arguably have a better case (Eisert is slightly younger with an additional year, and has been better)