c'est la corey

by lboros on Jan 9, 2006 5:03 PM EST in St. Louis Cardinals News

the cubs finally dumped corey patterson -- he's off to the orioles for a coupla minor leaguers. bleed cubbie blue sheds no tears over his departure. 2d year in a row the o's agreed to play dumping ground to an unwanted chicago outfielder -- the first one of whom is still looking for work . . . . .

and don't read anything into that last phrase, it's merely an observation.

hoolie tavarez is also looking for work; the mets were interested but wound up saying no thanks, and now the dodgers are kinda serta interstd. . . . doesn't look like he's gonna end up getting half what looper made. could there be some kind of ex-cardinal inversion effect in the market? ie, gms have seen too many players peak w the cards and then tank after leaving, hence won't pay market rates for'em . . . . .but then, how to explain the cushy deals for nunez and mabry?

rip-snorting debate at Minor League Ball pits scout fave joel guzman v geek fave daric barton.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Meh...

this deal ain't no Brock-for-Broglio; it remains to be seen if Patterson can recapture the promise of three years ago.

Baltimore used to be known as an organization that taught the proper fundamentals of the game... it hasn't been that way since Earl Weaver left (the second time.) So, who's gonna convince Corey to QUIT SWINGING at everything that comes in the general direction of the plate?

by The Ol Goaler on Jan 9, 2006 5:16 PM EST reply actions

It's not Brock-for-Broglio

But considering that they're giving up significantly less than the Cardinals did, and Patterson has a better career up to the trade than Brock did, it's an extremely nice move.

I'm not a big Brock fan, so maybe I'm underrating him, but consider it from the point of view of when the trade was made: does Brock look any more likely to play another 15 1/2 seasons than Patterson? Nobody could have predicted that.

by DanUpBaby on Jan 9, 2006 7:59 PM EST up reply actions

Part of Lou's problem in Chitown

was that the Cubs has no idea of what to do with Brock. Was he a leadoff guy, or was he a power-hitting OF that should bat 3rd or 4th? Brock was also a victim of the "College of Coaches" idiocy... the Cubs kept changing their approach every time they changed "head coaches". When he came to St. Louis, Johnny Keane told Brock he was going to be in the lineup every day, batting leadoff, and they weren't going to put any pressure on him. If he could steal a few bases, great. Brock's performance in St. Louis was immediately different (and better) than his prior performance in Chicago.

So the Cardinals effectively replaced a Hall-of-Fame outfielder (Stan Musial) with a Hall-of-Fame outfielder (Lou Brock). Brock was a completely different type of a hitter than Musial, but both men rapped better than 3,000 hits apiece. And Musial said of 1964, "If I had been with the ballclub that year, we wouldn't have won the pennant, because we wouldn't have traded for Lou Brock."

Full disclosure... I was 10 years old in 1964, and utterly fascinated by the first pennant race (and, later, World Championship) of my life. First love is never forgotten...

by The Ol Goaler on Jan 10, 2006 2:05 AM EST up reply actions

Of course,

--once again keeping in mind that I have no expectation for Corey Patterson to do much beyond repeat 2004--he's had the same problem in Chicago. Of course, he needs the opposite solution; for some reason he got thrown into the leadoff spot inordinately often, when in fact he's got the best chance of being valuable as a guy down in the order, where you can hide how little he gets on base and he can club some home runs.

All I'm saying is that Brock wasn't any more touted at the time of the trade than Patterson is now; in hindsight we know who Lou Brock turned out to be, but nobody could have guessed they'd catch lightning in a bottle like that.

by DanUpBaby on Jan 10, 2006 12:36 PM EST up reply actions

Great quote

from The Associated Press story on the deal. Patterson says:

"I'm a guy who can get on base."

Huhwhat?

The 26th Man

by 26thMan on Jan 9, 2006 7:15 PM EST reply actions

I'm surprised no one has picked up Tavarez

EVen though he hit a phone he came back next game and pitched well.

by sdrone on Jan 9, 2006 10:30 PM EST reply actions

Tavarez

$cott Bora$ probably isn't making people really want to pick up the phone with Tavarez-related inquiries

by Valatan on Jan 9, 2006 11:07 PM EST reply actions

Teams are

tired of dealing with Boras. The Dodgers just told him and Weaver to take a hike.

by cardsrul on Jan 9, 2006 11:22 PM EST reply actions

Drugs?

Is it possible teams know which guys have been on the juice and with the new rules they are leary of users?

A thought, a possibility?

by Zubin on Jan 10, 2006 12:12 AM EST reply actions

re: Drugs?

I would bet that in general most teams know who's taking drugs and who's not, but are you suggesting that Tavarez was on steroids?

by seagoj on Jan 10, 2006 1:08 AM EST reply actions

No, he's suggesting

Tavares was on drugs...

(I'm kidding, of course... I think it's more likely that teams are avoiding Scott Boras clients. Wouldn't that be an effective way to get rid of a disagreeable agent?)

by The Ol Goaler on Jan 10, 2006 1:55 AM EST up reply actions

Suggestions

I really meant to suggest nothing. I think it is just a possibility that some guys that teams are mysteriously reluctant to sign may have a reputation for being on steriods. More than in past years, tougher penalties probably discorage teams from signing dirty players.

by Zubin on Jan 10, 2006 3:21 AM EST up reply actions