market watch
by lboros on Feb 9, 2006 9:26 AM EST
in St. Louis Cardinals News
Email
Printwinter about to end? on the contrary, it may just be getting started, warns deadspin editor / cardinals maniac will leitch. in a piece at baseball prospectus titled "offseason of discontent," leitch writes of the stresses that have been placed this winter upon the unique bond between st louis and its baseball team:
what might that sound like? get a load of john perricone, author of the fine giants blog Only Baseball Matters, who posted some advice for cardinal fans about two months ago:
[T]he fact that the franchise has increased in value by more than 100% since Magowan took over makes it so hard to accept the never-ending stream of mediocre players they are forcing down our throats. There is no question they could raise the payroll by at least $20 million dollars. None. I'm no accountant, but even an idiot like me knows that a franchise worth almost half a billion dollars could find $20 million in about fifty different ways.
don't misunderstand; i'm not predicting an imminent crash for the st louis franchise. but let's not kid ourselves that the cardinals are somehow exempt from the forces that govern the sport. even if a crash isn't likely this year, over time it's a perpetual threat for this small-market team -- all the more so if the organization mismanages the vast capital its fans represent. as leitch has written before, the embrace of the base largely explains why the cardinals haven't become one of those teams that doesn't see .500 for a decade. dewitt acknowledged as much in his comments to strauss the other day. but am i the only one who thinks the owners are acting suddenly awkward in that embrace -- kinda squirmy? do any of you detect signs of distance -- the kind of distance a girlfriend evinces right before she dumps you? she still says the right things, but they ring hollow; you know something's up, but you won't know what it is for sure until she packs her suitcase.
it has been suggested on chat boards and elsewhere that what's up is an impending sale -- "impending" meaning some time in the next few years. a person whose opinion i respect, recently retired from a long career as a corporate financial advisor, thinks it's self-evident: dewitt & co are larding up with new assets (stadium, radio station) to drive up the sale price, while only spending enough on payroll to maintain appearances. the person who shared this opinion with me is not a passionate baseball fan, not simply speaking out of disappointment over the front office's unspectacular off-season; he doesn't know baseball, but he does know business. and he says these owners are proceeding exactly as he would advise them to if their objective was to cash out.
i've got some queries in circulation to a few sports economists to see if anyone else thinks the club's recent activity portends a for-sale sign. and i throw the same question out to you: sound possible? plausible? or just a conspiracy theory?
71 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I've thought this myself
As long as I got free box seats in the new stadium forever, of course.
Sure
I do, however, agree with DeWitt that the Cardinals are doing a better job of investing in the future of the team. Spending more money on draft picks, spending more money on Caribean development - those are all good things that we don't see the benefit of right now.
I continue to contend that the Cardinals kind of shot themselves in the foot by running the team so well over the past 10 years. They fixed up Busch to the point that it was hard to convince people they needed a new stadium. (They should have let it crumble.) They built a great team - possibly at a loss in profits - looking towards being able to "pay the bills" when the new stadium came around. The problem with that is, now that the stadium is here and they're ready to make profits for a change (for the most part), it looks bad that they're sitting pat.
Truthfully, one big free agent signing would have quieted this down a lot.
Burnett
I think one factor is that the owners and many of us have gotten spoiled by Jocketty. We all figure he's come up with an above-average second baseman for peanuts the last two years, so he'll do it again. Hell, against all reason, I'm sort of expecting Encarnacion to have a great year just because, well, that's what happens when Jocketty acquires someone.
I did say ...
On lboros's point, I don't fault the Cardinals for not promising the fifth year. That's a long, long commitment for an oft-injured guy whose selling point was as much potential as past performance. Sure, I would have have been excited to get him, and maybe I'll be proven wrong, but it would have been quite a gamble. And I think we're forgetting what a down market it was this year. Burnett probably was the only guy out there (unless we're counting Clemens) who would have significantly upgraded the rotation.
but that's why they had to have him
burnett's not oft-injured, by the way. he's only been injured once, and appears to have come back undiminished. the surgery he underwent to repair that injury has a stellar track record.
chris carpenter has been injured more often than aj burnett.
thin market
On the injury, if I'm not mistaken, Burnett was on the DL three times in 02 and 03. The two 03 stints may have been from the same problem (which ultimately led to the surgery). The 02 trip was described as a bone bruise and bone spur. I'll amend my description and call him "twice injured."
Burnett could also be the next Dreifort-
Baseball-reference most comparables by age, a whole bunch of flame outs and joaquin Andujar.
Don Larson had one great game and lived the rest of his career off it.
by wannabeGedman on Feb 11, 2006 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
andujar's an interesting comparison
over the next 4.5 years for the cards he went 68-53, won 20 games twice, appeared in two all-star games, and pitched them to a world title in 1982. he threw at least 225 innings in all four of his full seasons for stl.
the point being: who cares what burnett has done in the past. we only care about what he will do in the future.
re better buy in june or july
we are well positioned to trade for a bat at midseason, because we can move suppan mulder or marquis to another contending team that has bats but needs arms --- e.g. arizona or texas or cleveland.
but i just can't figure out who we can offer that's going to land us a difference-maker on the mound.
Excellent points all
bingo
"close call" doesn't cut it under those circumstances. if you can't land a guy who's willing to sell himself short for you, then you're not serious about playing in the market.
i agree that if they'd signed burnett it would have made all the difference --- because it would have demonstrated that the owners are making every effort to reward their fans with a championship. backing away at the last minute demonstrates the opposite --- hence articles like this one.
We are obsessed
Some points: if you believe the PD article this weekend, and I pretty much do, the team made a bit more than $15 million last year and plowed almost all of it into the new stadium. Think about that, the entire frachise only made $15 million. Rolen's due to make over $14 M all by himself next year. The point about owning a team being like owning a house, that you can't make any real money until you sell it, is spot on.
As for AJ, the team missed by $17 million in total contract value. I have a hard time calling that "close" and thinking that a player would give such a deep discount to any team. What people have to remember is that the team was going up against a Toronto ballclub that increased its payroll by THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS IN ONE YEAR!!!! How in the world can any team compete with that?
I never saw where AJ or his agent said he would take less money to play in STL, but I guess if people have sources and choose to read between the lines I can accept it for the sake of argument. As for "not being serious about playing the market", see my line above about the market Toronto created for AJ. The market for that guy was driven by a team with considerably less constraints that STL and all others. What about the "market" for FA relievers and outfielders, was the team not serious there? (Yes, I know the line around here - pay for premium guys and get bargains for the other spots, Encarnacion wasn't a bargain, we could have had Matt Lawton for less, blah , blah, blah. I'm not opposed to that strategy. I'm just pointing out that the team did jump in and pay market price for a few guys, so to say they weren't serious is a broad statment not applicable to the entire offseason.)
I don't buy the theory that signing Burnett, and that alone, "would have demonstrated that the owners are making every effort to reward their fans with a championship." One can also argue that the owners decided that spending money on Looper, Juan Enc, etc. this year was a better investment than "overpaying and overcommitting", in their opinion, for Burnett. Their intial strategy, to splurge on him, jibed with what was being championed around here, but when, in their opinion, the cons started to outweigh the pros, they had to change course. You don't have to agree with that strategy, but to point to it as proof that the team doesn't care is quite an assumption to make, especially when the payroll is upper echelon already, and also considering our status as outsiders who do not know all the constraints, plans, and issues facing the team.
Remember, different methods do not always mean different motives.
by flynn on Feb 9, 2006 11:05 AM EST up reply actions
i can agree w you partway
but the $17m gap between toronto's offer + stl's is a red herring. the cardinals offered $42 million guaranteed --- four years at $39m, plus an optional fifth year with a guaranteed $3m buyout. if they'd simply thrown another $6m into the kitty --- in other words, 5 yrs / $48m --- he would probably have signed here.
as for why a burnett signing would have demonstrated the owners' determination to bring home a championship, i'm only taking the team at their word. they made it explicit at the beginning of the sign-and-trade period that burnett was the player they wanted. but when the price got too steep, they backed away and filled out the roster with leftovers. that doesn't bother a lot of fans; it bothers me. i think st louisans deserve a better return on their loyalty.
Burnett
I like that the Cardinals tried, but EVENTUALLY you have to say the risk outweighs the reward. I don't think that because they finally came to that conclusion it suddenlt means that DeWitt is selling in the near future.
The $15 Million Profit Figure is Baloney
I agree Flynn...
The bigger question is:
It will be open revolt if some Tribune Co, penny-pincher type buys the team and stops putting money into the franchise
To be fair....
Loyalty
I think the fans that are all concerned are the bandwagon fans. The fans that root for the Cards when its good to root for them. Not the ones that endured the 100+ degree days watching that illustrious double play duo of Luis Alicea and Geronimo Pena flop around in the middle infield. Watching Allen Watson, Omar Olivares, Danny Jackson and Scott Cooper stink us out of the joint. Those are bad times. Mike Perez and his whooping 12 saves. Those are days that I don't care to revisit.
But I look back on them and appreciate what we have now. We have had a series of great teams. No one on this site knows what the future will bring. All we know is what has happened and we've had a great ride. Enjoy it while it lasts because it won't last forever. Juan Encarnacion could be the next coming of Scott Cooper. But lets hope for Cesar Cedeno!
I agree
by rockin redbird on Feb 9, 2006 10:50 AM EST up reply actions
unfortunately
Face it, even the die hard fans are less likely to buy season tickets, watch evey game on TV to its conclusion when you're a .400 team. Even the Royals have die hards that show up to the games.
by Ryan Van Bibber on Feb 9, 2006 11:55 AM EST up reply actions
Burnett
The new stadium is a big sign
but if the team is for sale...
If the
That's one thing that is never mentioned around here - the fact that all of the other new stadia, save SF, were built with public money.
by flynn on Feb 9, 2006 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
Here...
Hope that paste works....
You'd have to combine it
It seems to me...
With the aforementioned draught since the last championship....even watching the early 90's didn't hurt quite as bad as getting to the fall classic and totally blowing it. And as the team continues to change it's face from the '04 105 win cast....I think we feel like we are losing our grip and that was as close as our little mid-market team is going to come to winning that trophy for a long time.....
by cardsnutincali on Feb 9, 2006 11:43 AM EST reply actions
question
Of course, I realize that just because ownership is from and their business is based in the community doesn't ensure any better committment to a team, e.g. Busch family or the Lauries with the Blues.
Furthermore, owning this team is just a side business venture for these folks, it's not their primary income/business. In fact, are they oilmen? So of course they are going to sell the team at some point, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, whatever.
by Ryan Van Bibber on Feb 9, 2006 11:51 AM EST reply actions
DeWitt
With that being said - DeWitt the 1st (Senior, whatever) was involved with the Browns on some level - wether that be part-owner, GM, or what, I can't recall. In fact, DeWitt Jr. (or the 2nd) was the Browns batboy during the Eddie Gaedel years. His batboy uniform was the one they gave to Gaedel (with the modified number) to use during his at-bat! (Yes, DeWitt has a uniform hanging in the hall of fame.)
My point being - there is a history with St. Louis and the DeWitt family. No, the Cardinals aren't their prime source of income. So that leaves two possibilities.
- They are only in this to make profits by building the net worth of the team and selling it.
- They are in this because they love baseball, feel connected to their personal history in St. Louis, and are in it as fans moreso than to make money.
i think it's a combo
the hobby aspect makes it a bit like the barrons of industry that buy those massive ranches out West. they buy them to play cowboy a little bit- satisfying a fantasy- but view them more as real estate investments. DeWitt may love the game, but they're not going to build a winning team at the expense of their investment. like i said below, it stinks but this is how we do baseball now.
by Ryan Van Bibber on Feb 9, 2006 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
Well
Why should the Cardinals increase payroll by $10 million (or whatever) when they've won the division by 11 or more games 2 years in a row, with the 2nd place team in each year looking primed to regress this year? Their odds of making the playoffs this year are very, very good. And as most will acknowledge - making the playoffs is the important part of the puzzle. At that point, the best team doesn't always win - the hot one does.
they need to improve
as it now stands, they will have the same vulnerability come october that they've had ev'y year since 2000 --- the front of the rotation won't match up well with their likely playoff adversaries.
Injuries
another point
more than preparing to sell the team, which like i said i think is a foregone conclusion at some point anyway, this is new chapter in the team's relationship with the community. For years, in part because of hte Busch ownership and the older cultural position of baseball in relationship to cities, our relationship was unique. Like it or not we now have to start accepting this with the understanding that this is business too - in as much as that sucks and it's not the way we want it to be. welcome to the brave new world!
by Ryan Van Bibber on Feb 9, 2006 12:09 PM EST reply actions
but will leitch's question is
the fan base
In regards to the FAs and player acquisitions the team should have been out in force with a consistent message to Cardinal fans - and they just didn't do that. This year, in light of recent october dissapointments, this needed to be done with more than the assumption that fans would understand. Jock, TLR, DeWitt and the whole damn organization should have been out there everyday justifying the Burnett thing and then all the other moves. (acknowledging the presence of new media such our blogs and spreading the message there would have gone a long way). Now they're doing clean up, i.e. the PD article this week. Same with the KMOX thing, get out there and explain until DeWitt and Jock are blue in the face the new realities of hte media market. Alot of people don't need KMOX to get the games, because of affiliate stations. They could have also worked with affiliates to make sure (and PUBLICIZE) that no area covered by KMOX with a Cardinals fan base was without coverage.
They also need to make fans understand the money situation better. Average fans with middle class incomes don't understand the vagaries of why a new stadium doesn't translate into more $$ for the team to improve itself with. No sports news outlet, from the PD to the local affiliate TV stations in those smaller markets to every newpaper that covers the team on a regular basis. should have been without constant articles and interviews initiatied by Cardinal management explaining the sitution in the most common of terms. Explaining the $$ especially, but everything else at the same time.
The Red SOx and Yankees the As can do these things because they have a more sophisticated approach to PR, marketing in regards to building and maintaining their fan base. The Cards have reached the limit of the "trust us" approach with their fans, and its going to require a whole new approach to keep this relationship.
Ultimately, what may be as telling as the opinions of the MBAs will be watching the efforts the Cards undertake to pacify and reconnect with fans. If they maintain the same old approach, then there's good reason to belive they're fixin' to get out. If they work hard and undertake a better effort, then they're still probably fixin' to get out, but in a way that preserves the value of a good fan base.
The damage done is hardly irreconcilable. However, DeWitt's "stop pickin' on us" plea in the PD isn't a good sign.
by Ryan Van Bibber on Feb 9, 2006 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
another example (sorry)
This is the kind of stuff that Jock et al should be bringing out in the day in day out media, even when he's talking about acquiring players and other stuff.
by Ryan Van Bibber on Feb 9, 2006 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
PERSPECTIVE
i, for one, will attempt to get some perspective on this topic. in my opinion, we've got a good thing going here. we've had some good years of late...say the last 10 years, give-or-take. i'm just willing to give the cards "brass" the benefit of the doubt. i like our club, i like our core players, i like our new stadium, i like our rep (although i think we don't get enough pub in the national media), i like red, and on and on and on.
i'm not really concerned about dewitt selling the cards. and i choose not to believe that he's as sinister as some of the cards nation have speculated. does he want to make money? sure he does. fault me for that too. would i like to see us increase the payroll? sure. (do i hate it when people ask and then answer their own questions? absoultely.)
so i'm just going to give them the benefit of the doubt here. we're on a good run right now. we've got plenty of talent to win the show. and we're going to be "players" in the final outcome of things for several years. (see young pujo). color me happy with the way things are going. at least as happy as i can be without having a ring that isn't going on 25 years old. we're getting there though.
as for burnett, holy crap. i wouldn't have paid that dude half of what we even offered him. sub-.500 record, never won over 12 games even while pitching for a contender, yada, yada. no chance. so i will not hang our people for not paying this clown. i would have only been angry if we HAD paid him. i'd put the over/under on burnett wins this year at 13. and i'll take the "under" every day and twice on sunday. (remember what division he is going to?)
Perspective
If the Cards sign him then we scream, "Why did we pay him all of that money?" We don't sign him, "Why didn't we agree to the other year?" You can't make everyone happy and we all must remember, this is a business. Who cares if DeWitt sells the team. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter who owns the team. I will still cheer as hard and as loud as I possibly can for them. Will it be disappointing when they are experiencing a few down years. Yes. But that's a part of the game.
You don't appreciate winning until you've swallowed the bitter pill of defeat. 2004 was bitter, last year was even more bitter. But hey, this year we may get what we all want.
word.
can't really comment on your last point though as the thought of how 2004 and 2005 ended makes me throw up in my mouth a little. okay...alot. but we're going to the show this year and bringing home a ring. a nice pretty gold one, this time. silver sucks.
Temporary Feelings
maybe I'm optimistic, but I think that once the stadium is done and everyone sees how redonkulously great it is people will not feel this way. WJ made some shrewd calls this off season, just he like he does every off season, but we're once again putting a team out there that sould compete for the NL pennant. What I want to know is how much money went to payroll over the last 3-4 years that was from the "its money we'll have once the stadium is done" fund? Cause if you add those numbers up it might make more sense that Dewitt said they'll spend more if they get a new stadium. Also, Not signing AJB was a good call (fragile)
by Roo @ Viva El Birdos on Feb 9, 2006 1:38 PM EST reply actions
Temporary Feelings
I lived in San Diego for 10 years. When the Padres began talks to build Petco, the city was up in arms about it. No one wanted to leave the Valley. So much history in the Murph..yada yada yada. Petco opened up two years ago and the city loves it. I know St.Louis will feel the same about Busch III.
Nostalgia gets a hold of all of us. But the past is the past, the only people that really talked about Sportsmans Park were the people that were old enough to have gone to games there. Many had good things to say about it. Many had bad things to say about it. The primary thing that people hold on to is the memories that the park provided. I remember in the late '70s early '80s when under the bleachers smelled of urine and marijuana. Not great memories. I also sitting in the bleachers watching the Redbirds ride all the way to the Series in 1982. I remember sitting in those same bleachers in 85 and 87 yelling "The Mets are pond scum!" Those are the memories that I will cherish. I remember the opening day when Keith Hernandez and Willie Stargell were awarded the Co-MVP awards. I remember Auggie Busch riding around with the clydesdales on opening day. But I'm also looking forward to the Dewitt and the new ballpark affording me the opportunity to establish some new memories in a new park.
There are
by bellyscratcher on Feb 9, 2006 2:43 PM EST reply actions
i wasn't aware of that
5% of the fans make a lot of noise...
What's my point? All this doom and gloom about the atmosphere changing, is only the vocal minority. Cardinal fans are still Cardinal Fans. You really only see this worry in blogland and with the local radio talking head. (Of course, I love the blogs, especially this one. It's just that they don't represent a high majority of Cardinal fans. Most Cards fans would be way off in projecting what the Cardinals are going to do compared to Pecota, James etc. Most of my friends think the Cardinals did pretty well this offseason.)
I get a big group of people together each year to go in on partial season tickets. Back in July, I ordered 5 new seats because I had more friends joining in the group. I just found out that I'm not going to get ANY new seats (I'm only able to keep my old ones) because the Cardinals oversold season ticket sales by 2000 tickets! THE CARDINALS ARE PROJECTING THE ENTIRE SEASON TO BE SOLD OUT THIS YEAR.
It doesn't sound like the Cardinals are having any trouble with their fan base. Dare I say that they are MORE popular than ever?
This
by rockin redbird on Feb 9, 2006 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
All true... all true...
Don't mistake a pissed-off few ...
The screetching about the urinal (thankfully, there has been very little of it on VEB) is beyond absurd. I guarantee I would sell every last mop, drywall screw and brick if I owned Busch II and could find people silly enough to pay me for them. And most of you would too.
Absolutely
I find the argument that this ownership group has done us some sort of disservice to be a tad overzealous. Championship or not, this is one of the glory periods in this team's 115 year history and they've been more than willing to foot the bill necessary to sustain it. Problems concerning KMOX, the new ballpark's mortgage payment and the memorabilia sale are problems probably 25 other franchises would love to have.
I'm not arguing Leitch's point that the loyalty of the Cards fanbase is its greatest source of currency; however, recent events haven't done anything to squelch my passion, and I'm sure many feel as I do. I'm more excited about this season than I have been for a while, and that's saying something.
by m16t on Feb 9, 2006 3:39 PM EST up reply actions
A philosophical question
IMHO, that playoffs-every-year philosophy has led us where we are today ... trading away damn near every prospect we develop, having to rely on creaky 37 year old FA players (or iffy projects like Bigbie or JRod) to plug gaps. Now if we're lucky, we might pull off a WS victory once in a decade, or we might just crumble in the playoffs every year. We have, right now, the finest Cardinal player in a generation, perhaps in 2 generations. My great fear is that we'll keep following this path, keep falling just short, and then one day we'll wake up and Albert Pujols will be 33 years old and we still won't have a ring.
I'm curious ... how many of you would accept a couple of years of losing, if it was accompanied by a strong effort at boosting scouting and player development and building a core of good YOUNG players around our once-in-generation guy? Should we keep on our current road and hope to squeak out a championship once in a decade, or build a quality young team and maybe win 2 or 3?
I don't really know which is the right way to go, though my gut tells me that short-term sacrifice coupled with developing top-quality young talent is the scenario I really want to see. Maybe that's why the thought of bringing back Reggie Sanders was so bothersome to me.
if that's the mindset
or give the fringe roster spots
Quite an assumption
by flynn on Feb 9, 2006 5:29 PM EST up reply actions
And,
by flynn on Feb 9, 2006 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
what crystal ball
i'd just as soon take my chances with a guy who is unproven than with a guy who is proven to be mediocre or worse
Read my posts again
And, if you read my second statement, you'll see that I'm not making the "proven v. unproven" argument at all.
by flynn on Feb 10, 2006 9:56 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think things are that bad right now...
I am disappointed we didn't land any big names, but there really weren't any available. DeWitt and Jocketty have already said that they have some money in reserve for making a move if the right player comes available.
They made their run at Burnett, but I'm with the Diaspora in believing that would have been a bad deal - remember Tino Martinez? A contract like that for a pitcher on the level of Jason Marquis would have tied us down for years to come. Sure, the whole negotiation made us feel like DeWitt and co were trying, but they drew the line - after bidding up higher than I thought they should have - when the money got ridiculous. That's not stingy, or a slap in the face of the fans - it's just good sense.
I agree that this organization could do a little to improve their PR, but I'll be happy if they keep sending teams out there like they have been the past few years.
If we get a normal year from Rolen and a healthy year from Edmonds and the pitching rotation, we're going to be in fine shape. Whether they sell the team or not, I don't think DeWitt and Co. will intentionally diminish the roster.
quoting from you, lawman
suppose this year's team stumbles to 89-73 and misses the playoffs. would your opinions about payroll matters etc change?
Robb
It's the same with KMOX. I know one guy that's complained about it (he lives East of the Mississippi, where KTRS doesn't come in after dark.) Once I pointed him to the FM station that is carrying games on the Illinois side, his "complaint" was gone. (KMOX is a dinosaur, by the way. What percentage of fans rely on an AM radio station for 100% of their baseball coverage in 2006?)
Burnett or no Burnett
there are different philosophies as to what the cardinals needed to put us over the top in the playoffs, some say another big bat that stays healthy, others say a big time pitcher. i honestly think either would do...
so when the aj burnett deal fell thru, instead of adding a big bat, or just sitting tight and keeping 10-15million in payroll open for a midseason acquisition to put us over the top, we burned it all on multiple 2B and OF "prospects" now we will be forced to dump salary to take on salary. that makes no sense to me.
i mean, i dont get it, all our 2B candidates are a question mark, as our corner outfielders..
why not go with the question marks you know, ie, taguchi, luna, maybe j-rod...that would have left us enough money to add a big bat AND a stud pitcher....
one of lboros early hypothetical rosters had aj burnett, and wilkerson and was 90 million or under if i remember right, and the core remained virtually intact. as much as it is currently really.
uh, i now read we are gonna be close to 95million this year? no big bat added, no stud pitcher added....
our roster looks very temproray, like walt made moves to do a trade, and it fell thru and now we stuck with 20 2B's and OF's fighting for 3 spots, wtf..
we won the NL central last year with AAA Memphis and bench players filling 3 to 4 slots of our lineup everyday...
why not give those guys a second run and give em an ace or another big bat to turn the corner in the playoffs?
why?
/cry
by 2ndprize on Feb 9, 2006 4:40 PM EST reply actions
Philosophy
But as of now many people are questioning his actions. Trust the formula. Its not 100% but it has worked for us.
As for team needs. What I took away from the last two playoff seasons was the fact that we don't have a lot of plate discipline. We need more patience at the plate, especially at the top of the lineup. Albert is at his best with guys on base. His pressence makes Edmonds and Rolen a helluva lot better. Without a consistent bat in the 2 hole last year the guys that batted around Albert suffered.
I desperately want
Oddly enough, I think a good season is more likely for Ponson. Even though I think he's a chucklehead (and would sit in the stands at Camden Yards with O's fans and commiserate about that), he does have the tools ... a good arm, good stuff, and he does qualify as a "power pitcher." His biggest problem is that he tends to crumble when things don't go well. Who knows, maybe he'll find a spine on the banks of the Big Muddy.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Feb 9, 2006 8:21 PM EST up reply actions
Let's not forget about revenue sharing
There was a relling article on yahoo from the AP in regard to this issue. The link is below.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-redsox-henry-revenuesharing&prov=ap&type=lgns
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Man uses cap to save baby from foul ball (VIDEO)
- David Wright and Terry Collins argue in dugout after Mets manager moves to protect his star
- The Juice: Mike Trout homers, Angels get 12 hits, coach Mickey Hatcher gets fired
- Brett Lawrie fires helmet at umpire before fan hurls beer in tantrum over strikes
- Carlos Lee runs into umpire, gets elbow in eye (VIDEO)
