the spirit of 1990

by lboros on May 17, 2007 8:54 AM EDT in St. Louis Cardinals News

you may recall ken rosenthal's article last week that referenced sharp divisions within the st louis front office. this morning bernie miklasz has more on that story --- one that may eventually become the story of 2007. bernie writes this morning: "The Luhnow promotion didn't go over well with the old-school baseball men, La Russa and general manager Walt Jocketty. It's fair to say that there's tension in the ranks." And: "[I]f the players don't believe La Russa will be the manager in 2008 -- and they don't -- then why worry about pleasing him?"

that puts jim edmonds' recent remarks in a new light; apparently he sees the team quitting on the manager. it also makes 1990 --- the last year of the whitey herzog regime --- a pertinent reference point. like the current club, that was an old team (starters averaged 30 years old) that had been together a long time and won a bunch of division titles and playoff series. but changes had been brewing (hah! lousy pun) at the top of the organization for some time, as herzog's padrone, gussie busch, was eased out of day-to-day decision-making in the late 1980s; when he died in september 1989, whitey lost what little remained of his clout. he quit in mid-1990.

through 38 games that year, the cardinals were in about the same shape as they are today: in last place, 6 games back, with feeble bats (10th in the nl in scoring) and grim faces. their record stood at 17-21. the cards were even worse over the next 38 games in 1990, going 15-23; four games after that, herzog was gone. he left with his team 14 games under (33-47) and in last place, 15 games out. a lot of popular, long-time cardinals followed herzog out the door: willie mcgee was traded to the athletics (managed by tony la russa) on august 29; terry pendleton and vince coleman left via free agency after the season; john tudor retired.

that's how it happened in 1990; what do you think will happen in 2007? what do you think should happen?

a lot depends on how things unfold in the standings, of course. although the likelihood decreases with each passing day, the chance still exists that the cardinals might rally themselves for a run at the playoffs. at this point, even getting into contention would have to be viewed as a triumph. there are small signs of hope. after edmonds' stinging remarks sunday night, the cards had their best hitting series of the season --- the first one all year in which they scored 4 or more runs in every game. also for the first time this year, they strung together three games of 10 or more hits. perhaps most important, they are about to hit the easiest stretch in their schedule. after the detroit series this weekend, the cards will play 16 of their next 22 games against sub-.500 teams, including 13 games against last-place teams (the rockies, nats, reds, and royals). it's a golden opportunity for st louis to reel off a little run and get back to .500 --- and maybe into second place, or close to it --- by the middle of june.

but we can hardly count on that. the cards' starting pitching is perched at the brink of the abyss; wainwright's hurt, and kip wells is about to crack (if he hasn't already). i gotta wonder whether the waiver claim of todd wellmeyer might have been intended to give them the option of moving ryan franklin to the rotation. the only other potential reinforcement (and one is almost surely going to be needed) is randy keisler; everybody else down at memphis is either hurt (narveson) or pitching poorly except for blake hawksworth, who has been pitching quite well but still needs work. when i saw the redbirds over the weekend, dyar miller (the memphis pitching coach) told me jocketty was pissed about the reports back in april that hawksworth might be called up to take carpenter's slot in the rotation. according to miller, that was never considered.

should the cards put on a little run, attention will shift back to the play on the field and away from the politics of the organization. but if, a month from now, the cards are still 6 games under (or worse), the curiosity about la russa's future --- and possibly jocketty's --- will only intensify.

Tweet Comment 144 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Hope it doesn't come to that

The Walt and Tony Show has been one of the great eras of Cardinal baseball, so I would hate to see it end on a down note. On the other hand, Whitey left on a down turn but no one remembers that. We all recall the three pennants and World Series championship. There is enough turmoil on the field right now, we don't need any in the front office.

by cardsgirl95 on May 17, 2007 9:05 AM EDT reply actions

Management contracts

Tony is in a walk year on his contract, and Jocketty had an option for 2008 which was exercised last year.

Why the disagreement with the Luhnow decision? Is Walt angry because he feels like he's not able to raid the piggy bank of MiL talent to pull of the blockbuster deals that have been so successful in the past?

Or is it just a sign of change that the old guard is refusing to accept? For a guy who plays stats as much as Tony, you would think he'd like more of a SABR type in the front office.

by Phyrkrakr on May 17, 2007 9:08 AM EDT reply actions

luhnow never played the game

and doesn't have any background in it. it's a culture clash: they've hung around ballparks their whole lives; he's a pure stats guy with a business degree.

by lboros on May 17, 2007 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions

So it's a personality thing?

n/t

by Phyrkrakr on May 17, 2007 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions

I've never

understood that idea. You have to have played the game at the major league level to be a GM.

Why?

You woulnd't ask todays southwest flight pilot to design a new jet.

You would ask your best forman to design your new office building.

You wouldn't ask a mid shipman to design a ship.

I get having them manage them...but this idea that the universe and everything in it operates one way and baseball operates another is just odd.

by Harknights on May 17, 2007 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions

It has been

part of baseball culture since...well, since there has been baseball culture. The "baseball guys" trust each other in the way that cops trust other cops or firefighters trust other firefighters or marines trust other marines. "Outsiders" have much to prove before they're accepted (if ever). It's all based on what the perceived experience of the guy is. LaRussa doesn't trust a guy whose only experience with baseball is on paper any more than a soldier in the field trusts an officer whose only combat experience has been classes at West Point. Till dues are paid and bones are made, the guy is a nobody. Of course, one is baseball and the other is life and death, but that's how they view it.

by rockin redbird on May 17, 2007 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions

To a great extent its about paying dues

but like all other jobs I imagine there is a great deal to be learned from being out "in the trenches" so to speak.

Just imagine if an outsider came in to run your organization.

by Zubin on May 17, 2007 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions

Funny you say that

an outsider did come in to run the company I work for...because the people who were running it engaged in shall we say "questionable activities" because they have been doing this for so long who are we to question what they are doing.

I guess I should ask this. When did Walt play? I truely don't know the answer so you could send me a link to his back to back MVP seaons in the PCL for all I know...but I'm guessing you wont. I understand the idea that if given the choice I would rather someone who played, say Bille Beane, be the GM rather than DePodesta...but that's only because Beane might have some insight or connection he has with an exec...not because the number of times he stood in CF will somehow give him insight on who is a better pitcher Dove or Falk.

by Harknights on May 17, 2007 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions

To my knowledge

Walt has never played. However he did it, he earned TLR's trust many years ago in Oakland. Why TLR accepted Walt into his circle back then but is rejecting Luhnow now is, ultimately, something only TLR can answer. Age? Experience? Personality? Behind the scenes power struggle? Maybe all the above; maybe none of the above. Cronyism is seldom consistent or logical. Thankfully for us, however, it's been a winning formula. At least, it seems, till now.

by rockin redbird on May 17, 2007 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Is this supposed to be adressed at me?

by Zubin on May 17, 2007 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Finally...

something that makes sense about the general malaise of this organization. On one hand, fear of the unknown makes me hope TLR and Walt stay for at least one more contract period. On the other, it may be time to call it a day. I now wonder if they have the drive, the motivation, the spirit to gut it out and try to put together another winner, or if finally winning the Series has put them in "mission accomplished" mode and they just don't feel the fight is worth the hassle. It's beginning to sound like the latter, and if that's the case then they should move on. All I can say is, thank the GOB for the '06 Championship--it may be all we're gonna have to keep us going for awhile, maybe a long while. These kinds of regime changes are only natural, but, as with the end of the Mighty Whitey era, it can take a loooooong time to recover.

by rockin redbird on May 17, 2007 9:44 AM EDT reply actions

It's not hard to imagine LaRussa losing

this team. Taking the player's perspective, I would point to a couple of situations. First, according to Bernie, LaRussa has never addressed his DUI with the team. Being a leader means that you sometimes have to recognize your mistakes. Tony quickly acknowledged this to the press, but if I were a player, I would think it strange that he didn't take the opportunity to say something in the clubhouse. The Hancock tragedy only makes this worse. Secondly, there is now the Wainwright injury situation. Tony is basically calling him a liar to the press. Then Tony is quoted as saying "We don't push people. Never". If I'm Scott Rolen, I would say "Excuse me?, Come again?". It's been one strange season.

by lefty fan on May 17, 2007 9:44 AM EDT reply actions

I don't trust Bernie on this stuff

last year he said Hal McRae was disliked by the team and wouldn't be back this year. I wish he was right.

In this article he only says Luhnow's promotion created "tension in the ranks." That's common at my office every day.

by enoscountry on May 17, 2007 10:02 AM EDT reply actions

Great Post

Bold predictions

Tony will not appreciate this BM article.
No way is Jeff Luhnow going to be as good as Walt Jocketty (top 10% of baseball GMs)
We need luck on our side to compete with the crew...

Here's to hoping we don't have a 500 season - either we are in it or solidly out of it. The reality of the situation is that if we are out of it, I would like to see Hawk called up (even though we are saying he won't be) b/c in my mind if you are going to throw the season to learning curves (AW, AR) you might as well throw in Blake Hawksworth. He isn't a spring chicken (like J. Garcia) who needs alot more time in MILB...

by Lawless on May 17, 2007 10:09 AM EDT reply actions

Yeah

Walt Jockety is amazing. After 12 years of scouting and drafting, he has put together one of the greatest, deepest and highest ceiling farm systems in the history of baseball. I would say he's top .00001% in the history of the universe.

PBR: When only the next best thing will do.

by sherwood on May 17, 2007 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions

You're totally right...

Because I would rather have a top farm system than several playoff appearances, 2 World Series, and 1 championship. Rolen, Edmonds, Mulder, etc. don't come for free.

by Handsome B Wonderful on May 17, 2007 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions

wow, this sounds like

a really original line of discussion . . . haven't heard these arguments 10 million times or anything.

by lboros on May 17, 2007 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions

some organizations

manage to do both

by Birds on the Matt on May 17, 2007 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions

I will be honest

and say that it is not hard to imagine a changing of the guard. I mean LaRussa and Jocketty have been around a long time and I see it as a positive that the Cards are agressivly persuing their minor league talent development.

That being said, LaRussa has been a great manager, getting the most out of many players. That would be a loss.

But the biggest loss in my mind of a regime change would be the possiblity of loosing Dave Duncan. Duncan has played an important roll in making some of the budget saving plays favored by Dewitt and company pan out. With lesser pitching coaches players like Woody, Suppan, Bottenfield, Kile, and even Marquis to an extent might not have panned out. I don't really want to think about the future of the organization post-duncan. That above all is the reason I would love to see this team keep LaRussa and Jocketty through 2008 or 2009.

Lets give Luhnow's prospects a chance to move up through the ranks and prove that he is capable to creating the regenerative source of talent that Dewitt has charged him with. Lets see if Hawksworth, Garcia and others can move up sucessfuly into a rotation headed by Carpenter but staffed mostly by home grown cheap talent. Lets see if this team can restart the pipline of talented outfielders that made the Cards so sucessful in the 1980's (and competetive even into the 90's with the likes of Lankford, Jordan and Gilkey). I agree with many others that growing minor league talent is the key to future sucess, but lets make sure we have the right guy for the job (or even more important that we don't already have the right guy for the job in Jocketty) before we ship out some very talented people.

by JMedwick on May 17, 2007 10:10 AM EDT reply actions

help i am in no mans land

what did i miss with wainwright? I did not know he is hurt please fill me in.

by gocards80 on May 17, 2007 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Tendonitis in the pitching elbow

Linkage via the PD and Joe Strauss

by Phyrkrakr on May 17, 2007 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions

thanks

my internet is restricted at work and this is pretty much the only sports website i can get to.

by gocards80 on May 17, 2007 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions

Well said...

... JMedwick - and let's add Jeff Weaver to your list.

This supposed rift between Luhnow and the Jocketty/TLR/Duncan regime is hard to fathom. I mean, (to generalize) if Luhnow's a "Moneyball" guy, and the Moneyball philosophy is to maximize market efficiencies, who's done that better than Dave Duncan? The man spins straw into gold.

If this is really just a personality clash between old baseball men and a guy with a laptop, that is frustrating, ridiculous and has little to do with the operation of this team.

by bgodar on May 17, 2007 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions

Jeff Weaver wasn't really

a better pitcher in his time with the Cardinals vs. his time with the Angels.

by plh903 on May 17, 2007 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Bringing back most of the 2006 bench

LB:

Do you think these politics may have affected the decission to basically bring back the 2006 bench for 2007. I am wondering if loyalty played a factor in those decissions.

by Zubin on May 17, 2007 10:13 AM EDT reply actions

i have no idea why they brought back

taguchi.

i can see why they wanted spiezio back; he's versatile, he's a clutch player.

also had no problem wtih the p dub signing --- a 4th or 5th outfielder with 20-homerun power who only costs $1m is a pretty good deal.

bennett --- whatever. mike lieberthal probably woulda looked better on paper, but bennett's outplaying him on the field.

miles --- also whatever. he can't hit, but he's a backup shortstop . . . don't know of any realistically available alternative who woulda been significantly better.

the bench guys haven't been good, but they're still not the issue. edmonds, rolen, and pujols are the issue --- as long as they stink, it's irrelevant how good or bad the bench is.

by lboros on May 17, 2007 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

So?

Good teammate, decent 5th outfielder. Not a bad guy to bring back, just not when you already have three to five other fifth outfielders.

That said, I think my fiancee (and, strangely, a lot of other girls) would be royally pissed if he wasn't with the team. He is the exact definition of an irrational fan favorite.

Everybody off the bandwagon!

by Alxfritz on May 17, 2007 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Very true

My girl loves the dude, and she's from New England.

by jimstllax on May 18, 2007 8:31 AM EDT up reply actions

Scrap Heap

I will not cease reminding the board about JR House. He's currently in AAA raking like he did last year (this year for the Os). JR's player link - http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=J.R.%2520House&pos=C&sid=milb& t=p_pbp&pid=407399I

don't understand why he's not on our roster (or the Yankees roster, or someone's roster)...

I'll come clean in a diary of how our scrap heap reccomendations this off season are fairing this far tonight or tomorrow. Might make for some semi-interesting reading.

Vis a vis the bench - I have no problem discussing ad nauseum the irrelevant b/c IF our "core" turns it around we still need our bench to put us over the topski...

by Lawless on May 17, 2007 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

I would have brought

in Mark Loretta. Sounds like a good platoon for Kennedy. That way you could hedge a meh position into something pretty productive. Plus it gives you another decent bat off the bench.

As far as his SS defense goes, I don't know if the bat would make up for Miles fielding or not (which is funny to say like that), but if we're in a position where Miles is our starting SS for an extended period of time, answers need to come from outside the organization anyway.

by plh903 on May 17, 2007 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions

This isn't exactly what I was asking

but I wish everybody would quit bitching about Taguchi. He has played better than most this year. TLR obviously likes him- I guess hard work and a modest attitude even with midest skills sometimes gets you places.

by Zubin on May 17, 2007 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions

I would hate to lose TLR...

but I would especially hate to see Duncan and Jocketty go...yes they have their bad years...but I really have so much trust in both of them.

TLR is awesome and likely a better manager than anyone else we could hire...but I feel like the drop off from him to the "not-so-secret" weapon is a lot less than the drop off from Duncan and Jocketty and any other pitching coach and GM.

I don't think it will be easy to replace either of them...Very few have been as consistent year in and year out as Duncan and Walt.

by wrv18 on May 17, 2007 10:30 AM EDT reply actions

Ghosts of Christmas Past

Wow. If 1990 and 2007 were players and we plugged them into PECOTA, the similarity score would be around 88.

Many on this site have proposed optimistic trade scenarios where we get a Miguel Cabrera or even a Ryan Church, but I don't see it happening. I suspect we're in for a few years of watching the veterans play out their contracts while we sit and wait patiently for Colby Rasmus, et al. I just hope our home grown talent flourishes more than the Todd Zeile's and John Mabry's of the early 1990s.

I'm not even sure what to HOPE for at this point. If the bats show some life and we finish second or third in the division, doesn't that only delay the inevitable?

I'm reminded of a line written by Jean Shepherd in A Christmas Story:

Sometimes, at the height of our revelries, when our joy is at it's zenith, when all is most right with the world, the most unthinkable disasters descend upon us.

by bgodar on May 17, 2007 10:47 AM EDT reply actions

ha, ha

You're Christmas Story reference is great! Didn't think I'd see that here. But I think everyone is freaking out a little too much. Calling for TLR and Jock's heads and insinsuating a rapid fall off is a bit much (not directing this second part at you).

I mean after next year with Izzy's contract off the books and Edmonds the year after, we will have a great deal of flexibility. Also, if Rolen can be traded this year we can almost start over after 2008. We have young pitching that can only get better. This doomsday scenario is a little out of hand.

by eglasier on May 17, 2007 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions

But you're forgetting...

WE MIGHT HAVE A LOSING RECORD THIS SEASON!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Everybody off the bandwagon!

by Alxfritz on May 17, 2007 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions

Well,

nothing we can do about that now, right?

by eglasier on May 17, 2007 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions

If I can't give the team

a one year grace period after winning the world series, I don't know if I want to be a fan. The last three postseasons have nearly killed me and the four years before that weren't all that much fun, either. Do I want the team to win this year? Yes. Is it realistic that they'd win the world series again, even if they were a 95+ win team? No. So, this summer, as the Cards keep on losing, I'm just going to relax, watch the game, drink a couple beers, and if So strikes out, or Eck isn't tall enough to catch a line drive... big effing deal. We won the Series last year.

The team is in good shape for the future; there is a lot of money coming off the books in the next few years, we have Dunc, Yadi, and Pujols going into their late 20's, some good young pitching that will blossom (a hopefully a resurgent Carp), and a couple real prospects coming up the pipe.

No worries.

Everybody off the bandwagon!

by Alxfritz on May 17, 2007 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions

ditto

n/t

by eglasier on May 17, 2007 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions

Fritz, as usual

you're the voice of reason.

by player2bnamedl8r on May 17, 2007 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions

You do realize

that you're talking to the guy who predicted that Dave Duncan's toilet was going to be a 20 game winner this season?

by Valatan on May 17, 2007 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions

It could still happen

damnit!

Everybody off the bandwagon!

by Alxfritz on May 17, 2007 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, I do

and that toilet or urinal would have a better chance of winning 20 games than Kip Wells...

by player2bnamedl8r on May 17, 2007 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Amazingly

the toilet was supposed to take over for Braden Looper, who may very well win 20 games. Such is life.

Everybody off the bandwagon!

by Alxfritz on May 17, 2007 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions

I missed this toilet business (har, har...)

was it following the batting tee discussion?

How many batting tees did there end up being in the Nats rotation this year, anyway?

by lordsummer on May 17, 2007 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, then...

This should catch you up. Oddly, I was actually sober when I came up with most of those.

Everybody off the bandwagon!

by Alxfritz on May 17, 2007 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions

alxfritz

dude, if u were sober when you thought that up, what are u like drunk? either way, that is some funny shit

Pujols is the greatest Cardinal in my lifetime.

by bigcardsfan5 on May 18, 2007 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions

The thing is

At least for me...the problem isn't that we are losing. It's how we are losing. Last night for example. We lost 5-4. Had we mad a play here or a hit there we win. We didn't and that will happen at least 60 or so times a year. That's part of the deal...but to lose 9-0 against a guy who was the 10,000 fan in the gate that day. That's what I can't stand. I know they can't win the World Series every year...but they should matter every year.

Really this all comes down to. If Pujols had a line of .350/.450/.680 this all wouldn't wear on me. There are possitives. Looper, Izzy and I don't know if anyone has noticed. Molina .288 average with a .350 obp. Wow!!! His SLG is down but aren't all the Cards?

It isn't So's fault that he isn't good just like it isn't Eck's fault he's short...all this I can handle. But it is their fault if they don't care and that I can't handle.

by Harknights on May 17, 2007 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Beautifully stated, Bravo

It's entertainment. Don't let a tough 40 games or even a bad season turn you into the mid-west equivalent of a bitter Red Sox fan.

That's a winner!

by saveferris on May 17, 2007 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Re:

"and if So strikes out, or Eck isn't tall enough to catch a line drive... big effing deal. We won the Series last year."
My feelings exactly. Besides, it's gonna get worse before it gets better. To paraphrase the Grateful Dead, we're going to Hell in a bucket; we might as well enjoy the ride.

by cardsrul on May 17, 2007 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

"Sound of the thunder

with the rain pourin' down,
And it looks like the old man's gettin' on."

Lets just have a nice, relaxing summer for once.

Everybody off the bandwagon!

by Alxfritz on May 17, 2007 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Amen, Brother Alex!!

by rockin redbird on May 17, 2007 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions

in reply to eglasier above

miklasz's column doesn't call for la russa and jocketty's heads. it asks this question: will those guys still want to be here beyond the length of their current contracts? the organization is evolving, and in a direction that may not be to their liking. miklasz is merely pointing out that there are no guarantees; those guys might opt out.

their jobs are surely safe if they want them. the question is whether or not they can, or want to, coexist peacefully alongside the ascendant "moneyball" focus in the front office.

by lboros on May 17, 2007 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions

I

wasn't really addressing the post so much as the responses posted later on in which some people have insinuated that the team would be better off without them or that TLR and Jock are out of touch with the current focus on statistics and their role in the game.

I don't know that that is the case. But I also think that Bernie is throwing some rumors around that aren't necessarily based on anything of substance. Just like the Rolen rumor, I'm not sure if I trust everything that he is saying.

I also think that it appears that Bernie as well as some people here are panicking more that they should. I just wanted shed a little bit in regards to the contract situations and that things I believe have a GOOD chance of improving sooner rather than later.

by eglasier on May 17, 2007 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions

shed "light"

n/t

by eglasier on May 17, 2007 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions

i still don't see it

to me, it looks like most of the posters express resignation and mixed feelings about the prospect of la russa / duncan / jocketty leaving. i think mixed feelings describes my own sentiment. the last 7 years rank among one of the most successful runs in the history of a very successful franchise; replacements are not likely to do better, nor even nearly as well.

but it still might be time for a change, because i don't know if jock/tony can sustain their success much longer. the formula (and the cast) that worked over these last 7 years has largely run its course. edmonds and rolen are both past their prime, and so is jocketty to some extent --- he can no longer fleece other organizations in trades, because the market has caught up to him. most other teams now value players the same way he does; he's lost his advantage. he no longer can steal players the caliber of edgar renteria and jim edmonds and scott rolen from other teams.

by lboros on May 17, 2007 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions

You're right

that the posts do express these feelings of resignation about potential management changes. I just am not all that sure that there indeed will be a change or that there is this rift within management. Rosenthal suggests that,

"Luhnow, who comes from an engineering and business background, is a proponent of statistical analysis. While the Cardinals' farm system clearly is lacking, rival executives express doubt that Luhnow is the right choice to initiate a revival. His rising threat to Jocketty, one rival executive says, has created dueling factions, leading to "a house divided."

Who are these "rival executives"? Do they have any other motivations to cause a stir in the Cardinals organization? And how do THEY know all of this? I'm just a little bit leary of the sources here.

Jock is a smart GM. I just have to imagine that he would take advice using sabermetric data. If he won't, then it is time for him to leave.

Also, I think that there are still some dumb GM's out there. I still believe that there are some fleecings to be had.

by eglasier on May 17, 2007 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Who?

Who brought in MGL and Sid Midjal (did I spell that correctly?) to consult for the Cardinals? There is definitely a SABR trend. I guess I just always assumed WJ was keeping up with the times.

by RedbirdRay on May 17, 2007 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions

jeff luhnow brought those guys in

he also brought in ron shandler

by lboros on May 17, 2007 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Lunhow

for President!

by RedbirdRay on May 17, 2007 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions

And that

Luhnow guy also. Vote him in, too.

by RedbirdRay on May 17, 2007 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions

And that's

what a lot of people can't understand. Many of them feel that Jock still has the resourcefulness to pull off another Bottenfield for Edmonds type of trade, but it's no longer the case.

by cardsrul on May 17, 2007 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions

pull from my bible school background here

revivals come and go. denominationalism tends to memorialize and worship what once was fresh years ago but now is stale. jocketty, tlr and dunc have been the best, and i'll be ever grateful to them, but i think the time is very near where it's time to evolve. i know it's hard, but i don't want the team to hang out to the glory days and those who brought them too hard, because the rest of the baseball world is quickly evolving. like lboros said, jock can't fleece these guys, because many of these teams have 'luhnows' working for them now.

Future Redbirds

by erik on May 17, 2007 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Can you elaborate?

I'm wondering if you can address WHY Jocketty could pull those trades off then but not now a little more. Edmonds was undervalued by his own team because, if I remember correctly, they had a bunch of solid OFers and he was considered a malcontent. Rolen was traded because he wanted out. I don't remember the Rent situation. Are you saying that other teams would offer the same or more for these types of players? I also think that each situation is unique in that we also had -- at the time -- the players that these teams wanted. If Bott hadn't had that great year, we'd have never pulled that trade off. I think you have to consider a certain bit of the stars aligning, just as they didn't with Mulder.

by jimstllax on May 18, 2007 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions

losing Duncan

OK, I'll take a contrarian view on losing Duncan. When our minor league system was barren of pitching prospects, the only way the Cards as an upper mid-market team could compete was having Duncan work magic with cheap reclamation projects. However, Dunc does not strike me as a magician with building up young pitchers (see Rick Ankiel and Anthony Reyes). Dunc much prefers working with the vets. Fast forward to the current Cards organization. 2/5ths of our starting rotation is veritable rookies as ML starters (Reyes and Wainwright). Hawksworth is banging on the door looking for a shot in 2008. This is not Dunc's strong suit. Our team is in transition and the future of the staff is in the young arms.

All that said, losing D. Duncan makes me nervous. TLR ... I won't miss.

by jjray on May 17, 2007 10:51 AM EDT reply actions

Sample size?

I see your point that Duncan's track record is more with veterans, but isn't that more because that's who he's had to work with? It's the front office that has stocked the team with guys like Woody Williams and Jeff Suppan in recent years, while trading guys like Haren.

Our pitching prospects have not panned out so well in recent years, and I don't think we can blame Duncan for guys like Jimmy Journell never delivering what was promised. As for the Rick Ankiel wreck, it's hard to imagine any pitching coach being able to right that ship.

Looking back, I also see young pitchers who flourished under Duncan, like Matt Morris and Alan Benes (before injury). And it would be hard to argue that the Cards aren't getting more out of Brad Thompson than anyone would have expected.

by bgodar on May 17, 2007 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Personally, I'm ready for a change

I think TLR is obviously a HoF manager and a brillant strategist. That being said, the Cardinals are in a kind of transition right now as the team attempts to rebuild its farm system and move more young players into the bigs (and by young I mean league minimum being the important factor). I think TLR's attitude, demeanor and coaching probably plays better to veterans but the "grind" it out mentality may be a little frustrating to young guns. And, to a certain extent, I find La Russa to be stubborn and unflexible at times. I'd be totally ok with him moving on at the end of the year. I'm not advocating he's kicked out the door or quits at midseason, but if he leaves at the end of the year that's probably for the best imho. I think TLR could use some time off to just relax a la Leyland.

Jocketty seems gunshy to me ever since the Mulder trade. I think Mozielak is a capable replacement who is familiar with the organization. I'm not an advocate of Lunhow stepping into the reins this quickly.

My biggest concern would be losing Duncan along with TLR. While I'm not a fan of his bullheaded groundball approach, he is a great pitching coach (esp. if he could just realize that not EVERYONE is a groundball pitcher). I think he would be the biggest loss to the organization.

but that's just my two cents worth.

by azruavatar on May 17, 2007 10:59 AM EDT reply actions

As long as the next manager

has a feathered mullet and wears sunglasses at night, I'm happy.

Everybody off the bandwagon!

by Alxfritz on May 17, 2007 10:59 AM EDT reply actions

So no Joe Torre then?

Oquendo used to rock the mullet back in the day, and Girardi works well with youngsters.

by Phyrkrakr on May 17, 2007 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions

Maybe?

Maybe Beane would like to see what he can do with a $90-$100 million dollar budget?

by RedbirdRay on May 18, 2007 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions

my only big concern about the change

is the motivation baseball or business or both?

Is our new GM going to run the organization to make the most short term profit (see Royals, Kansas City) or run it to be competitive on the feild in a "small market"?

by Zubin on May 17, 2007 11:17 AM EDT reply actions

I didn't

think that Royals and profit had any relation, even in the short-run...

by eglasier on May 17, 2007 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions

Are you confusing winning and profits?

by Zubin on May 17, 2007 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions

No,

but if you have any information to back up this claim, then I'd like to see it. Not trying to be a smart ass, just wondering. Here is what I found. Shows the Royals 3rd to last in profits as of 2006 with predictions even worse for 07.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-much-is-your-team-really-worth/

by eglasier on May 18, 2007 8:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Well to an extent I'll eat my words

But I don't really trust the Forbes numbers as I have a business background and know how murky profits can be- especially in a business like baseball.

I was under the impression the Royals were one of the more predictably profitable franchises due to the luxury tax and a realtively small payroll. I believe this was reported in the Wall Street Journal some years ago but unfortunately I can't provide a link.

By the way, here is another take on the Royals' ownership. http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0507/040.html

by Zubin on May 19, 2007 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions

I think

that Bernie's column is dead-on. It makes complete sense.

TLR will NOT retire. He will probably chase the managerial wins record. I will bet my savings on it. Whether or not he stays here IS up to him, as Bernie states. I just don't know if he's ready to be part of a "go young and rebuild" process.

by silent_bob on May 17, 2007 11:18 AM EDT reply actions

Replacing Duncan

If the LaDuncketty regime goes, what about promoting Dyar Miller from Memphis to be the Cardinals' pitching coach?

He's worked with Wainwright and Reyes (who enjoyed much success with Miller in Memphis) already, and Hawksworth will be up next year, too.

The 26th Man

by 26thMan on May 17, 2007 11:29 AM EDT reply actions

If you think we are bad

look at the Cubs. They are about to lose their best pitcher (over the long term) to free agency, and their free agent pitchers that they signed have already peaked.

With Lilly and Marquis pitching out of their minds, they are still only 2 games ahead of the Cardinals (should really be one if not for the pitching blunders the last two nights) and their all-world 1st baseman is begining to fall apart physically.

The Cardinals seem to be hitting their stride, atleast offensively, at just the right time.

What happens in Detroit could set the table, as Larry says, for a big run. Last year, the start of interleague play begun a tailspin for this team. Let's turn it the other way around.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on May 17, 2007 11:29 AM EDT reply actions

Right On

I still don't believe the Brewers are gonna be the real thing over the long haul, the Cubs are not living up to their pre-season hype at all, and Houston (though looking good recently) is as fragile a team as we are. That leaves the Reds and Pirates. Miracles do happen, but if our boys can just average .500 ball over the course of the season, they'll probably still be within reach by the end. As grim as it has looked for the Cards, we should never forget how bad this division is. Nobody is running away with anything...at least yet, so it may end up that the team that can just remain stable the longest will see october play. Will that team be The Birds? Can't say, but it's not out of the question...not yet anyway. This Wagonmaker news sure doesn't help, though. Ug.

by rockin redbird on May 17, 2007 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Believe in the Brewers

The Brewers are getting off to a similar start as the 2004 Cardinals, in terms of division splits: they have a 17-8 record against the Central, best in baseball against their own division, but are only 2 games above .500 against the rest of the NL. I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis of the rest of the flawed teams in this division... all the more reason to think Milwaukee simply won't be caught this year.

by taiko on May 17, 2007 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Similar start to 2004 Cardinals?

Through May 18 in 2004 the Cardinals were in 4th place with a record of 20-19 having just lost consecutive games to the Marlins and Mets. They were 7-10 against the NL Central and 13-9 against the rest of the NL. Their pythag record was 21-18. It was from there through the end of August that they turned it on - they went 67-25 during that span.

Another interesting note is that they were shut out only 4 times all year in 2004 - we've already exceeded that this year and May's not even over. Yikes.

Milwaukee has a lot of baseball left to play and they're vulnerable. They've gotten off to a much better start than the 2004 Cardinals, with a weaker team in a weaker division IMHO. Whether anyone will mount a charge is the question - I think if anyone does put heat on them in September they might fold.

by wildman on May 17, 2007 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions

If memory serves me...

interleague play is when we really took off in 2004 (maybe it was 2005).

by cardzfanbub on May 17, 2007 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Pythag standings...

Brewers 23-17
Cubs 22-16
Stros 20-19
Reds 20-21
Bucs 15-24
Cards 14-24

This is how the teams have played so far, luck aside, and it's a fairly good indication of how the season is going to proceed, imo.

by guayzimi on May 17, 2007 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Look futher than that though

Are Fielder and Hardy really going to both smack 50+ homeruns this season?

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on May 17, 2007 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions

If Cards are less than 10 over .500 by mid-July

Let's face it: The Cubs and Brewers are both stronger teams than the Cardinals now. Milwaukee has very good pitching and defense and a balanced attack of younger, more resilient, healthier hitters who are entering their prime. The Cubs' win total is well under what their run differential would indicate. Expect regression to the mean to make them distinctly more successful than they have been so far, especially if Zimbrano gets back to form. In the last 10 games the Cubs have started to put it together.

Given the strength of the NL East, the wild card is likely to come from that division, so the Cardinals will have to pass both Chicago and Milwaukee to get into the playoffs. If St. Louis is less than 10 games over .500 by mid-July, I'd expect a house cleaning to prepare for 2008.

Here are some potential deals that could make the Cardinals a younger, healthier, stronger, more balanced team again next year:

Looper, over 30, may well never see his stock higher than it will be by July, if he continues to perform anywhere close to his level so far. If so, he could be attractive enough to a contender to bring a younger, talented player to the Cardinals. (Mulder should be healthy enough to take Looper's place in the rotation in July, even if he will probably perform well below his usual high standard while he is strengthening his arm and getting his mechanics back together for 2008.

Encarnacion, also over 30, has shown in his early performance off his rehab that he just might be ready to have the kind of warm-month performance he had last summer, when he slugged over .500, If so, he could be attractive enough to a contender to bring a younger player with higher potential. Ankiel could be promoted to take Juan's place in the outfield (perhaps in a platoon with Wilson or Ludwick).

Rolen, over 30, might be tired enough of the atmosphere in the Cardinal clubhouse by July to agree to a trade to the Dodgers (or another Southern California contender). Scott could bring excellent prospects to restock the Cardinal system at the AAA level. The Dodgers might offer SS prospect Chin-Lung Hu, for example. Spezio could take over 3b the rest of the year.

Eckstein, over 30, seems destined to be gone next year. He could be attractive to a contender by July. Miles could fill in at SS the rest of the year and Edgar Gonzales could be promoted from AAA.

Isringhausen, over 30 with a hip held together by modern medicine, could be extremely attractive to a contender in the stretch run.

Given how savvy a trader Jocketty is with his knack for buying low and selling high, some combination of such trades could make the Cardinals significantly younger, healthier, and speedier and just as talented potentially, plus it could position the team to acquire some high quailty free agents this winter using the large reservoir of cash saved by divesting several large contracts in these trades.

by CardsWin on May 17, 2007 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions

I like your ideas

One quick note: Izzy, Rolen, and Edmonds all have NT clauses.

by Phyrkrakr on May 17, 2007 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, Rolen might refuse a trade. Izzy, too.

Yes, your point is well taken. Rolen might refuse a trade. But after his rift with Tony last fall and with the sour climate in the clubhouse this year, I wonder if he might find a trade to a contender in sunny Southern California attractive. Same with Isringhausen, who may prefer to exit the Cardinals on a high note, going from a struggling team to a contender bound for the playoffs, rather than playing out a year of disappointment, then clearing out his locker after the last day of the season, with no playoff in store and with the uncertainty about where he will sign during the winter.

by CardsWin on May 17, 2007 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions

He won't

if he thinks Tony's going to leave -- as Bernie suggests.

by chuckb on May 17, 2007 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions

The Cubs have gotten it together over the last

10 games? They are now 4-6 over those last 10 games. They've had chances to win a few of the ones they have lost but the same could be said for the Cardinals.

An Aramis Ramirez injury that is the only thing right now keeping the Cubs away from being in the cellar of the NL Central. If he goes, they lose his power and lose any protection they have for Derrek Lee.

Furthermore, why would Scott Rolen waive his no-trade clause in response to Tony, when Bernie's article today and Larry's analysis on it have the team realizing this is Tony's last year?

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on May 17, 2007 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Since Cubs/Cards meeting before Hancock's death

Cardinals
48 RS
73 RA
6-9 W-L

Opponents Current combined record:
.542

Cubs
73 RS
69 RA
8-8 W-L

Opponents Current combined record:
.488

Cubs went 6-3 against the Pirates and Nationals and 2-5 against the Phillies and Mets.

The Cardinals went 2-4 against Milwaukee and Houston and 4-5 against the Rockies, Padres, Dodgers.

The Cubs are playing better baseball, I agree but they also did most of their damage against OUR upcoming opponents. I'd like to see the Cardinals experience that same type of success.

The Cubs have a brutal stretch coming up, playing 29 out of their next 35 games against teams that have a .500 record or better as of today.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on May 17, 2007 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Some fun

Thought someone else might get a laugh out of this Ichiro quote in USA today...

Tiger Woods' athleticism: "Tiger is a great golfer, but ... when you say athlete, I think of Carl Lewis. When you talk about (golfers or race-car drivers), I don't want to see them run. It's the same if you were to meet a beautiful girl and go bowling. If she's an ugly bowler, you are going to be disappointed."

Not sure what it means, i guess i would be fine with a hot chick that was an ugly bowler, but that's just me. I really enjoyed the quote though... Ichiro - what a card!

The article is worth a spin - http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/mariners/2007-05-15-cover-ichiro_N.htm

by Lawless on May 17, 2007 11:33 AM EDT reply actions

Hey lboros...

I dunno about the front office changes, but what do you think about LaRussa leaving an obviously struggling Wells in to face Betemit after 5 innings and 120 pitches?

Some of TLR's decisions recently seem completely batty, but maybe I'm overlooking something.

by guayzimi on May 17, 2007 12:18 PM EDT reply actions

i haven't seen the game yet

although i will look at it soon. just looking at the box score, it seems defensible that he left wells in there. they were not hitting him hard; he had a 9-1 groundball/flyball ratio, and he was missing a lot of bats. in the three batters leading up to the betemit homer, wells had induced 3 ground balls and yielded one intentional walk. he had a two-run lead and was facing a .190 hitter; and tony's only real option at that point in the game was brian falkenborg, because the bullpen had thrown 5.1 innings the previous night.

the result looks bad, but to my eye it was a justifiable decision to leave wells in the game.

by lboros on May 17, 2007 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions

check that

one-run lead

by lboros on May 17, 2007 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

120+ pitches a 6 walks later...

he should've been outta there.

by silent_bob on May 17, 2007 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Leaving him in to start the fifth

is one thing, but leaving him in to face a hot lefty with TJ warm in the pen is another thing entirely. With the tying run on third, one run already in, and a lefty at the plate, you have to pull him there. Wells had thrown 120 pitches at that point, and was clearly done. Yeah, there were two out, but one of those was a lucky play that we made to get the runner on third out at the plate. He was toast by the time Betemit came up.

by Phyrkrakr on May 17, 2007 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Also,

he was just looking gassed by the time he gave up that homerun. His face looked exhausted, and his pitches were looking slower and flat.

In the end, it's one thing to do this in May, when the team is already not doing well in the standings.

But this just reminded me too strongly of playoffs past, when Tony would just leave guys on the mound to die for no good reason...

by Valatan on May 17, 2007 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions

betemit = a hot lefty?

he was hitting .183 coming into the at-bat . . . . last year he hit .241. he lost his job to andy laroche, a guy who had a .676 ops in the PCL. this was not babe ruth at the plate.

again, the alternatives were not pretty. would you really burn tyler johnson in that situation --- against a bad hitter in the 5th inning of a one-run game? if you do that, then you may find yourself forced to use a right-hander against a better hitter (pierre or gonzalez or ethier) in a higher-leverage situation later in the game.

obviously the situation could have been played differently, but i don't think yanking the pitcher there was an obvious decision.

by lboros on May 17, 2007 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Even though he's slumping

he's slugging .491 against righties this season. He went 2-4 when he started the first game, and Wells was tanked. Hot might be a reach, but it's not like Randy Wolf was at the plate.

by Phyrkrakr on May 17, 2007 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions

having now watched the inning on mlb.tv

i am more certain that la russa made a defensible call. wells was still throwing hard --- his last 3 pitches of the night (to furcal, after the homer) were 91, 91, and 92 mph, and his pitches had good movement. the dodger hitters were struggling to make contact against wells in that inning --- gonzalez hit a weak bouncer leading off; martin hit a two-hopper that found a hole (barely); and la roche hit a 50-foot tapper to 3d.

so i don't agree with the opinion that he was gassed. he threw it very well in that inning, and as betemit came to the plate wells had only thrown 15 pitches in the 5th (not counting the 3 intentional balls, which aren't really "pitches"). it wasn't unreasonable to think that he could get the guy out.

but he made a mistake and the guy hit a homer.

by lboros on May 17, 2007 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

gassed or not

125 pitches in 5 innings

is some serious pitch counts within an inning. The overall total may not be bad but he had some lengthy innings.

And his stuff wasn't the problem in the game; it was, again, that he had little idea where his pitches were going. He had zero control over the strike zone last night. He's going to have two symptoms of his poor command: high walks and gopher balls.

i don't think it was a defensible (non)move by TLR. It was time for Wells to go.

by azruavatar on May 17, 2007 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions

but in the inning in question

wells was in control. the only walk he issued was an ibb, and he was inducing weak contact.

if he had walked the bases loaded or was giving up line drive after line drive, that would be one thing. but that wasn't the case.

by lboros on May 17, 2007 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions

"Missing alot of bats"

= "walking 6 men in 4.2 innings"

In Albert we trust.

by Mr Redbird on May 17, 2007 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Cemeteries are full

of indispensable people. Move forward or die, I say.

by MdRedbirdFreak on May 17, 2007 12:42 PM EDT reply actions

apparently the mets

want to can Lastings Milledge...could be a good time to buy low

not sure how to do a link post:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172007/sports/mets/last_straw_mets_jay_greenberg.htm?page=1.

by MarcGldstn on May 17, 2007 12:55 PM EDT reply actions

Why did Tudor retire?

I was 9 at the time so I don't really remember the details of 1990 all that brilliantly.

For some reason I thought he retired later than that, so I looked up his stats. He did retire in 1990, but that year he put up a 12-4 record with a 2.40 ERA.

Was he injured, or was there some other reason?

by bailorg on May 17, 2007 1:27 PM EDT reply actions

he was

pretty injury plagued. If I wanted to be a pessimist, I'd say he and Carp may be very similar.

Everybody off the bandwagon!

by Alxfritz on May 17, 2007 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah.

I have this sinking feeling you're on to something there. I don't think Branch Rickey would have extended Carp last winter...I think he would have traded him.

by lordsummer on May 17, 2007 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions

He was injured and Whitey Herzog left that year.

by Zubin on May 17, 2007 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions

DeWitt and smart $

I know DeWitt takes flack for being "tight" and "cheap", but I have never felt that way. I think our budget is substantial and DeWitt & Co. seem willing to spend big money and possibly increase payroll for the right players. He has turned this organization around from the way he found it. I really feel he simply is a smart business man who wants to be smart in the way he spends his payroll. Therefore, I'm not surprised at all by the promotion of SABR minded business men and the change to develop a better farm system. I am all for it.

by RedbirdRay on May 17, 2007 1:40 PM EDT reply actions

Agreed - Kinda

Is that you Wild Bill Dewitt? J/K. I think you are correct, in most cases there weren't "well spent" dollar options out there.

I do wish we would have opened the coffers a bit for AJ or sent Marquis to the Diamandbacks for Quentin and Vazquez (if that deal really existed). I heard dollars were holding up those deals.... Hindsight is 20/20.

I remember thinking constantly in the early 90s that I couldn't believe we drafted Paul Coleman before Frank Thomas. They McGwire came along and I was glad we drafted Paul Coleman. The McGwire years were worth it imho.

by Lawless on May 17, 2007 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions

To me

sabermetrics is the future in how baseball organizations will be run. I think, in 20 years or so, EVERY baseball organization will be predominantly sabermetrically-inclined. This would be an excellent change for baseball, IMO. I'm not really sure I believe the claim that Tony analyzes stats for "two to three hours per day" based on some of the decisions he makes. I'd like to know what these stats sheets could say that would justify ever giving So Taguchi 350-400+ PA per season, or giving P-Dub extensive time against RHP. As far as Walt goes, he makes some great, great deals (see: Edmonds/Rolen) and then some really horrible ones. For example, what exactly did we get out of the Luna/Belliard trade? We got rid of a young, above-average 2B/Utility for a more expensive, below-average veteran. Belliard performed like crap for us, too. And what is with the Jabba-the-Hutt-like tounge movement when he comes up to bat? I wouldn't cast the Mulder deal in one of the "bad" Jocketty decisions. Nobody knew Mulder would perform like he has, and Haren and Calero were, for the most part, unproven.

by VORP is too nerdy on May 17, 2007 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions

I think you are ignoring the people aspects of

managing.

First off, in order to keep guys sharp when you really do need them, you have to give them playing time when their presence may be less than optimal. Secondly undoubtedly Managers reward hard work and good attitudes.

Personally I thought the Belli trade was pretty fair. Where is Luna anyway?

by Zubin on May 17, 2007 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Below average?

Belliard defensively was better than Luna, Miles, etc and I'd venture a guess based on what I've seen so far this year, better than Miles.

His offense wasn't very good, I'll grant you that, but he hit more HRs and drove in more RBIs than Luna in fewer ABs.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on May 17, 2007 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Being in DC

I get to see a fair amount of Belliard. I went to a game a couple weeks ago where they were playing the Mets. Belliard was the guy who really got hits (two doubles off the wall I think) to give the Nats the lead.

Had it not been for Chad Cordero blowing a save (him coming out is worse than watching Izzy) he would have won them that game.

I have a hard time imagining either of our shortstops getting those kind of hits.

by dontEATnachos on May 17, 2007 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions

what we got from the Belliard trade

was a World Championship. Belly didn't hit much but he did have a key RBI in Game 7 vs. the Mets and came up large (couldn't help myself) defensively throughout the playoffs. I wasn't crazy about the trade either, but it worked.

by chuckb on May 17, 2007 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Who is to say

Luna couldn't have performed equally as well in the playoffs? It's not like Belliard was a stud or anything... save for the NLDS.

Look at the stats. Belliard just plain sucked. Way, way below average offensively. Even if he were the best 2B in the world, his defense couldn't make up for that kind of terrible, horrible offense.

We got a world championship because of great pitching and great hitting by Yadier Molina in particular. I don't think we'd be losing much by taking Belliard out of the equation.

by VORP is too nerdy on May 18, 2007 2:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Luna

Yeah Luna is great, I'm sure he is a hell of a triple A player now.

by gdowdy3 on May 18, 2007 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions

tyler norrick had a no hitter

into the 6th inning today . . . he's pitching awfully well at palm beach.

by lboros on May 17, 2007 2:32 PM EDT reply actions

Norrick and the Palm Beach Staff

Yep - Norrick is looking especially good given the number of bats he is missing (keeping hitters to an ~ 200 BA is encouraging). That said, I know the FSL is a pitchers league.

Any idea where I would get stats like average runs scored? Either our whole starting pitching staff is tearing it up in High A or a 3.XX ERA in the FSL is unremarkable... Norrick's secondary stats put him in an elite class but really the whole rotation is performing amazingly well on the surface.

Hamilton took a walk today --- WOOHOO!!!

by Lawless on May 17, 2007 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions

one of the reasons that

Rasmus, Jay and Anderson skipped High-A is that it's a run suppressing environment. Here's a link to the minor league park factors which erik has on the right hand sidebar over at Future Redbirds

by azruavatar on May 17, 2007 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Silly question,,,

but if I read park factors accurately then a park adjusted ERA would simply be the actual ERA (Say Norrick's is 2.5) divided by the park factor (0.87 in Palm Beach's case)...

So my true ERA is 2.5/0.87 or about 2.75. The funniest part of that is if you adjust Hamilton's OPS (getting into scary territory here) it would 800/.87 or like 860 - Heck he is ready for AA??!!!

by Lawless on May 17, 2007 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions

right

by azruavatar on May 17, 2007 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions

give him some time

Hamilton has mashed in run suppressive parks before. After hurricane katrina, hit, Tulane was moved to Zephyr field where he put up his fantastic numbers. Zephyr field in AAA is like Petco's evil cousin comparatively. Plus, I'd really like to see Hamilton learn to take a walk.

Future Redbirds

by erik on May 18, 2007 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions

when i talked to kevin goldstein

he named norrick as a sleeper. nice to see him turn in a dominant performance.

Future Redbirds

by erik on May 17, 2007 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions

A disturbing trend?

When I wrote up my three-part piece about MLB evolving into the English Premier League, I observed a disturbing trend.

Using the relegation system detailed in the post, four teams were placed on probation each season in preparation for the 16-team baseball premier league.

In 2003, the Mets had one of the four worst records not already on probation, and would have been placed in the "bad box". Three years earlier, they were the NL participant in the World Series.
In 2004, Arizona blundered their way into probation, three years after winning it all.
In 2005, the Giants qualified for relegation and, again, they fell short in the Fall Classic three seasons earlier.
In 2006, Florida was among the two worst records (reduced from the previous four), following their World Championship season in '03.

I think we all remember who the NL entry was in 2004. And among the 16 teams that would make up the 2007 Premier League (ATL, BOS, CHA, DET, HOU, LAA, LAD, MIN, NYN, NYA, OAK, PHI, SD, STL, TEX, TOR), the two worst records so far this year belong to Texas and St. Louis. If that held true all year, that would make five straight National League Champions that get "relegated" three seasons later.

A pure coincidence, based around mostly arbitrary decisions about a possibility that doesn't exist? A cautionary tale that the ultimate cost of getting to the World Series is falling into the bottom half of the league a few seasons later? Or a combination of both?

Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.

by Solanus on May 17, 2007 3:32 PM EDT reply actions

Actually, that is kind of a good thing

It tells me that the system works, at least in the NL and it is very difficult for a team to dominate year after year.

by Zubin on May 18, 2007 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions

Cubs just gave up 5

in the bottom of the 9th to lose 6-5. At least we're not alone in our suffering.

In Albert we trust.

by Mr Redbird on May 17, 2007 3:42 PM EDT reply actions

Mets plate 5

in the 9th to beat the Cubbies!

by stltrav09 on May 17, 2007 3:43 PM EDT reply actions

I thought Lou screwed it up

he put Dempster in a non-save situation and, when he continually sucked, refused to take him out until the Mets already scored four.

But the BCB guys are blaming Hendry and the bullpen - not Lou. I'm pretty sure we'd shove it to TLR more here.

by enoscountry on May 17, 2007 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions

If you have no one to turn to

sometimes you just have to pick someone and cross your fingers!

by chuckb on May 17, 2007 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions

My favorite thing...

in the blogosphere (aside from VEB, of course) is reading BCB when the Cubs are in full meltdown mode.

It's easily better than than a Cardinal win...

by guayzimi on May 17, 2007 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Me too

I'm not sure if I'd rather read the posts during a said meltdown than the Cards winning, but if we lose and it happens, it brightens my day a whole lot :)

In Albert we trust.

by Mr Redbird on May 17, 2007 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Cubs play 29 of next 35 games

against above .500 teams. The Marlins and Rangers are their only relief over that month long period.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on May 17, 2007 4:37 PM EDT reply actions

Cards play 19 of next 31

against sub .500 teams.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on May 17, 2007 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions

the ATL just DFA's Craig Wilson

any takers? story on usa today.com

would it hurt to dump K Dub for Wilson? he's not hitting that well, but I'm sure he's better than K Dub. plus he can play first and give Albert a couple weeks to get healthy. just a thought.

on today's topic, change is bad. there is no better Big 3, GM/Manager/Pitching coach combo in baseball than the one we have in the STL. if Dewitt & CO let them all go for a Billy Bean wannabe. then they are bigger morons than I could ever imagine. you can't push the Big 3 out the door. you just can't. unless the rumors are true and the boys from the Natti are going to sell the Cards. the team has never been worth more than it is right now after a WS, BuschIII, ticket sales, etc,etc. it could happen.

so say Walt & Tony walk, and Luhnow takes over. who does he bring in? The Secret Weapon is the popular choice. but is he really ready to be in charge? joe girardi? not likely, he's going to take over for Torre next year the Yanks. who else is out there that can do what Tony has done for us? no one. and there in no one, NO ONE that can replace Dave as the best pitching coach the world has EVER seen. you can't possiable replace the quality of people the Cards have running things on the field. IF they do push Walt,Tony and Dave out the door. the Cards won't be able to keep their winning ways that we have all come to know and love.

you know the old saying, "you don't know what you got till it's gone"? I'm afraid all of Cardinal Nation will find that out BIG TIME if the Big 3 don't come back.

The 2007 St.Louis Cardinals. Not Your Father's 04-05 Cardinals. And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on May 17, 2007 5:21 PM EDT reply actions

but there's a danger of the opposite happening

ie, a danger of la russa and duncan overstaying their welcome. that's what happened in oakland --- the juggernaut team of 88-90 got old, and 3 very bad seasons ensued in 1993 thru 1995. tony / dave left, and the team was back in contention by 1999.

that's not a knock against tony / dave --- it's just that they may or may not be the right guys to move this organization forward. they definitely were the right guys for the last decade, but that doesn't mean they're the right ones going forward.

i'm not stating an opinion, one way or the other. i just think it's a question that has to be weighed carefully and open-mindedly.

by lboros on May 17, 2007 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Additionally

in the next couple of years, perhaps this year, this team is going to undergo a major conversion from a veteran team to a young player team. To some degree it's already started, what with the young pitchers. Now I'm not one of those who believes that Tony and Dunc can't work w/ younger players, but I think that that will be the time for an across-the-board organizational change -- where the veteran staff is replaced by a younger staff.

It may not be necessary for Walt to leave then, but I think he'll choose to. I agree that those 3 are underappreciated -- even when they make questionable decisions, they're consistently among the very best in the game and it's very possible that we'll end up w/ someone like Lloyd McClendon. It'll just be incumbent on Walt or Luhnow to pick good people. Sometimes change is for the best even if the people being replaced are Hall of Famers.

by chuckb on May 17, 2007 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions

I think that Oquendo probably won't work out

Just based on the logic of my general rule of "don't manage for your former team." The fans have too many memories of you, and it will get weird. Larry Bowa, Alan Trammel, and Joe Torre all ended up in weird situations.

by Valatan on May 17, 2007 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions

the rule...

doesn't totally work with Ozzie Guillen. I know it has only been one really good year...but still.

by wrv18 on May 17, 2007 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Or Red

for that matter.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on May 17, 2007 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions

I think it has to start with Pete Rose's banning

so as to get rid of player-manager exceptions

by Valatan on May 17, 2007 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Not a buyer for Craig Wilson

I live in Atlanta and after watching Wilson mope his way around the diamond here I have no interest in seeing him wear the birds on the bat. His performance has been weak, his numbers awful and his body language screams "bad attitude."

In 58 AB's his avg/obp/slg this year are: .172/.304/.259. I guess you can say he still knows how to take a walk. I'd rather have Ludwick with upside.

by wildman on May 17, 2007 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions

I'd

take a flyer on Wilson. If he returns to career average he'd almost lead this current squad in OPS.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wilsocr03.shtml

by eglasier on May 18, 2007 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions

That's a big if in my mind

We already have that potential with our entire lineup except for Molina. If they just performed at career norms we'd be scoring way more runs. Let's not add another "hey, if he improves to career norms we'd by happy" kind of guy. If we add anyone, let's have confidence they can produce now. Wilson didn't produce well for the Yankees last year either (OPS of .613 in 104 AB's), and he would have received way more protection in that lineup than in Atlanta or St. Louis. If we did pick him up, who do we dump? The logical candidate is Ludwick and I'd rather see what he can do for us, especially with a higher upside potential in my mind.

by wildman on May 18, 2007 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions