BREAKING: Rolen for Glaus Swap Pending Physical
The Cardinals and Blue Jays are closing in on an exchange of their third basemen, major-league sources say, but both former All-Stars must pass physicals before a deal is completed.
Those physicals are no small issue since Rolen is coming off surgery on his right shoulder and Glaus surgery on his left foot.
While both players have agreed to waive their no-trade clauses, the differences in their contracts also might need to be resolved, most likely through a cash payment from the Cardinals to the Blue Jays.
Update [2008-1-12 14:31:1 by lboros]: well, here's another leg for the la-russa-runs-the-club theory to stand on . . . . glaus is clearly a better hitter than rolen at this point; he has outhomered and out-rbi'd rolen in each of the last 3 seasons, outslugged and out-OBP'd him in 2 of the last 3:| ab | hr | rbi | avg | obp | slg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| glaus 07 | 385 | 20 | 62 | .262 | .366 | .473 |
| rolen 07 | 392 | 8 | 58 | .265 | .331 | .398 |
| glaus 06 | 540 | 38 | 104 | .252 | .355 | .513 |
| rolen 06 | 521 | 22 | 95 | .296 | .369 | .518 |
| glaus 05 | 538 | 37 | 97 | .258 | .363 | .522 |
| rolen 05 | 196 | 5 | 28 | .235 | .323 | .383 |
he'd give the cardinals a true 30-hr bat (something rolen hasn't been since 2004), plus he's younger than rolen and is on a shorter contract, which is a good thing when you're discussing over-30 players with health issues.
UZR does not like glaus's glove, but all the other systems (PMR, enhanced ZR, dewan's +/-) have him as an above-average defender --- not quite as good as rolen, but within 5 runs a year or so. not sure why the blue jays would want to make this deal --- maybe glaus' foot problems are serious enough that they expect a precipitous decline --- but it looks like an advantageous move for the cards on every front. even if rolen and la russa were bosom buddies, this would be a good trade.
although i'd rather get back a young player like adam laroche . . . . . .
Update [2008-1-12 14:54:3 by lboros]: i just took a look at glaus's game log from last year. he abruptly stopped hitting in mid-july ---- went .220 / .333 / .384 over his last 44 games and then had season-ending surgery. maybe that's why the blue jays are ready to dump him.
0 recs |
168 comments
Comments
Are you kidding me?
I feel sick.
The SBNation's Atlanta Falcons Blog
by Dave the Falconer on Jan 12, 2008 1:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only one who likes the deal?
by matt reeder on Jan 12, 2008 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not just you
by roebirds on Jan 12, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no, i like it actually
by erik on Jan 12, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Blearghle
The SBNation's Atlanta Falcons Blog
by Dave the Falconer on Jan 12, 2008 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well, glaus is
i love the way he plays, but he seems like his skin is about as thick as as a slice of carl buddig pastrami.
by erik on Jan 12, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
preview button
i like it because the soap opera is over and pujols has some protection. i personally think rolen isn't going to ever become the hitter he was. and i like it because we don't feel like we're stuck w/him anymore.
what i don't like is how this whole thing shook out, and i'm not crazy about glaus and the whole peds thing.
hey, maybe they'll throw burnett it...now if you excuse me i'll be on the moon, eating spare ribs.
by erik on Jan 12, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rolen needed to go
The SBNation's Atlanta Falcons Blog
by Dave the Falconer on Jan 12, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice Carl Budding allusion
by Don Zero on Jan 12, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Glaus may be aging, but
My initial reaction to this was neutral to negative, but the more I think about it, the less negative I am. There are three key points. First, going forward, Glaus is more likely to be a plus than Rolen, even though Rolen was the better player up until now. That's true simply on health and age grounds, even if you ignore the chip on Rolen's shoulder and concentrate on the damage in the shoulder. Second, whether he's got the better future or not, TLR so thoroughly poisoned the well with that press conference that I'm surprised that it's even possible to talk about this trade straight up, let alone anything better. Third, it's not like the minors contain anything likely to represent a rebuilding-oriented alternative any time soon. I don't expect Craig to be able to stick at 3B owing to his brutal defense, any projection of Freese as better than just adequate must be considered wildly optimistic, and while I've heard good things about Arnoldi Cruz, he's a long way away.
So maybe I'm "neutral to positive" rather than "neutral to negative," but much depends on the exact terms. One thing sure: De Witzliak need to tell TLR that the next time he runs down one of his players in public while the front office is trying to move said player, he should terminate the press conference with "... and I resign."
by StanTheManFan on Jan 12, 2008 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the low road
by sportsman on Jan 12, 2008 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope...
I don't see much cash changin hands either.
by bobbyballgame1 on Jan 12, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rolen-Glaus
by akaitori on Jan 12, 2008 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Guess my
Makes sence, both players with ????. I don't think we should pick up a dime in the deal because Rolen is a better defender. I know I'm bias, want to see my Rolen jersey, but I think we should get a prospect or 2 back also.
New meat for VEB to rip and love all at the same time.
by That's a Winner on Jan 12, 2008 1:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Rolen gone
by roebirds on Jan 12, 2008 1:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm witholding judgement
At full health I'd take Rolen over Glaus any day of the week, but does anyone really think Rolen will ever be at full health again? Glaus has his own injury concerns, but a foot problem is less worrisome than Rolen's bum shoulder, and the move to natural grass should help him.
by stl tyler on Jan 12, 2008 1:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
withholding judgement as well...
On the down side, our pitching staff is still the 'pitch to contact' staff that relies heavily on oustanding defense. This worked when we had Pujols, Grudz, Renteria, Rolen, Sanders, Edmonds, Walker...but not so much when you replace those defensive studs with names like Ryan, Glaus, Duncan, Ankiel and Ludwick...
by TheFranchise9 on Jan 12, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
speaking of my signature...
by TheFranchise9 on Jan 12, 2008 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why I like it
The main reason I like it is because his deal ends one year earlier. It happens to be just the time Miguel Cabrera hits the free agent market. He has already expressed an interest in playing across the diamond from Albert. So as long as we can give him a competetive offer, I would think we have an edge there.
This may also depend on whether or not we are under new ownership at the time. Which I think we will be.
by fatbellyjefferson on Jan 12, 2008 1:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
2 Points
(note: I don't understand Rosenthal's article at this point. He says Glaus is GUARANTEED 24 million over the next two years and has a 11.25 million player option for 2009. I'm assuming this is a typo and should be 2010.)
2. I don't think you want to see what a "competitive" offer for Miguel Cabrera in two years is. Think Pujols money and then double it.
by Big Red on Jan 12, 2008 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's what I don't like......
by jillsinmo on Jan 12, 2008 1:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Its unavoidable
by fatbellyjefferson on Jan 12, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it bothers me immensely......
And how unfair is it to the guys who DON'T use PED's to have to compete for their jobs with those who do?
Like I said, I know I'm one of the few people who care about this issue, so this is all I'm going to say, because I know I'm almost irrational about it because it makes me so mad.
Everyone have a nice day.
by jillsinmo on Jan 12, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately
by Big Red on Jan 12, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
big mac land
I would suggest not supporting STL and the Big Mac Land if you don't like PED's.
by ICbirdfan on Jan 12, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think more people care than what you think
by saladdays on Jan 12, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate
However, if the Cardinals were to simply say "We don't want ANY PED users on this team" then they'd have no team. That is the only way to make sure they don't have any if you follow that policy to its logical conclusion. It is a simple fact that no one has any clue who all has/will use PEDs at some point. I mean, Brian Roberts and Gary Bennett were named in the Mitchell Report for crying out loud! Those are among the most random people to be PED users I've ever seen! What happens if it comes out that Skip Schumaker(first name I could think of) used PEDs? What proof do you use to boot him off the roster? The word of some reporter with an axe to grind? A guy who worked out with him one time a few years ago in Podunkville Gym?
I'm not saying that the Cardinals or any other team needs to just throw their hands up in the air on this one. They need to do whatever they can to educate their players on the dangers of PEDs. They need to have strict penalties for anybody caught using (failed drug test). But they can't just start making decisions based on past PED use. It's the FO's responsibility to put a winning product on the field. That's it. No matter what we fans say about "class" or "professionalism" or whatever, that's just a collection of buzzwords that get in the way of objective business decisions. The Giants went to the WS with Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds on their team, and you didn't see SF fans up in arms b/c they were winning sans class.
For the record, I am a parent as well and see what you are saying about "protecting your kids" and what not. But that's our job, not the St. Louis Cardinals' job. Its frustrating knowing that our kids are so hypnotized by TV and the crap they see on it. But it's my job to explain to them why what they see in unrealistic and innapropriate for real-life behavior. I'm lucky, b/c my two oldest kids are girls who play basketball and volleyball and could give a crap about baseball. But if my son ever wants to know why he shouldn't use 'roids, the first thing I plan to do is talk about Lyle Alzado and Chris Benoit.
BTW...This post is brutal. I started about 4 sentences with "but." What is wrong with me?
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 12, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
jill, I know how you feel...
by tbell61 on Jan 12, 2008 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not as though
I'm sure there's several Cardinals who have used PEDs in the past, beyond Ankiel and now Glaus. Just because they weren't named in the Mitchell report doesn't mean they were innocent.
I mean, Larry Bigbie for cryin' out loud. He should have got a refund from his dealer.
by stl tyler on Jan 12, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I care about it Jilsinmo
by ridgesee on Jan 12, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, thanks for replying to my concerns.
by jillsinmo on Jan 12, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then stop watching baseball
by Jhusk on Jan 12, 2008 11:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ped-0-philes
by sportsman on Jan 12, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good deal for both teams.
by maurerdj on Jan 12, 2008 1:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I like it too
by mikedallas23 on Jan 12, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
nice work la russa
however, i like this trade, if only to be done with the entire stupid soap opera.
at least it's not russell branyon...
by age3in82 on Jan 12, 2008 1:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I was so excited to see that Cards and Jays
This is a sideways move. Not a bad one, not particularly a good one.
We sure do like collecting PED users, though.
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 12, 2008 2:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Sideways
However, if you're looking at potential to improve, power and the removal of a major sourse of drama, then it's very much a positive move IMO.
by Big Red on Jan 12, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 12, 2008 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
by Big Red on Jan 12, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
great comment,
by ridgesee on Jan 12, 2008 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Beat me to it
After all we missed out on Darren Erstad.
But Bartolo Colon is still out there if need to get our Angel fix.
by That's a Winner on Jan 12, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Any Angels in the Outfield?
by jillsinmo on Jan 12, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm so infuriated with the Cardinals and Larussa
Where is the loyalty now with these new owners? I think the Cards need new owners that want to spend and win.
Trading Edmonds made some sense... But he was still a fan favorite and people came to the ballpark to watch Jimmy Baseball play the outfield like no one has played since the Say Hey Kid.
Now we trade Rolen, my personal favorite cardinal since Ozzie Smith. Why??? Because he plays the game correct, he works his tail off every game. He shows up everyday to win. He plays the hot corner like no one I have ever seen. And he doesn't show boat. How can we trade a borderline Hall of Famer like this? Just because he hates the manager... BTW Larussa is the one in the wrong here. He should have apologized for treating a veteran the way that he did. He just let the problem fester.
Larussa is a great manager. He is a Hall of Fame manager. But the Cardinals can win without Larussa, they cannot win without Scottie Baseball. His defense saved are horrible pitching staff. He was invaluable during our 06 World Series. He should have been the MVP actually.
I don't see the Cardinals filling many seats next year. The only reason to go is to watch Pujols hit and Wainwright pitch. The rest is going to be to hard to watch.
by jamieoverkamp on Jan 12, 2008 2:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
JED and Rolen...
i don't really know what "loyalty" means in the context of a multi-billion dollar industry, but i would suggest that JED and Rolen were the ones who were disloyal, by telling the organization that they didn't want to play for their manager any longer and asking for trades.
in my opinion, there is no reason to be upset with the Cardinals organization over these trades. they have improved the long-term chances for success, and probably the short-term chances as well (remember: JED's back-ups out-performed him last season). the Cardinals are trying to do right by the fans. the fans just need to understand that it's going to take a little time.
by kindred on Jan 12, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed...
by tbell61 on Jan 12, 2008 8:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wanna take
I love how for some fans loyalty is a one way street--it's the OWNERS that have to be loyal to the players and cater to their every need. Yeah, that's fair.
by beanocook on Jan 12, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Loyalty...
by cardsrul on Jan 12, 2008 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I criticize him ridgsee...
- The current Scott Rolen is not a HOFer. He's barely above replacement level with the season he put up last year. He's not one of the 5 best third baseman currently playing in the major leagues and the list of the active elite at that position is awful short. (A-Rod, Chipper, Wright, M. Cabrera, A. Ramirez, that's it). Just look at the HOF standards ranking for Rolen at baseball-reference. He isn't remotely close right now. I don't see him ever getting back to 2003 or 2004 numbers...even if he did they wouldn't be markedly better offensively than Glaus.
- Both Rolen and LaRussa are in the wrong. Fault lies on both sides of the isle on this one; LaRussa for putting it out in the open, Scott for continuing to pout about it. Rolen was upset when he got benched in the playoffs? Tough shit Scott, your backup was hitting the hide off of the ball and was a better option at the time, it was simply a "better for the team" decision. A person who "plays the right way" would recognize that and not create a distraction for the team.
- Both Edmonds and Rolen asked to be traded. The team obliged. I don't remember Ozzie ever asking to be traded to a contender in his late years, but I'm sure that the team would have been happy to oblige him for his years of service. Loyalty is such a bunch of bullshit: Fans want players to be loyal to a team that lowballs them on money, and would cut them in a second if they stop producing. Fans want teams to be loyal to players even though fans have a quicker trigger than club management about poor play. Jeff Suppan got BOOED at a regular season game I was at in 2006. Let's stop pretending that loyalty means anything. It's business, let's treat it as such.
- Why would people not show up to watch this ballclub? Are you kidding? Fans love home runs, Glaus hits a lot of those. More than Rolen has hit in his career. There are a lot of young players with good upside, a potential superstar in the minors, and a 1st ballot HOFer on the roster. Saying you aren't going to watch is one thing, saying fans won't show up to watch this club is quite another.
by fourstick on Jan 12, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good to hear from you fourstick
by ridgesee on Jan 12, 2008 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
C'mon
I have grown so tired of fans trying to take the moral high ground, claiming the Cardinals have a moral obligation to field a PED-free team. I don't think this issue is a moral or emotional one, myself, but I suppose it is for some people. However, aside from the problems of knowing who took PEDs, for how long, their legality, and weight of the evidence, these concerns are a mile wide and an inch deep. I guarantee these "morally conscious" fans you allude to were cheering just as hard as anyone else when Big Mac was hitting monster HRs, when Rick Ankiel was hitting homers last year, and will be cheering along side everyone else if the Cards and their former PED-using players make the playoffs next year (or the year after that, or the year after that). Stand on your morals if you want and don't watch the team or cheer for suspected users -- but you don't simply get the benefit of standing on a moral high ground by making a post on a blog.
You can't have it both ways -- you can't make "emotional comments" based on "moral concerns" if those comments and concerns aren't backed up by facts and at the same time complain about other posters arguing against you. Emotional comments and "moral concerns" don't get a free pass -- they get the same treatment as all other posts on this site; all are open to scrutiny and debate.
by Ray Lankford on Jan 12, 2008 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right ray langford
by ridgesee on Jan 12, 2008 7:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not trying to be snobbish...
by fourstick on Jan 13, 2008 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lecturing...
I have posted on this site more than one time that I have always liked Scott Rolen as a player, and I wish him the very best in Toronto, but that doesn't mean the deal is bad for the team or for the players involved. I think everyone wins in this situation, except maybe the Blue Jays unless they get some cash in the deal.
by fourstick on Jan 13, 2008 8:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
excellent, excellent
jamieoverkamp: as a teenager i had a similar emotional response when willie mcgee was traded. the following year it hurt seeing him in an a giants uni. maturity and time will remedy this. it ain't easy, but you'll get over it.
by _pistol_ on Jan 12, 2008 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rolen was
As for him asking to leave, that doesn't preclude the issues the original poster raised wrt LaRussa. In fact, it strengthens it, if anything. Where you lay the blame there is another matter.
I'm more interested in the fact that the Cardinals brought LaRussa back knowing it would be an issue, no matter who is "right".
by plh903 on Jan 13, 2008 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The stats back me up on that one....
That is the definition of barely above replacement level.
Glaus' 2007 VORP: 20.5
Keep in mind both got hurt and had relatively the same amount of healthy AB's last season.
by fourstick on Jan 13, 2008 8:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I totally disagree
Rolen is being traded b/c his shoulder was hurt, got benched, and pouted about it for a year. The dude is a grown-ass man, not some little boy. Surely he should get about half of the blame with TLR for their relationship going into the shitter. I highly doubt he's being traded b/c he "doesn't show boat" as you suggest. I agree that TLR is in the wrong here too for not handling the situation a little more privately and in a more professional manner, but a 30+ year old man pouting and holding grudges is a bit problematic, don't you think?
I don't get what you're saying here RE: Edmonds. That the FO should have held on to him so the fans could see him go off into the sunset? The guy is a baseball player, not a zoo animal that you hold on to for the amusement of the fan base. He asked to be traded b/c he didn't want to be a platoon player at this point. If they HADN'T traded him, that would have seemed awful jealous for the FO. Besides, the Cardinals have several exciting/young players who are better than him right now. The FO owes it to the fans to put a good product out there, not to put a bunch of "aw shucks" fan favorites who stink on the field.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 12, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For crying out loud
Its great that you want to see Rolen and Edmonds retire as Cardinals, but they didn't want to. You can't hold that against the organization.
You think this year will be hard to watch? Yeah, maybe it will. But no more so than last year, when we had our heros Rolen and Edmonds.
I really don't mean to be offensive. Don't want to watch the Cards next year? Cool. Don't. But I'm willing to bet that as soon as the club can cultivate another great player, you'll start watching again and all this fuss over Rolen and Edmonds will be forgotten.
by Ray Lankford on Jan 12, 2008 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
according to Cot's...
so, basically, the Cards are saving $12mn in 2010, although it looks like they'll be sending some cash over to compensate.
Glaus' OPS+ the past three seasons: 126, 122, 120. Rolen's OPS+ the past three seasons: 84, 126, 89.
Rolen's defense is only valuable if he's on the field, and he has averaged only 104 games played the past three seasons.
i think i like this deal. it continues Mo's trend of trying to get younger, and frees up some future cash. as a bonus, the TLR/ScoRo saga will finally be over.
by kindred on Jan 12, 2008 2:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Glaus
Also, we don't have a 3B prospect knocking on the door until at least 2009, so it's not like Glaus blocks anyone. And it helps keep us at least competitive in 2008 instead of going into full rebuilding mode with whatever mediocre prospects Rolen would fetch in return. Overall, if Glaus is healthy, good trade.
Note that Glaus logged 8 games at SS in 2006. Maybe we can plug him in there? Heheheh
by siddfynch on Jan 12, 2008 2:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Glauss at SS
by bdief on Jan 12, 2008 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You couldn't be anymore wrong with every point
You are dead wrong.
I understand and respect your fandom of Scott Rolen, but you're way wrong here.
Tony LaRussa IS a hall of fame baseball manager. No doubts about it.
Scott Rolen is NOT a Hall of fame third baseman. He could have been if he hadn't gotten hurt, but he has absolutely no chance of Hof induction right now. Btw, Edmonds is MUCH closer to being a hall of famer than Rolen is and ever will be.
He's a third baseman with 261 homeruns. Not even close.
And it's that loyalty to players that has gotten this team in its predicament that its currently in. Having ageing ballplayers on the team just so they can retire as Cardinals flys in the face of having a competing ballclup every year.
And you can't cry about loyalty to players and how they should go into the hall as cardinals and then say you think the Edmonds trade 'made some sense'.
And to your last point. Busch III will sell out virtually, if not every, home game. That's pretty much a given.
by Big Red on Jan 12, 2008 2:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
jamieoverkamp
Just to clarify, this is in response to jamieoverkamp.
by Big Red on Jan 12, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
also... Glaus is a known steriod user.
Here is the SI article below.
By Luis Fernando Llosa and L. Jon Wertheim, SI.com
Former World Series MVP and four-time All-Star Troy Glaus, currently a third baseman for the Toronto Blue Jays, received multiple shipments of performance-enhancing steroids through an allegedly illegal internet distribution network, according to information obtained by SI.
A source in Florida with knowledge of the client list of Signature Pharmacy, an Orlando-based compound pharmacy, alleges that between September 2003 and May 2004, multiple shipments of nandrolone and testosterone were sent to Glaus at a Corona, Calif., address that traces to the player. Though the information only pertains to receipt and not actual use of steroids, both nandrolone and testosterone were on Major League Baseball's banned list at the time.
Glaus, then with the Angels, missed much of the 2003 season with a tear in his right rotator cuff and frayed labrum and underwent season-ending shoulder surgery after attempting a comeback in 2004.
The prescriptions, written in Glaus' name, were obtained through New Hope Health Center, a California-based anti-aging clinic that advertises the sale of anabolic steroids and human growth hormones on its Web site. The prescription was processed by Signature. The prescribing physician was Ramon Scruggs, M.D. According to the Medical Board of California, as of March 2007, Scruggs has been on probation and is prohibited from prescribing drugs over the internet. He also was reportedly involved in a lawsuit with Mobile-based Applied Pharmacy, which, ironically, was the subject of a previous multi-agency raid. (Contacted through New Hope and given the chance to comment on Friday, Scruggs responded with expletives and ended the conversation abruptly.)
by jamieoverkamp on Jan 12, 2008 2:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm now going to back off you since
But just to make a point. The Cardinals are one of the few teams that are at the focal point of the steroid investigation.
Just to list a few names:
Tony LaRussa
Mark McGwire
Rick Ankiel
Cody McKay
Darryl Kile (Mitchell Report, right?)
etc, etc.
by Big Red on Jan 12, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Big Red
by ridgesee on Jan 12, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Please stop the personal attacks
by k randolph on Jan 12, 2008 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree ,K randolph
by ridgesee on Jan 12, 2008 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I didn't realize
However, according to these responses i see that it apparantly is, so I appoligize.
by Big Red on Jan 12, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats good Big Red,
by ridgesee on Jan 12, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That was Condescending and uncalled for
I am coming around to this deal somewhat, but I think jamieoverkamp makes a great point with the steroid issue. Anabolic steroids are a bit different than HGH in my mind. None of the players you mentioned were linked to the former.
by MRCARD on Jan 12, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Say what you will or believe whatever you want, but Tony LaRussa is at the epicenter of this whole thing. From his days at Oakland all the way down to Cody McKay.
I mention McKay simply because he was named in the Mitchell Report. I don't think the Report was specifically about HGH only, so we are unsure of which PED he was taking.
Oh, and he just so happens to be the son of our first base coach and one that has been a close friend and employee of one Tony LaRussa and Mark McGwire all the way back to those days in Oakland where the steroids seemed to flow like a river.
To perpetuate the fantasy that the Cardinals are some high and mighty orginazation that is somehow above all of this is not only misguided but an act of completely turning a blind eye to a very dark situation.
by Big Red on Jan 12, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Steroids vs. HGH
by MRCARD on Jan 13, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Check your facts Big Red
Ok, now that I feel I have defending off your attack I can post about your names that you listed.
LaRussa - Last I checked he doesn't play baseball, so I'm not sure why he would take steroids. Yes he got a DWI, but we were talking about that.
McGwire - I realize he was the most obvious person you could bring up, and I'm glad you did. There's nothing anyone can say about McGwire that someone hasn't already brought up. Plus he's retired.
Ankiel - Was in the Mitchell report and admitted to using HGH, which was prescribed by a legit doctor and has been removed from possible trouble from the MLB. (read the mitchell report this is in there)
McKay - Was one of the players I was talking about that used it before, but he's not on the Cardinals and probably never will be again.
Kile - You're joking right? Tell me you've actually read the Mitchell Report. You must not have because he's not in it. He was on that leaked fake version that listed Pujols and a bunch of other players that weren't on the report.
Next time check your facts, especially before you attack someone.
BTW how ancient are you?
by jamieoverkamp on Jan 12, 2008 9:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At the risk of fanning the flames . . .
by Ray Lankford on Jan 12, 2008 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends...
by MRCARD on Jan 13, 2008 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're not really helping your position
Since you are having a hard time understanding why I listed the players I listed, I'll try to clear things up for you on last time.
1. Tony LaRussa. Now I understand you probably weren't born yet, but Mr. LaRussa once coached the mighty Oakland A's (Athletics to us old-timers). Something of note about those A's is that team is known to be one of the biggest abusers of steroids in an era of major steroid use.
And do you know who was in charge of that operation? Yup, Tony LaRussa, Dave Duncan and Dave McKay.
Fastfoward roughly 10 years and you have the St. Louis Cardinals and a certain lumberjack of a first baseman who just happens to become the all-time single season home run king. And then later, when the good story of the downtrodden ex-pitching phenom turned powerhitting outfielder is exposed as a user of HGH.
And do you know who was in charge of that operation? Yup, Tony LaRussa, Dave Duncan and Dave McKay.
These "substances" and big stories seem to follow these three guys and AWFUL lot, don't ya think?
- McGwire. Just because he's retired doesn't change reality. He's one of the biggest users EVER and was associated with the Big 3 mentioned above for his entire career.
- Ankeil. First of all, he never admitted to using HGH. He got up (well, stood behing Walt Jockety) and denied ever using the darn substance even though there's a record of payment and perscriptions for HGH coming from a defunct dentist in Florida. I guess he wasn't there to talk about the past either...
- Cody McKay. I don't know how to stress it enough. HIS FATHER IS DAVE MCKAY!!! It doesn't get any more damning than that.
- Kile. Okay, I admit. I couldn't remember if he was on the actual Mitchell Report or the fake one. That's why I put it in parentheses and added a little question mark (i.e., Mitchell Report?). It's a way of saying "I'm not sure." But I figured a young computer whiz like yourself would have understood that.
Keep on believin'.......
by Big Red on Jan 13, 2008 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Big Red
by Calhoun on Jan 13, 2008 12:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
let's end the argument here everybody
by lboros on Jan 13, 2008 5:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what
I could care less if a guy took roids, HGH, etc.
by beanocook on Jan 12, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
by Red Blazer on Jan 12, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They use some of that stuff for medical treatment
by saladdays on Jan 12, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There has to be more to this deal...
by Red Blazer on Jan 12, 2008 2:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Anyone else think Rolen won't waive his NTC?
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 12, 2008 2:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i thought the word on the street is
by ortic jones on Jan 12, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Glad you brought that up...
Either way it should be an end to the clubhouse soap opera.
by fourstick on Jan 12, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Pending Physicals"...
On the one hand Rolen is my favorite ball player post-ozzie, but on the other he being a complete bitch lately and that doesn't help the team.
Glaus is an interesting return for Rolen. I really thought we'd be in Jupiter before Rolen would get dealt, and when he did we'd be sheading salary and picking up a major league ready SP and a not-so-major league ready P.
Here's hoping we find a gem and get 35 bombs and 100 rbi's from Glaus next year. But here's to Scott and his 34 HRs and 99 RBIs I hope he finds elsewhere.
by mwinf12 on Jan 12, 2008 2:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
One cause for optimism if this happens...
I'm also holding back judgment on this one, but initially, if our goal is to build a winner for 2009 and beyond, this does help us in that regard. Glaus is a better bat and his current contract will be off the books at the latest for the 2010 season, and possibly for 2009, whereas Rolen's wouldn't clear until the 2011 season.
by mtalken on Jan 12, 2008 2:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind
by Big Red on Jan 12, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which means that they are both
by jillsinmo on Jan 12, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
true
by beanocook on Jan 12, 2008 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But remember,
Also, LB, he had a damaged nerve(probably exacerbated by the artificial turf) that was operated on in September, which could be the main reason he crapped out in the second half of '07.
by cardsrul on Jan 12, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW...
Marcel
Glaus: .260/.360/.480
Rolen: .270/.340/.440
ZiPS
Glaus: .247/.350/.469
Rolen: .255/.331/.397
Marcel has Glaus as 60 OPS points better, while ZiPS has Glaus as about 90 OPS point better. This was also projected assuming that Rolen would be in the NL Central and Glaus in the AL East.
Unless the Cards are giving up a lot of cash, and maybe even if they are, i can't see how the Cards didn't get the better of this deal.
by kindred on Jan 12, 2008 2:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
larry
If Glaus is the better player, this seems like a good move no matter who is the GM/Manager.
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 12, 2008 2:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Heck, if that's LaRussa running the show I'll take it every time. The market for Scott wasn't high. I have felt all along that if you are going to trade him you would get a similar high-priced, pseudo risk in return. People aren't lining up to give up young prospects for Scottie.
by beanocook on Jan 12, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this trade wouldn't have happened
both players contributed to the bad blood, but tony made a bad situation impossible by writing his letter to rolen and subsequently trashing rolen in the press.
in this instance case, tony's meddling might accidentally lead to a trade that helps the club. but it's not a healthy framework in which to make decisions.
by lboros on Jan 12, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
by ridgesee on Jan 12, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed.
by cardsgirl95 on Jan 12, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
don't do it, Mo!
by aet15 on Jan 12, 2008 2:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wow, Edmonds and Rolen both gone
"Then loudly cried the bold Sir Bedivere,
'Ah! my Lord Arthur, whither shall I go?
Where shall I hide my forehead and my eyes?
For now I see the true old times are dead,
When every morning brought a noble chance,
And every chance brought out a noble knight.
Such times have been not since the light that led
The holy Elders with the gift of myrrh.
But now the whole ROUND TABLE is dissolved
Which was an image of the mighty world;
And I, the last, go forth companionless,
And the days darken round me, and the years,
Among new men, strange faces, other minds.'"
Melodramatic, yes, but that's the first thing that came to my mind.
by PujolsFor President on Jan 12, 2008 3:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Teeter-totter
If we throw in some cash and Glaus keeps his option, then this is silly...we should hold and try to trade when his value is better for prospects.
by RedbirdRay on Jan 12, 2008 3:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
hasta la vista baby
by steve on Jan 12, 2008 3:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You guys are clearly missing the point
by joker24 on Jan 12, 2008 3:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
per bernie
by erik on Jan 12, 2008 3:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
just pick up the option
by lboros on Jan 12, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
player option?
by jjray on Jan 12, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
according to everything i've seen...
maybe he's asking for more money in order to waive his NTC?
by kindred on Jan 12, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cot's says "player option"
I'm officially confused now.
by Big Red on Jan 12, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Cardinals
There's little use to have him show up with all the leverage. If he has a bad year he picks it up, if he has a good year he elects for free agency.
Makes sense from the Cards' perspective. Not that I agree with the trade.
by plh903 on Jan 13, 2008 1:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the trade
by jjray on Jan 12, 2008 3:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I love this trade!!!!!!!!
With a legitimate power bat to protect Pujols it will make our entire offense better.........
I really hope they both pass their physicals.
by Calhoun on Jan 12, 2008 3:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Great job, Mo!
by sjoshi on Jan 12, 2008 3:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
change hurts
by birdsonbat on Jan 12, 2008 4:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
A few I like
I also like Reyes. Despite the very public controversy of his handling, he has taken his lumps well and handled himself gracefully.
Pujols has developed the personality of a super-star, but I still like to watch him get interviewed. He still has obvious respect for the game and says the right things (mostly).
I can't wait to "meet" a few of the new guys also. Rasmus seems to have a good head on his shoulders from written interviews, but I look forward to seeing him on camera.
I don't really care to get to know the personalities of the stop-gaps.
by RedbirdRay on Jan 12, 2008 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would like Molina better if he would
Mr. Duncan and Mr. LaRussa are convinced he's no good, and that he'll never be any good. They might be right. But they might be wrong too-but what Mr. LaRussa wants, Mr. LaRussa gets.
by jillsinmo on Jan 12, 2008 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jill would you
by Glenn Brummer stole home on Jan 12, 2008 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
granted,
If Reyes is as great as it sounds like you think he is, he'd have tossed a couple of decent starts last year. No matter how much a coach/manager screws with you, if you've got talent, that's inevitably going to come through at some point.
by Jhusk on Jan 13, 2008 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, I like Anthony. So what?
Oh, my son wears his trousers however he wants to. He's almost 21 and just returned to college, I don't control that-nor would I want to.
by jillsinmo on Jan 13, 2008 8:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Miklaz seems to think the deal won't get done
by Red Blazer on Jan 12, 2008 4:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It's about 4:30
by ridgesee on Jan 12, 2008 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i'm holding out judgment
uh, MO while your at it, get them to toss in AJ will ya?
OK, now will every one who wanted MO to do something, anything, please put a cork in it?
by gdm426 on Jan 12, 2008 4:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I like it
by rockin redbird on Jan 12, 2008 4:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Makes Sense...
by tingler on Jan 12, 2008 4:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Glaus is a Liquid Asset
This is a win-win deal. This year the Cards are a better lineup with Glaus in the 4-hole behind Pujols, and if they want to make a move for the future, Glaus is a better and easier piece to move.
Guarantee the 2009 and sign on the dotted line. Excellent move Mo.
by MrPlow on Jan 12, 2008 5:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't know about that
by ridgesee on Jan 12, 2008 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Artificial turf
by Red in Chicago on Jan 12, 2008 5:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Glaus's contract status...
I am a fan of this trade.
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Jan 12, 2008 7:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
alright, it's 7pm out here on the east coast
is this sucker a done deal or not?
by gdm426 on Jan 12, 2008 7:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Physicals are set
by cardsrul on Jan 12, 2008 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so how much coin is MO sending north?
by gdm426 on Jan 12, 2008 10:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow at the fielding difference, though...
And that's not really a fluke, either.
OTOH, using Dave Pinto's PMOR, they are almost identical.
http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/023949.php
So I guess we'll see.
He had to go, anyway. It was either him or Tony, and with Tony staying, him going was the only option. I think every was sick of the soap opera. I would have preferred Tony going, but...
by DiscoJer on Jan 12, 2008 7:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Astroturf...
by kindred on Jan 13, 2008 1:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
trade
by clemente21 on Jan 12, 2008 7:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
now that is a good observation clemente
by ridgesee on Jan 12, 2008 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Troy Glaus--Fading down the stretch
I'm rather stunned that Mo' actually managed to improve the team by dealing Rolen, assuming this goes down. And Rolen's been one of my favorite baseball players for a long time.
by liam on Jan 12, 2008 9:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Link
by liam on Jan 12, 2008 9:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am too
by Merry CRasmus on Jan 12, 2008 11:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What happened to TLR?
So the question is, what has changed about him? Or is he still the same, and we are just starting to get another perspective on him as blogs and sports reporters start to cover the bickering more often?
by Quel on Jan 12, 2008 9:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's a new development
I think Tony always had an ability to rub people the wrong way. If you look at the three examples I gave, there's a few common denominators there. They were all veterans, they were all high priced, and they were all struggling to produce. I think he takes a pretty strong "To whom much is given, much is required" stance.
Tony just isn't a guy to give out too many atta boys and pats on the back when guys are struggling. He's apt to get more involved and maybe even try to light a fire under them when that happens.
On one hand, I agree with the comment regarding lack of regard for young guys. He seems to strongly favor the veterans that max out on limited talents (Miles, Paquette, Gallego). Even if it's over young guys with more talent but no established track record. But to be completely fair, the targets for much of his bickering and feuds have historically been high priced underperforming veterans.
by Merry CRasmus on Jan 12, 2008 10:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Add Ozzie Smith
by Ray Lankford on Jan 12, 2008 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oops
by Merry CRasmus on Jan 12, 2008 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
his wife is an
by erik on Jan 12, 2008 9:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
dude i got a connection
by gdm426 on Jan 12, 2008 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Horse`s
by Calhoun on Jan 12, 2008 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tons of Clydesdales in Missouri...
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Jan 13, 2008 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
how many
by LaRussa4President on Jan 12, 2008 11:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Latest News...
by GOOCH24 on Jan 12, 2008 11:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
In that case
by stl tyler on Jan 13, 2008 12:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LINK
OK, if this is true, i am now officially a big fan of this deal.
also here's derrick goold's updated article.
by gdm426 on Jan 13, 2008 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i speculated on that above...
by kindred on Jan 13, 2008 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We love it
Glaus has it.
Brendan Ryan developed it last year.
I think someone should disinfect the team's shoes.
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 13, 2008 1:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Option
I certainly wouldn't let it hold up the deal unless I was certain right now that Rolen was as healthy as an ox.
by South Side Cards Fan on Jan 13, 2008 1:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta love it!!!!!!!!
Straight up with no money exchange this is a great deal!!!!!!!!!!!! if there is a money exchange it is still a good deal!!!!!!!1
by Calhoun on Jan 13, 2008 12:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I am not really
by Pujols Is A God on Jan 13, 2008 1:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Challenge Trade in More Ways Than One
Call it bad luck or bad circumstances if you will, but the Cards haven't had much luck with medical issues, Chris Carpenter's emergence after shoulder surgery being the lone bright spot among a forest of players griping about treatment (Lankford, Rolen, Edmonds), poor outcomes on surgeries/treatment regimens (Rolen, Mulder, McGwire, Edmonds, Carpenter, Lankford, Al Benes).
I sure hope the Cards get a couple of extra opinions on Glaus's charts before signing on the dotted line.
by South Side Cards Fan on Jan 13, 2008 1:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Jays to send money
by spencegrif on Jan 14, 2008 1:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 

















