Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Padres Trade Khalil Greene To Cardinals Bar-right-arrows



The Izzy Conundrum

The Winter of Discontent continues here in Cardinaltown.  Just in case you haven't seen it yet, Tony came out once again, guns a blazin'.  His target this time was Adam Kennedy.  (Although, one could argue his real target was us, since he's essentially threatening us with more Aaron Miles.)  Tony comes out and blasts Kennedy for, among other things, missing the Winter Warmup:  

"...he needs to make sure he dots all the I's, and not coming to this weekend is, I hope, his first and only mistake."  

I can understand Tony's frustration, and I can even understand his bluntness with what he felt was a player who didn't show up in the way the club needed him to.  But is this really the situation the club needs now?  Tony seems to be making a habit of calling players out even more regularly than usual as of late; I'm not sure if he feels he lost the clubhouse last year and is trying to reassert authority, if he feels as if the whole organisation is his to run now that everyone who didn't properly kiss his ass is gone, or if he's just flat out gone batshit.  Honestly, I don't particularly care, either.  Tony, whatever motivational technique it is that you think you're mastering here, I sincerely doubt it's going to work.  Taking a guy to task for bad performance privately?  Okay, good idea.  Writing letters questioning the heart of a player, throwing a fit over a player not showing up for a glorified autograph session, and declaring publicly that you regret giving said player the benefit of the doubt last year?  That I have a little bit of a problem with.  I don't want to go down the road of all the problems I have with LaRussa at this point, but I really do wish he would stop airing all of the club's, and his own, dirty laundry, in public.  I just don't think it's productive, and it's definitely kind of bush league.  More baseball dynasty, less TV Dynasty.  

We also have Albert tossing reporters out of his press conference.  Don't get me wrong, I actually applaud Albert for his stand on this one.  KTVI still refuses to admit any wrongdoing, claiming they were simply reporting what information was out there.  That's fine, you can report the news, but don't send reporters to the man's restaurant and ask them what they think about Albert being a steroid cheat.  I'm fully behind Pujols bringing some small consequences home to them.  Even so, just another very unhappy corner of our baseball world.  

In fact, the only player who seems to be really happy about things is Jason Isringhausen.  During his Winter Warmup press conference, Izzy publicly pronounced, among other things, that he would exercise his no trade clause to block any potential deal.  He also nixed the idea of his retirement being imminent.  

"As long as I do my job, I'll be happy.  I want to stay here."  

All right.  Now, I'm the first guy to applaud a player who genuinely seems to want to play for a specific team.  A player who isn't interested in the typical mercernary behaviour we've come to expect from our athletes is a rare commodity, in my opinion.  It's refreshing.  I'm also at the head of the line to give all the kudos in the world to Izzy.  After some of the nasty things I said about him in 2006, as well as some of the nasty things that I thought but didn't vocalise, I owe it to the man.  He's healthy, and he's proven his worth.  However, with all of those positive, feel good vibrations that I've got going toward Isringhausen, his current stance presents the club with a very sticky situation.  

I think that most of us can agree that the 2008 St. Louis Cardinals are not a great bet to be a real contender.  Lots of people think they could be competitive, and there may be some truth to that.  But even the most optimistic among us have to be aware that it isn't going to be an easy road this season.  The division is rapidly getting better around the Cardinals, and they're in a transition period.  So, we're looking at a team that is a marginal contender, with an eight million dollar closer.  Does a team in that position really need to be spending that on a commodity that will probably be seriously underutilised by the club?  It's a tough question, and one that I'm not really sure I can answer satisfactorily, even just to myself.  

The real conundrum we have here is because of Izzy's absolute desire to play here, and pretty much only here.  Ordinarily, a team that falls out of contention, with an elite closer in the last year of a deal, would be an excellent bet to do one thing and one thing only: trade him.  A top tier closer is a luxury that a non contending team simply doesn't need; the return they can get for such a valuable piece can often go a long way toward turning around the fortunes of a struggling team.  In this case, however, Isringhausen is on record, declaring he won't allow himself to be traded.  Okay, that's fine.  He can just finish out his term here, move on with our everlasting gratitude and best wishes, and the Cardinals can reap the bounty that such a high quality free agent will bring, in the form of the draft picks.  

Hold on.  

See, this is where this situation gets really interesting.  Izzy has proven, by words and actions, that he really doesn't have any real desire to go anywhere else.  Given that fact, if the Cards really wanted to expunge him from the payroll at the end of the year, can they possibly risk offering him arbitration?  To me, the answer is no.  I think, if you offer Izzy arbitration, he'll just accept it.  I think he would be happy to get paid market value for his services, while continuing to play where he wants to be.  If the Cards really didn't want him back for 2009, they can't offer him arbitration.  Of course, that means they don't get the draft picks that would help them bring in the players to turn this ship around.  So, at this point, it looks to me as if the Cardinals flat out cannot get rid of Izzy, if they hope to get any kind of return at all for his departure.  If you offer him arb., with the hope of reaping the draft pick bounty, he accepts.  If you really want to get him off the books, you have to accept that you're going to get absolutely nothing for him.  

So, what course of action can the Cardinals possibly pursue?  Should they keep Izzy around?  He does appear to be healthy, and when he's healthy, he's still a hell of a closer.  On the other hand, they do have a whole lot of bullpen arms coming along very soon, including a couple who look as if they could definitely be closer candidates.  Do they let him walk?  At that point, they get absolutely nothing.  Bupkes. &nbspNot even draft picks.  What say you, denizens of Viva El Birdos?  

Personally, I would argue for keeping Izzy around.  It's strange for me to be arguing in this direction.  I'm usually all about making the most extreme moves you can to get younger and cheaper; I think these half assed rebuilding jobs tend to end up leading to years of in between, mediocre or worse teams.  And, as I said earlier, the kind of drain that Izzy puts on a payroll is hard to justify for a team on the fringes of contention.  So why do I feel this way?  

I love the Cards' bullpen prospects.  I really do.  I think they've got several guys who could step in and do a very nice job this second, and they're only going to get better.  But what's the problem with Chris Perez being a setup man for awhile?  Or Jason Motte handling the seventh, rather than the eighth?  To my mind, absolutely nothing.  I have a tough time justifying to myself the financial outlay for Isringhausen, but I also think that a bullpen, composed of those kinds of terrifying arms, could go a long way toward making the team competitive.  A bullpen that can shut down literally the last three or even four innings can make a starting rotation look a whole lot better than it actually is.  To me, this is the sort of bet-hedging that could actually work out beautifully for the team in the next few years.  Particularly once you take out the salaries the Cards are paying to the Russ Springers and Franklinsteins of the world and replace them with affordable, early arbitration year salaries, suddenly the bullpen isn't a huge investment anymore.  If Izzy is really as serious as he sounds about staying here in St. Louis, then he should be signable for a reasonable deal.  I'm not saying you lowball him out of the negotiating room, but he shouldn't be looking to break the bank if he's that passionate about staying.  

To me, keeping a guy like Izzy around to provide stability and solidity at the back end of a bullpen isn't a bad thing.  It's a luxury this team may not necessarily need this year, or even next, but if the alternative is watching such a talented ballplayer walk away without getting anything in return for him, I don't have a problem with putting gold rims on a Pinto.  

At the very least, we'll know there's at least one guy who's really happy to be here.  

Next week, I think I'm going to start profiling some of the players we may be looking at when the Cards make their pick in the June draft.  I'm not going to do them all at once, so I want to get started on them pretty soon.  

One last thing.  I met a gypsy not too long ago, and I totally stole her crystal ball from her.  As a result, I'm going to start looking into the future, once a week, and see what's on the horizon for our favourite baseball team.  So, without further ado, I present,

Great Moments in Redbirds Future History!  

August 12, 2008  
A rash of athlete's foot is reported among the players.  It is eventually traced back to Jason LaRue, and he is fined $50 by the team's kangaroo court and ordered to buy new shower shoes for the team.  He sheepishly does so, and laughs are shared by all.  Over the following days, all thirteen players who have caught the fungus visit team doctor George Paletta to get a prescription for some cream to knock it out.  Sadly, there are no survivors.  

This has been a Great Moment in Redbird Future History.  

Today's tournament of champions results are directly below.

0 recs | Comment 123 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Make it stop
I about lost my shit when I read the "to the detriment of a guy like Aaron Miles."  
Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Jan 23, 2008 10:00 AM EST   0 recs

well
in tony's defense, that was a fairly legit statement last year.  kennedy sucked that bad.  we can only hope the same thing does NOT happen in 2008.

by moboiler on Jan 23, 2008 10:15 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Me Too
Aaron Miles getting significant playing time is a sign something has gone wrong. Saying someone got in the way of that occurring is a very odd statement.

by tarakas on Jan 23, 2008 10:29 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I just have
one question... when did Tony become Grandpa Simpson? I fully expect him to start telling people to get off his lawn.
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it."

by cardsrul on Jan 23, 2008 10:57 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

grandpa tony
Marge: "There are only 49 stars on that flag."

Grampa: "I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missoura!"

by Fitz on Jan 23, 2008 11:19 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Detriment of Aaron Miles
What about the detriment of the Cards young MI prospects?
I'm starting to lean toward the batshit assesment, and I'm a TRL guy, at least I was but I've sent the jury back out.

by That's a Winner on Jan 23, 2008 11:19 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I'm also a TRL guy
Carson Daly is soooo dreamy....
The hot stove is burning...

by cardzfan24 on Jan 23, 2008 1:29 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

If Izzy plays well
I'd offer him arbitration in a minute.  He says he wants to stay a Cardinal but if he's offered 1 year here vs. 3 somewhere else, his loyalty will likely change.  Even if it doesn't, Izzy on a 1 year deal is likely a very good deal, assuming he plays well.  As long as he's very good, and is willing to accept a 1 year deal in arbitration, I'd keep offering it.  

I really believe, however, that someone will offer him at least 3 years at the end of the season.  

by chuckb on Jan 23, 2008 10:16 AM EST   0 recs

I have to agree...
if we're okay with signing him long-term, then where's the danger?  Offer him arbitration; if he accepts sign him for 1-3 years.  If not...hello draft picks.
Thanks for the highlight moments 15 and 27!!!

by cardzfanbub on Jan 23, 2008 10:35 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I agree
If Perez is ready to close, which is a bit of a maybe, can't you tell him that he will be the setup man in 2009 if he accepts?

If not, we'll still need a closer. If he performs well enough to keep type A status, then you either have him for another year or get the picks. If he drops to B, then maybe it's moot.

by plh903 on Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

By that first
part, I'm assuming that would make him less likely to stay, coupled with a market offer to be someone's closer.

by plh903 on Jan 23, 2008 10:59 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

we can only hope
that pujols takes his frustrations with ktvi out on the field.  every grooved fastball has a big ol' "2" on it.

by moboiler on Jan 23, 2008 10:17 AM EST   0 recs

Izzy's body has rarely passed up
any opportunity to break down.  It will break down again, this year, thus changing the whole situation. This is a problem that will likely solve itself.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 23, 2008 10:23 AM EST   0 recs

I SO hope you are right
he's a nice person, but I don't want him on my team.  He makes me smoke too much.
I don't call protecting a 2-run lead... by giving up a walk and a few hits and a run, only to be bailed out by some defensive gem from Yadi or Pooh or someone else... as being the work of a "closer."

by the Tewk on Jan 23, 2008 6:47 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I hear you......
While it may not be that visible to us, from all small news items Ive put together over the years  based on situations where Isringhausen was discussed by other players, he is considered to be "the guy"...

To most he looks like the last guy on the block to be the jock, but the bullpen and position players look up to this guy and the way he guts it out, no exceptions I can see.

He's one of the focal team leaders no matter how many times he puts us thru 9th inning hell, hes out there to do one thing and thats win, come hell, high water or hip injury yada yada.

Also, I wouldnt take any talk about his no trade clause too seriously if the Cards are fighting to hold 4th place in Aug and the first place Yanks (insert other winner here) come knocking.

If we can't be good, can we at least be lucky?

by cardschinmusic on Jan 24, 2008 8:23 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Well it worked for the Blues
Both Keith Tkachuk and Doug Weight had expressed the desire to stay in St. Louis during the rebuilding years.  The Blues GM (Larry Pleau) saw the chance to improve the club via trade and the chance to give the players a shot at the Cup.  The blues traded Weight at the trade deadline in the last year of his contract and then resigned that off-season ASAP (weight refused to sign anywhere until he heard from STL).  The following year Pleau did the same thing with Tkachuk.

I don't know how different the FA structure is in Hockey as apposed to Baseball, but it worked for the Blues.  I am sure there was some communications between the parties (it's not player tampering if it happens before the player leave your organization.)  

Maybe Izzy would be interested in it, never hurts to ask.

by Stan and Slaughter on Jan 23, 2008 10:35 AM EST   0 recs

I like this one!!
especially if we end up in the bottom half of the league and therefore, don't have to give up our number one pick.

If Izzy is healthy all year he will surely be a type A.

Thanks for the highlight moments 15 and 27!!!

by cardzfanbub on Jan 23, 2008 10:40 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

the problem is
You're taking his words at face value. I believe he made similar statements during the beginning of last season, only to change his mind and say he'd be open to being traded to a contender later when things weren't going so hot. Winning (and conversely, losing) can do wonders for your mind-set. I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of trading him if the cardinals are sucking it up mid-season.

by Birds on the Matt on Jan 23, 2008 10:41 AM EST   0 recs

Actually,
if I remember correctly, during Spring Training last year, Isringhausen made a lot of statements to the effect that, "it just isn't the same here as it was," and, "I see it as much more of a business now," due to the fan base's less than favourable reactions to him at the end of 2006.  I don't have links; maybe someone else will take the time to run them down.  But he seemed decidedly lukewarm toward St. Louis and it's people last spring.  

Again, I don't have links, but I believe there was talk about moving him at the trade deadline last season, which he nixed.  He told management he would exercise his no trade clause to avoid being moved.  

I won't swear that my memory is correct, and I don't have the time to look it up right now, but I think his actions last year supported the things he's saying now.  

Nobody puts Baby in the corner.

by the red baron on Jan 23, 2008 10:50 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Your memory
is accurate. I recall those statements as well. He seemed pretty disillusioned over all the booing. But it's also true that Izzy does possess one of the most essential mental factors needed to be a successful closer--a short memory concerning past games. After last year put him back on the map, the cheers returned and so did his love of The Lou. I agree that keeping him is better than getting nothing. And who knows what factors may change his mind again.

by rockin redbird on Jan 23, 2008 12:53 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I tend to lean toward
the school of thought that TLR has indeed gone batshit crazy. Bush league PR management that has done nothing but damage relationships.
Nuthin'....I got nuthin'over here.

by Handsome Jimmy on Jan 23, 2008 10:42 AM EST   0 recs

Astros (Circa 2001?)
I would love to see the Cardinals bullpen become the Astros bullpens of the early 2000's.

In 2001, they had Billy Wagner in his prime saving 39 games while finishing 58.  They also had Dotel for the 8th (with a better ERA+ than Wagner) and Powell and Cruz for the 7th (I believe) both pitching well.

In 2002, they had Wagner, again being set up by Dotel.  Also, Tom Gordon and Ricky Stone were in the pen with good ERA+ and decent peripherals.

In 2003, Wagner was probably had his best season with the Stros.  Perhaps not coincidentally, his setup men that year also had great seasons.  Dotel set him up mainly in the 8th.  They had Lidge and Miceli, along with Stone having great years setting up in both the 7th and 8th.  It was a beautiful thing to watch...if only you were an Astro fan.  :(  sigh

In 2004, Lidge was the closer now and had a tremendous year.  Dotel stuck around as a sometimes closer, sometimes setup man.  Miceli got promoted because he pitched so well in 2003 and was a primary setup man.  Then, Qualls and Wheeler jumped onto the scene and were good as well.

If they Cardinals could get a few men (Franklin, Springer, Perez, Motte, Kinney, etc.) to pitch very well in the 8th and 7th, thus getting to Izzy...not only could the Cardinals have a decent season, but they could look well set up for the future with a stable bullpen.

stlfan

Of course, that gets us to another problem of getting to the setup men in the pen with the rotation that we could be putting together.

by stlfan on Jan 23, 2008 10:50 AM EST   0 recs

How does TLR saying this benefit the team
in any way?  These mind games that he engages in are either juvenile or arrogant.  Call Adam Kennedy, talk to him about the issue, resolve it behind closed doors.  Don't air your dirty laundry like that -- it's unbecoming for a HoF manager to act like that.  Didn't this type of behavior create an untenable situation with another player within the last month?  It's obvious that TLR has free reign and Bill DeWitt's ear because I can't imagine that most GMs would allow their manager to say something like that publicly.

re: Miles
Anyone who didn't see shit like this coming when he was re-signed was being too optimistic.  For whatever reason, TLR doesn't (appear to) have a realistic interpretation of Aaron Miles skillset.  We'll see him receive another 400+ ABs and the disagreement over his value to the club will continue here.

Remind me again why we re-signed TLR?  

by azruavatar on Jan 23, 2008 10:56 AM EST   0 recs

az
Do you know he DIDNT call Kennedy personally? Also, Im guessing he responded to a question about Kennedy. Someone asks about Kennedy, Tony answers honestly.

I find it funny that people think guys just randomly call up media people and say things. It's almost always in response to a question.

So if Tony is unhappy with Kennedy he's not supposed to say it? But then the same fans get mad that Tony isn't forthcoming with us. Again, we have no idea if/when Tony called Adam personally.

The standards get so confusing to me. Is he or is he not supposed to answer questions honestly when asked by a reporter? Or should he run it by us first, then decide how to answer.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jan 23, 2008 12:13 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I don't care
I think what Tony did was fine.  He was probably ansering a question about where is Adam Kennedy.  I assume there was something stating he would be there and he was not there.

Adam is a big boy, if he has a reason for not attending he will tell the media.  Maybe he should have alerted the team as to why he was not going to be there.  Maybe he did alert the team and no one told TLR.

Kennedy was horrible last year and I really don't see what he will give to the team his final two years of his contract.  I figure he is blocking Ryan and Hoffpauir from an opportunity to play.  Why is Adam Kennedy in 2009 going to help the team?  Heck 2008 seems to be a wash so how does Kennedy help in 2008?

I did not know Kennedy would be this bad but I did wonder the day of the signing why the Cards picked him up.

by ICbirdfan on Jan 23, 2008 12:20 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Your right, I don't know whether he
called AK first.  If he did, kudos.  But, if he did, my question then becomes why does he feel the need to air things out in public?

We do, at this point, have a pretty good historical comparison with Rolen where those two individuals created such a toxic environment that one of them had to leave.  I don't think anyone can deny that that was a two person problem and TLR's comments to the media only exacerbated the situation.  Maybe TLR and Kennedy get along a lot better -- again, I don't know.  

The problem I have is that TLR seems to lack a basic level of tact when answering some of these questions.  If you find the right button to push that day, he'll give you an honest answer but at times it comes across as petty.  I'd like for him to be honest about questions but you can do that without throwing people under the bus as well.

by azruavatar on Jan 23, 2008 1:34 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

"the same fans"
I don't think they are the same groups of fans.  I think there are two positions held by fans who strongly care about what goes on inside the organization- some fans feel they have a right to information about what goes on inside the clubhouse, and therefore TLR should be more forthcoming.  Others feel that TLR airs too much dirty laundry and uses the press to do dirty work that a phone call or fine could take care of.  

Our entertainment dollars pay their salaries, so both are legitimate points.  However, the same people don't usually take both positions, though there is no dissonance in simultaneously thinking TLR should talk less and that DeWitt etc should be more forthcoming, or in thinking that DeWitt should talk less and TLR should be more forthcoming, or that UFO's are actually time masheens.  

"My other option was to go hunting dogs and cats with Scott Rolen." - TLR

by SleepyCA on Jan 23, 2008 2:08 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Excuse me, but.....
"it's unbecoming for a HoF manager to act like that."

and

"I can't imagine that most GMs would allow their manager to say something like that publicly"

Earl Weaver, Dick Williams, Leo Durocher, John McGraw, and Casey Stengel all beg to differ.

So do Whitey Herzog and Billy Martin.

by flynn on Jan 23, 2008 2:04 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

7 people now constitute "most"
If you were a manager of 30 workers and you were having issues with one of them, do you think it would be appropriate to denigrate that individual in front of the other 30?  How about in front of your clients or shareholders?

That's essentially what's happening here.  It is unbecoming.  It is unecessary.  And most importantly, it's detrimental to the Cardinals.

by azruavatar on Jan 23, 2008 2:36 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

sure
it would be appropriate if the worker wasn't responding to any other attempts at dealing with the  problem. Sometimes bosses need to take things a step further.

Coaches denegrate players in front of other players all the time. Nothing new there. None of us know how the Kennedy/TLR relationship has gone in the past....that makes it tough to know really whats going on.

At least tough for me anyway.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jan 23, 2008 2:53 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Coach does not equal business supervisor
This is sports, isn't it?  If you have a problem with a coach or manager "denigrating" a player in front of his teammates then I suppose you have a problem with the majority of all coaches in all sports at pretty much every level above T-ball, since that happens at most every practice and game.  At least that's what I've experienced and seen.  
Your perogative, of course.    

As for taking it to the press, that's been an avenue taken by managers, including the HOFers listed above, for years.  Obviously in the view of HOF voters, those managers' actions weren't so detrimental as to keep them from winning a ton of games and gaining entrance to Cooperstown.

On the GM quote  - not exactly the same topic, so it shouldn't have been lumped in with the HOF manager quip.  (I'm saying my bad here, not yours.)    
 

by flynn on Jan 23, 2008 4:09 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

TLR is coming out to the public
and saying that a part of their product is acting in a deficient manner.  It's not a hard analogy to make to envision him as a sales rep or something who goes out and says, "We have this great product except for this one piece that is currently acting up."  Does that make any sense to you?

And I have to wonder if you've ever had a job before where the manager goes around slamming people all the time.  I have -- it didn't encourage me to work any harder.  It did create a lot of hostility and resentment between the manager and other employees.  Do you really envision a situation where Tony goes to AK about this and AK blows him off but when Tony says this to the press AK suddenly goes, "Well, I'm convinced. I'll try and do better."  That sounds foolhardy to me.

by azruavatar on Jan 23, 2008 5:39 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

as someone who
CRINGED when Tony was re-signed for two more years, I should be jumping on this heavy.
However, I can't get over the over-whelming fact that Adam Kennedy sucked horribly and gave ME every sign (watching him) that he will continue to suck.

A part of me (perhaps illogically) wants Tony to be even tougher.  But NOT by inveighing about AK missing some social event.

How about Tony having the yarbels to tell the GM/owner, "we can't win with AK at 2b -- DO something."

by the Tewk on Jan 23, 2008 7:04 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Hurt feelings, big winners
This is obviously something that people all over this board are going round and round on so I'm not going to try and change your mind.  I just think there are too many differences between the dynamics of a professional sports team in 2008 and those of the "normal" workplace to make the analogy you propose.  I understand the analogy, I just don't buy it.  

And, in the spirit of backing up a point with proof that we love so much around here, I submit again the HOF managers (and many other non-HOF, but successful managers) who have utilized the technique of calling out players to the press.  These guys made a few enemies along the way, but their teams won a lot of games and championships, which are all that really matter to most fans.  

by flynn on Jan 23, 2008 9:42 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Completely agree
Tony only has a year or 2 left with the team so he's going to kick some ass and take names later.  Remeber, he wants to win no matter what type of scraps he's given.  I am glad he's trying to light a fire under people's asses who aren't playing to their ability.  Kennedy is on a short leash and I'm pretty sure everyone will be happy about that.  

by RonGant on Jan 23, 2008 7:40 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Don't get me wrong
I'd love to see better production out of 2nd base.  But Tony isn't chiding Adam for not hustling or beating out a ground ball; he's publicly embarrassing him because he didn't show up to an autograph session.  Adam should have been there, and it pisses me off when players don't take an interest or give back to the community that supports them.  I just didn't like the way it was handled, in terms of publicity, venom, etc.

And that's my last post on the subject.

by Ray Lankford on Jan 23, 2008 8:12 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

In Three Nights in August
didn't TLR say managers should address problems with players privately, and not through the press? I don't have the book with me at work, but I'm pretty sure that was in there.

If so, he is failing to follow his own standards. And TLR is all about following standards of behavior and principles--that is usually one of his strengths--so that makes this particularly disturbing.

by tarakas on Jan 23, 2008 3:23 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I applaud Tony L....
...for finally becoming a manager that holds players accountable for their performance (or lack thereof) on the field, even if it means calling them out in the media. I have no problems with that. Whatever leads to greater production.

For years he'd continually pencil in Scott Rolen as the 4 or 5 in the lineup even after consistent disappearances in September and October (including multiple hitless performances in the playoffs) when alternatives to him hitting in such important spots existed.   He finally held him accountable in 2006, benched him, which promptly lit a fit under his a$$ and eventually led to a productive Scott Rolen and a championship.  

And Scott Rolen didn't handle it well. Too bad. He hit well, the team won and Rolen should have been satisified with the team's success. He wasn't.  Not sorry to see him go.

Kudos to Tony. Sometimes I wonder if he took on this philosphy the cardinals would have more than 1 championship during his reign.

by yargs on Jan 23, 2008 11:08 AM EST   0 recs

Accountability vs. Public Embarrassment
I am all for accountability, but this is something that can be taken care of "in house."  Holding someone accountable in front of the media and fans seems more like an attempt to embarrass.

by Ray Lankford on Jan 23, 2008 11:17 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

ok then
How do you know that LaRussa didn't contact Kennedy when he knew he wasn't going to be there?  I don't get the flame war on LaRussa for this one...the guy was fucking HORRIBLE last year in every phase of the game and then decides to blow off the first team event in 2008?  He obviously needs a kick in the head and maybe killing him in the press is the only way to get it done.  Remember, it was Rolen who started with the press in 2006 during the NLCS, not Tony.

I think Tony is looking for players who "want to be here".  Missing a chance to mingle with fans and talk to the press is codetalk for "I don't care about the team or the team's image".  On a younger, rebuilding ballclub you'd like to think that your veterans would set a nice example for the younger guys in how to be a professional, and Kennedy certainly didn't do that by missing this event.

As far as the threatening of Aaron Miles getting more playing time, go look at his numbers side by side with Kennedy last year and tell me that Kennedy was better for the ballclub.  If Eckstein doesn't get hurt, Kennedy is riding the damn pine the entire second half of the season.  I agree that the playing time SHOULD be going to younger players like Ryan and Hoffpauir, and hopefully someone will be in Tony's ear about stuff like that this season (I'm staring a hole in you Mo!).

"I just wish that the late Harry Carey were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jan 23, 2008 12:03 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

fourstick
Fans know this. Just ask them. And heck, Miles WAS better than Kennedy last year. I realize some people have a weird hatred of Aaron Miles but, compared to Kennedy, he was better.

Every single statistical analysis will show you that.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jan 23, 2008 12:15 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I don't care
If Tony did call him before making the public comments.  It should have stayed an in house matter.  I'm not trying to roast Tony in a flame war -- simply saying its unprofessional to call a guy out in public with or without a previous private phone call.  In the same breath, however, its also unprofessional to not show up at the winter warm-up, a charity event where players can show appreciation to the fans.  Bad move, A.K.

I guess I just disagree with your assertion that "well, because Kennedy was 'fucking HORRIBLE' last year, lambasting him in the media is OK because he needs a 'kick in the head.'"  Yeah, he was horrible.  But I wouldn't advocate publicly bashing an underperforming player for every miss-step they take -- that simply kills morale.  

by Ray Lankford on Jan 23, 2008 12:37 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Ray
How should Tony have answered questions like "Tony, where is Adam Kennedy?" "Tony, why isn't Adam Kennedy at the Winter Warmup when everyone else is?"

I'm not arguing--just seeing how you feel he should respond to the questions.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jan 23, 2008 12:52 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

The perfect response
to the question was: "I'm not sure where Adam was, but I'm sure he had a good reason.  He'll be ready for spring training and a successful season."

Then, as soon as Tony is done, Tony calls up AK and says: "Where the F#$% are you boyo?  Get your head right.  You're a g'd StL Cardinal and we expect more from you."

"Dude, we're running out of stadium" - said on the way to our seats in Section 428.

by bukowski on Jan 23, 2008 1:10 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Yours is exactly the right response.
I worked retail 20 long, hellish years.  When you call out an employee in front of the customers, it makes the employee look bad, it makes you look bad, and most of all, it makes the company look bad, all in front of customers, competitors, and potential future employees.  I've always been amazed that LaRussa would act this way.  It's completely unprofessional, and the fact that Kennedy may have been acting unprofessional doesn't make it right.  

by Archaeopteryx on Jan 23, 2008 1:21 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Oh please
I hate it when people compare baseball players to retail employees.  Kennedy doesn't work for Tony, he works for the organization.  He's under contract -- he doesn't get paid by the hour.  He makes millions of dollars, paid by US, to play a game 6 months out of the year.  Tony just decides whether he plays or not, but he has absolutely no bearing into whether Adam gets a paycheck.

When you're working at Wal-Mart there isn't press constantly around to ask you questions about why you don't have enough cashiers or why your deli market guys isn't here to be interviewed and sign autographs.  If you rip a bad employee in front of customer it does look unprofessional, when that employee isn't taking care of the customer and treating them unprofessionally you should step in and say something right?  Not showing up to fan friendly activities isn't taking care of the customers, us.  It's also not in the player's  best interest and they ought to know questions like those asked of TLR are going to be asked if they don't show up.  Had Kennedy released a statement saying he couldn't be there for personal reasons I'm fine with that.  He didn't, and that makes it look like he just doesn't care.  That's the essence of being unprofessional.  

"I just wish that the late Harry Carey were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jan 23, 2008 3:33 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Ball players are people.
They are highly competitive people with large, delicate egos.  Yes, they make lots of money.  That's no reason to treat them unprofessionally, or with a complete lack of respect.

Kennedy is not the first Cardinal who has been called out in the media--try Rolen, Edmonds, Encarnacion, Lankford, Marquis, Wells, Reyes, Rodriquez, and on and on and on.

Maybe there's a reason the Cards haven't been able to sign any top notch free agents the last couple of years.

by Archaeopteryx on Jan 23, 2008 10:15 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

well that's some faulty logic...
St. Louis has always been known as a player friendly town, I don't think TLR is changing that at all.  No big time free agents huh?  How about resigning Albert and Carpenter for less than they would have made on the open market?  I'd say those are pretty good signings.  Obviously they wouldn't have signed Carpenter if they knew he was going to get hurt, but hindsight is always 20/20Face it, the club isn't going to spend like the Yankees, BoSox, and Mets to field a team.    

You are making way too much out of this situation.  Look at the reaction Tony had for Rick when he came up and belted a home run in his first weekend with the ballclub.  Look at how he helped to shield Rick from the criticism surrounding the NY Times article implicating him in the PED scandal.   He backs his players as much as he rips them, that's the sign of a good coach and a good motivator.  He simply said "I'm disappointed he's not here.  This is a statement we make to our fans: 'Thanks for coming out' and he's not here."  Tony lives on the West Coast, makes less money than Kennedy and he showed up.  Why shouldn't Kennedy do the same thing?

Outside of Scott Rolen, can you name one player who has publicly stated that he couldn't stand playing for Tony LaRussa?  Remember also that Scott Rolen's pissed away two relationships with manager's up to this point in his career.  He's 2 for 2!  If we're going to talk about facts than stick with them.  

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jan 24, 2008 12:11 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Ozzie Smith. Ron Gant.
They're also two more examples of players that LaRussa ripped in the media.  

All the things you say about LaRussa taking care of Ankiel are true.  I also happen to think that, at his best, he's a brilliant and innovative field manager.  That doesn't excuse his unprofessional habit of ripping his own players in the media.

As far as players not badmouthing LaRussa to the media--just turns out they're more professional about that sort of thing than he is.  I remember when the Ron Gant debacle was going on, a reporter asked Brian Jordan (then with the Braves) for a comment on LaRussa.  His response was something like, "No way I'm bad-mouthing LaRussa--I may want to play in St. Louis again some day."    

by Archaeopteryx on Jan 24, 2008 9:26 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Agreed
That is the perfect response.

I'm not arguing either, beano, but I just don't think that being asked a question is an excuse for an unprofessional response.  We might disagree on whether Tony's response was unprofessional, but we can agree (I think) that quite a bit of posturing goes on with the public statements of the organization.  ("we are going to be competitive," "this team will compete now," "Rolen and Tony have patched things up," "Mulder should be ready to return to 2004 form")  Tony should have addressed this situation in a similar manner -- less venom is all I'd like to see.  Simply saying "I don't know where Adam is but I'm sure he has a good reason for not being here" conveys the point subtly without conveying embarrassment.  

Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Adam had fulfilled his obligations and shown up like the rest of the team.

by Ray Lankford on Jan 23, 2008 1:31 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

fair enough
Although sometimes people respond to an individual one on one thing. However, maybe others need to be called out in public to get them motivated.

I don't know where Kennedy falls. Im just pointing out the other option. Maybe all the "one on one" stuff wasn't working with AK and now its time to move to Plan B.

In the end, none of us know enough about the situation really.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jan 23, 2008 2:28 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Don Tony
I really don't understand how we can denigrate Tony for being honest with the press.  We just spent most of 2006 and '07 bitching about the lack of candor from the front office.  I distinctly remember everyone lauding Billy Beane for being honest with the press and admitting that the A's were rebuilding.  

Tony stepped up to the plate and let his feelings be known publicly.  Great!  We know how he feels.  Maybe AK deserved a good public butt-chewing.  I have had my butt chewed in front of teammates before.  I have watched my coaches eat guys alive in front of my teams before.  It may not be the management style that I PREFER, but it definately works.  It is a great way to find out where a player's heart is.  Some players will just wilt.  Others will "man-up".  You have to know who you are dealing with.  I have dealt, as a coach, with several very talented but unmotivated players.  Eventually the last straw is to publicly chew them out.  If you don't, your team and your fan base will begin to question your leadership skills.  It is a great way to tell your players "Hey, shit or get off the pot!".  

I argue that if the player feels demeaned and pouts after a public butt-chewing, then you really didn't want them on your team.

I'm a man, a manly, manly, man. Unknown

by Eckstreem on Jan 23, 2008 3:32 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

being honest?
Being honest doesn't mean calling out the player through the media.

An honest response could be "I'm not sure where Adam is, I'll have to ask him."

No one is objecting to TLR talking to AK within the team context. It's his taking it public---yet again adding to these public soap operas that he seems all too willing to breathe life into---that some are objecting to.

It's like screaming at your kid in the mall in front of everyone instead of taking him back to the car to chew him out. That's not honesty, that's poor leadership.

by salvomania on Jan 23, 2008 3:55 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Fully agree
Maybe I'm becoming Japanese or just mellowing with age, but going public with your criticisms represents the nuclear option, IMO. You only do it you want to make a public statement that you have lost faith in the relationship. In general, backing someone into a corner won't get you the result you hope for, if your hope is something other than alienating the object of your pronouncement. I have tried both approaches (public vs. private) as a manager and a husband, I am completely sold on the private approach--if your goal is to change behavior.

by Hungry Jack on Jan 23, 2008 2:53 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

love your post, hj...
and I whole-heartedly agree..." if your goal is to change behavior "

But it crystallized this evil thought (altho' a pleasant one too, for me) I have been having.  Namely, what if LaRussa wants to get rid of Kennedy?

For that matter what if he wanted to get rid of Rolen?

Maybe some of us are psyching these cases out too much.  Maybe Tony is more oblique and foxy than we imagine; that is, maybe he ISN'T being listened to by GM/owner as much as it often assumed, and he (Tony) has to resort to more nefarious procedures to get what he wants.

May be crazy, but it's a thought.

by the Tewk on Jan 23, 2008 9:42 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

But was AK
seriously the only Cardinal that didn't show up for the winter warm-up? I don't live in St. Louis, so I have no idea, but I'd doubt if he was alone.
On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jan 23, 2008 2:29 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Re-signing TLR
was the biggest error of the offseason. If the organization wants to rebuild or get younger he's the wrong guy. I am not a TLR hater- I think he's a great manager for a veteran club. But what we've seen is his power bring about the mediocre veteranization of the roster. Does the organization really have a plan? If they do, I can't make it out.

by vinniefromjersey on Jan 23, 2008 11:14 AM EST   0 recs

Motivation a la LaRussa
I'm pretty sure TLR is going by the numbers on this one.  He probably has something on his little stats card that says, "Kennedy 4-for-7 in 2007 after sassin' him to the papers.  Remember to do this early and often in 2008."

by lightbulb on Jan 23, 2008 11:14 AM EST   0 recs

Genius
I can't top this, so I'll just say "Well done, sir!"
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on