but we all know pinata will be in the rotation… it’s a tough pill to swallow

that spring training will determine who our closer is, and Duncan has said as much… we’ll see how true that is, and if we sign a closer. the suspense is killing me (sign sheets dammit)

Really, I’m a big tony fan. But if he’s going to be unwilling or unable to "trust" whatever closer is put before him, then he shouldn’t manage. The team is NOT there to bend to Tony’s will. Tony is there to manage the team that he gets.

Those are my thoughts EXACTLY. That is what he’s good at…making the pieces he has work. That’s what he’s paid to do, and I think he does it admirably. HOWEVER…if he’s going to whine and pout about not having a new closer with 30 career saves or whatever, then he needs to find a different job. If the Cards don’t land Fuentes, then he can’t pout and put a glorified long reliever in in high leverage situations and watch him get pummeled. Perez or Motte could do a good enough job getting the last 3-5 outs of a close game that the team DOES NOT NEED to spend $10 million or more on someone who could do that. It’s a waste of resources, considering the serious question marks in the rotation (Pinata and Carp’s health) and at second base (although I can live with Kennedy if he has another great year with the glove).

And pushing MO to do something immediately, because we don’t want to wait around until all the good players are gone. Take Bernie’s column on the 13th, for example, stating that if the Cards want Fuentes, they should “pony up and get it done.”

I suppose I understand that reasoning, but it seems to me that we did pretty good last year waiting around and snagging Lohse after his contract demands became realistic. Also, the only FAs I see flying off the shelves are the potential superstars – guys we knew we weren’t getting anyway. Why panic and overpay for a middle of the road guy? I’m with MO – let the market drag down the asking prices and then extend a competitive offer.

How our bullpen is an issue. In fact, I would call it a potential strength. We’ve got 2 guys that could close, and 3 if you count Franklin. Then, if we add another starter, Pineiro could be the extra long man instead of AAA pitcher X. Here are a few quick reminders:

In AAA last year Motte K’d 14.85/9 with K/BB ratio over 4. He allowed 1 run in 11 big league innings. He’s only been pitching since 2006.

Chris Perez is still only 23 yet posted a 3.46 ERA in 46.2 innings.

Josh Kinney, in his last full season, pitched 71 1.52 ERA innings in AAA then 25 3.24 ERA innings in STL. In his brief return last year, he struck out 8 in 7 innings, allowing 0 runs.

I agree we need pitching, but I just don’t think we need the relief variety.

So it would take much more than Ank to get them. Ank+Freese+Boggs might be enough.

Would you rather have brain surgery performed by a veteran (who is coming off some mental health issues, or serious physical issues that impede his surgical prowess, but are all supposed to be healed by now…) or a young doctor (who has loads of talent, not as much practice, but also no malpractice lawsuits or performance issues…)?

I think managers like grizzled vets for their “presence.” I don’t think it’s a performance issue at all. Unfortunately, “presence” cannot be quantified or measured in any way. So, unless we’ve played big-league ball, there is no way to know whether or not “presence” helps a team.

One thing we do know is that there are older ways of looking at things, there are current ways of looking at things, and there are cutting-edge and newer ways of looking at things. Just because one way has been around longer, it doesn’t mean it’s the best way, or the only way. Tony LaRussa has a fixed view of “baseball” and “team” and “management.” He isn’t going to change unless he wants to, no matter how much kicking or screaming any of us do.

Oh, and the reason that Tony likes to talk to the press is to try to sway public opinion. He is part of the campaign. Tony’s ideas of what the campaign is supposed to achieve are different than mine, and possibly different from people within the organization. As long as he’s the manager, this is the type of thing we have to witness (in horror). The end.

by the best surgeon, not necessarily the oldest nor the one who’s the best friend of the hospital administrators.

when you say ‘Payroll doesn’t seem to matter much." Payroll is very definitely strongly correlated with both making the playoffs and winning in the playoffs. A large payroll is no guarantee of success, but a small payroll is normally a guarantee of failure. I wouldn’t want to endure what the Rays fans have had to endure to finally get a decent team.

From 1996-2007, 79% of the teams in the playoffs were in the top half of the league in payroll. 2007 was the only time in the last twelve years that two teams in the bottom half actually advanced to the LCS. Other than that, 21 of the 22 LDS matchups have been won by teams in the top half of the league in payroll. The only exception was the 2003 world champion Florida Marlins. In the remaining seven series the bottom half teams went a combined 2-21 against top half opponents. That adds up to 21 of 24 LCS participants from the top half and 10 of 12 League Champions from the top half. For those of you with statistical bents, the correlation between payroll and wins in the NL from 1996-2007 was .502. Most would consider that a strong correlation.

trying to say, but the way it came out just isn’t right. Giveml’s explanation is good. You also have to realize, the Rays were good this year with a low payroll. What about every year before that? How about the Royals? Pirates? Sure, you can win with a low payroll team, but it’s much easier to win with a higher payroll.

I think you’re trying to advocate for the intangible side of baseball. I will not deny that “intangibles” exist in baseball. But I will note that this is a site more or less dedicated to statistical analysis. And, for good reason, I think.

The problem with making trades & signings for intangible purposes is that you have no way to measure the impact of the intangibles. So, how do we measure, for instance, how the 2008 Tigers lacked personal harmony rather than any of the other 29 clubs? The only reason, I would suggest, that you put forward the Tigers is because they stunk on ice, rather than any particular evidence of clubhouse discontent. But the danger of taking a result and arguing for a conclusion is that the argument becomes circular. You decide who lacks harmony based on who loses.

To give an example, if a manager throws a tantrum on the field or players “stage” a fight in the dugout, and the team goes on a winning streak, then the incident “gave the team a spark.” If the same tantrum or staged fight is followed by a losing streak, the incident becomes a symptom of a team with no harmony, a bunch of crybabies and spotlight hogs. This is just circular logic. The team may have gone on a winning streak because it started playing worse teams. Or injured players healed up. Or just plain chance, a major, major factor in winning and losing.

I think that arguing for intangibles may make sense where two options are otherwise even. Say, if there are two talented relievers available later in the offseason and the club wants one of them. Say one of them is Russ Springer. The two relievers both have comparable skills and will sign for comparable bucks. I wouldn’t hesitate to take Russ Springer thinking he might do better with a team and a manager with whom he’s had success. It may pan out, it may not, but there’s no reason to think it would hurt.

What I would caution against using “intangibles” to justify is to make decisions which on paper make little sense. I think there’s good reason to say that signing Fuentes would be a bad use of money, when the club has more pressing needs. Analyzing where a team most needs talented players and what players have that talent is the best way to get the best “fit” for the ballclub, rather than psychoanalyzing the management or the players.

to traditionalists who award MVPs by rbi totals, but their defense was obviously going to be bad, their starting pitching was extremely thin, and their bullpen was horrible. Their players were aging, and it didn’t look like chemistry brought them down from where I was standing. It looked like their runs scored were high (800ish) and their runs allowed were much, much too high (mid 800s).