rookie closers

by lboros on May 26, 2008 8:47 AM EDT

i can’t believe any team has a day off on memorial day. only with bud selig in charge . . . .

can’t complain about that road trip, despite the loss yesterday. they only scored more than 4 runs twice on the trip, yet they won both series. they come home well positioned to post a winning record for the month, and if they achieve that the cardinals will essentially have gone a full season --- 6 months --- with only 1 losing month:

june 2007	13-13
july 2007	15-11
august 2007	15-13
sept 2007	13-18
april 2008	19-11
may 2008	12-11

they’ve got 86 wins in their last 163 games. can this team win 90 in 2008? doesn’t seem nearly as far-fetched today as it did on april 1.

mike parisi’s loss yesterday was the bullpen’s first blemish since izzy went onto the DL. in the 9 games since then (including yesterday’s), the pen has thrown 24.1 innings and allowed just 6 runs (a 2.22 era) while recording 50 percent more strikeouts (26) than hits allowed (17). granted, they haven’t faced the world’s most potent offenses in those 9 games; they’re still damn impressive numbers. chris perez has made an immediate impact, retiring 14 of his first 17 big-league batters (and one of the 3 who got on base reached via an error). the kid looks dominant so far, but don’t look for him in the closer’s role any time soon. here’s la russa on perez:

Chris Perez is not ready to close on a daily basis. That would not be good for him and it would not be good for us. He needs to grow into his responsibilities here. I don't even worry about how that sounds, because clearly from the way he's being used, there's a confidence factor there.

before you go crazy on tony here, realize that rookie closers are extremely rare. take a guess --- how many guys in the history of baseball have ever saved more than 20 games during their first year in the big leagues? the answer is 9 --- and one of them pitched for la russa, salome barojas (who saved 21 games for tlr’s white sox back in 1982 as a 21-year-old rookie). moreover, 2 of the 9 guy closers weren’t really rookies, but rather 30something veterans of the japanese leagues (kaz sasaki and takashi saito, yesterday’s winning pitcher) who were in the first season of u.s. baseball. to see the 200 highest single-season save totals for first-year players, click here. tony’s being conservative with perez, but no more so than most other managers would.

here’s another way to look at it: let’s take the all-time career leaders in saves and see how many years they’d been in the league when they took over the closer’s role on a full-time basis.

	year	age
t hoffman	2d	26
l smith	3d	24
m rivera	3d	27
j franco	3d	25
d eckersley	13th	32
b wagner	2d	25
j reardon	4th	26
r myers	2d	25
t hoffman	2d	26
r fingers	4th	25
t percival	2d	26

wagner was sharing the closer’s role with xavier hernandez by the end of his first season, but he only registered 9 saves in his 37 games as a rookie; he ranked 3d on the team in games finished, behind hernandez and todd jones. aside from him, every one of these guys served at least a full season in some other role --- setup man, mopup man, starter, whatever. i'll grant that none of them had to understudy behind a pitcher as unremarkable as ryan franklin, but franklin does have a 1.50 era. managers are a conservative bunch; i doubt many would handle this situation any differently from how tony is handling it.

now, if i were in charge i'd make perez the closer; i think he's got the best stuff and puts opposing hitters in the most distress, and by all accounts he's hard-headed enough to deal with the growing pains that may occur. but the vast majority of managers would play it exactly as tony is playing it. by the end of this year we may very well see perez in the closer’s role, but for now he’s gotta go through the same getting-feet-wet period that even the best closers in history went through.

nothing more for today --- this is no day to be sitting in front of a computer. enjoy the holiday.

0 recs | Comment 153 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

use of Perez

I’ve been a charter member of the anti-TLR faction for some time but have no bitch about his use of Perez (at present). Chris had to know as all of us fans should have also that Tony would break in his new stallion slowly. Gradually increase the pressure. That said, it’s May. Chris is not and has never been a long reliever. CP is already one of the main setup arms (Springer and McClellan, another rookie, as the others). Springer is fading in 2008. CP should pass him soon. Before the all-star break, I expect CP to be used in save situations where Franklin is not available. Then it is just a matter of waiting to see if Franklin falters (which is going to happen, too many hard hit balls fly off of Franklin pitches).

I was already shocked with the quick canning of Izzy. Who knows? Maybe TLR will arrive at the proper roll for CP all on his in due course this season. There’s been really little for us Cards fans to bitch about in 2008. All the breaks have been trending our way so far. TLR has done little to obstruct the develop of the young players.

by jjray on May 26, 2008 9:37 AM EDT 0 recs

At least

anything that gets hit off Franklin doesn’t fly out of the park, since it’s not all that fast. plus, after seeing perez, his pitches will seem in slow motion and may throw off some hitters

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 27, 2008 12:48 AM EDT up 0 recs

I'm not convinced that Izzy is done...

assuming his problems are mechanical in nature, and not the result of his hip “breaking down,” I expect him to come off the disabled list and rejoin the Cardinals at some point. Once he does, it’ll be interesting to see if TLR puts him right back on the firing line. All closers “fail” at some point; the Cards are prudent to try to keep Perez’ confidence level high by using him in non-closer situations.

Izzy’s been among the best at “bouncing back” from poor outings… I think once he’s able to make the ball do what he wants it to again, he’ll regain his confidence. When will that happen? Only The Shadow knows!

This year’s schedule is horrible… in addition to the Cards, Cincinnati, Houston, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and San Francisco aren’t playing in the NL, while Oakland and Minnesota are off in the AL. I thought Memorial Day was supposed to be a high-sales day for MLB! Oh, well…

"In this game, don't nobody know nuthin' about nuthin'." -- attributed to Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra

by The Ol Goaler on May 26, 2008 10:26 AM EDT 0 recs

and no nationally televised games either

This might be the first time I have never been able to watch at least a little baseball on Memorial Day.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on May 26, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

I remember Todd Worrell coming in as a rookie and dominating in 1985….but it was late in the season. Whitey Herzog had brilliantly juggled Ken Dayley, Jeff Lahti, Ricky Horton, and Bill Campbell in his “closer by committee” approach. And as I’ve mentioned here once before, I think that if Ken Dayley had been left in to finish the 9th inning in Game 6 vs. Kansas City, the Denkinger episode never would have happened….Dayley was big-time nasty when he was on, and he was unhittable in the 8th inning of that game.

by Iowa on May 26, 2008 10:59 AM EDT 0 recs

man

I forgot about Ken Daley and how awesome he was…

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 27, 2008 12:51 AM EDT up 0 recs

Question.

I have to question your analysis above. How did you identify “first year” for these guys? I was surprised looking through the B-R link to not find Worrell on the list. Then, when I looked up Worrell, he came up as a late season call-up. He immediately was closing (as his first game was a Blown Save), and he save 5 games in 17 appearances. The next year (I would have to identify as his first REAL season) he saved 36 games. How does this fit into your analysis?

I didn’t do any additional checking, so how many of the others came up as early as May of their first seasons?

by etp_stl on May 26, 2008 11:02 AM EDT 0 recs

worrell came up on august 31

and got 5 saves down the stretch, but most of them were pretty cheap — he got one save in a 9-3 win, another in an 8-4 win, and two saves that were of the 1-out variety. during that same span, jeff lahti was the cards main late-inning reliever —he got 3 saves and 3 wins in september 1985 -- and ken dayley also got two save opportunities that month (one of which he blew). so at best, worrell was a member of the committee.

that continued in the postseason. ken dayley got the only two saves of the nlcs - worrell was brought into the 7th inning of games 3, 5, and 6, with dayley closing (and saving) two of those games, and lahti closing the other one. worrell did save game 1 of the world series, but lahti saved game 2. and in game 6, ken dayley came out to pitch the fateful 9th, but when the royals announced darryl motley (a right-handed batter) as a pinch-hitter for pat sheridan, whitey played the percentages and called in worrell.

i can easily imagine perez working himself into a role of this type, ie a time-share closer. maybe he’ll even become “the” closer, as wainwright did in the last week or two of the season (and the postseason). but worrell didn’t become “The Man” until 1986.

by lboros on May 26, 2008 12:12 PM EDT up 0 recs

a follow-up thought

you are correct that herzog was more willing than la russa is to throw his rookie closer directly into the fire - i wish la russa would do the same with perez. but even herzog hedged his bets.

by lboros on May 26, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

I wasn't doing a Whitey vs Tony comparison.

I used Worrell because he was the first one that came to mind as a possible exception to the analysis. The question it presented was how you were identifying when the player actually took over the role. I was concerned more with the first look you took, where you were using save totals in the first year of service. I think it would be better served to identify % of appearances that were save opportunities. Your point about closer by committee situations should also be identified.

It just seemed a little incomplete, at first reading. If you were taking those things into account, then I was wrong.

by etp_stl on May 26, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

Shouldn't Bobby Jenks

be included in the list of rookies who closed? I know he shared the role for a while, but he was definitely the closer by the end of the season (2005).

by Red in Chicago on May 26, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

jenks got 6 saves as a rookie

and chris perez may well have 6 saves by the end of this year. but like jenks, he’s going to go through a breaking-in period. jenks didn’t get his first save until his 14th appearance; after 29 appearances and 3 months on the roster, he had 3 saves. that was on september 28th. and then he got saves in his last 3 games of the year (sep 29 thru oct 1).

by late september, we might very well see perez in the closer role. but the fact that he’s not in there now is consistent with the way jenks was eased into the role, and wagner, and worrell, and nearly everybody else. again, i’m not saying i agree with this usage; it’s just the way the wise men of baseball do things.

by lboros on May 26, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

Also a fairly analogous situation with Dustin Hermanson closing with smoke and mirrors

I’m not sure if Perez is ready to be a closer every day, but give me a fresh Perez over Franklin on back-to-back-days 100 times out of a 100. We shouldn’t have a designated closer, and shouldn’t it be just fine for Franklin/Perez to not “know their roles” as is always the counter-argument considering Franklin isn’t a true closer and Perez is probably just happy to be in the bigs?

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on May 26, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

plus

if the bases are loaded in the 8th, wouldn’t you rather have perez come in?

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 27, 2008 12:57 AM EDT up 0 recs

Not on subject

but a question. Why is Brad Thompson on the DL.

by ridgesee on May 26, 2008 11:20 AM EDT 0 recs

sore elbow

Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...

by giveml on May 26, 2008 11:33 AM EDT up 0 recs

or so they say.

by stlcardinalsfang on May 26, 2008 11:58 AM EDT up 0 recs

Who didn't see this coming?

Jimmy’s days as a cubbie may be over soon. Thank god, let this unholy union end and let us never speak of it again. I think they figured out that whole secret agent thing, crap that means no more espionage. Hopefully they only release the guy and spare him from the firing squad.

"Do what you want to the women and children but leave me alone"- George Carlin

by That's a Winner on May 26, 2008 11:25 AM EDT 0 recs

Threre is no way Perez will be considered to be the closer

until it is more clear whether Izzy will be able to return to effectiveness. TLR is fiercely loyal, especially to his favorites. Probably not a bad decision, depending on Izzy’s ulitmate timetable.

Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...

by giveml on May 26, 2008 11:35 AM EDT 0 recs

Question

Do we really want Perez to be the closer? People always talk about how the ninth inning isn’t always the highest leverage situation that a reliever will face. Isn’t Perez ,who has some of the best stuff in the Pen, better used to get the 3-4-5 in the 7th or 8th and let Franklin be the true closer and only face the high leverage situation when it happens in the 9th, which should be a more rare event then being able to choose when to put Perez in?

New Member of the Skip Schumaker Fan Club

by cyko42 on May 26, 2008 11:54 AM EDT 0 recs

I agree

The important thing is to use your best reliever in the highest leverage situations. Sometimes that’s the 9th, sometimes that’s the 8th, sometimes that’s the 7th. Now, I don’t like the idea of excluding Perez from high-leverage save situations in the 9th, but I also think at the end of the day he might end up pitching in more high-leverage situations than Franklin.

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on May 26, 2008 12:18 PM EDT up 0 recs

+1

Yeah, Perez has been pined for the whole closer role. We’re all aware. Izzy will most likely come back at some point, we know that too. I love the idea of having Perez back up here, and I think he should stay. But with our setup I have to go with the Bill James adage here.

If we need to win a game in the 7th, then that’s what we need to do. We now have two very good throwers in Perez and K-Mac that can come in when we get in trouble with a starter, or a reliever. Let’s use them to shut down the other team when they’re threatening for now. If Franklin is unavail then we can put Perez in that role, I’m ok with that.

But I could care less, and would be willing to argue against putting him closing now. I want to see him have a game or two where he struggles a bit, and grinds it out. I want to see how he bounces back. I want him to gain traction in high leverage situations instead of starting innings with clean bags. I want him to be in a hold position with a one run lead and take care of business.

I don’t want him in a situation where he’s essentially gifted the role, then it yanked from him when Izzy returns later in the year (and it’s a very, very likely situation). I don’t think it’s fair to have that approach, nor it is fair to give him that emotional rollercoaster.

When he’s vetted into the job, he gets it. He keeps it and he’s the core of the pen. Until then, tread lightly and patiently.

I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang

by AdjustedExpectations on May 26, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

Grammar police

It’s ‘couldn’t care less’. “I could care less” makes no sense.

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on May 26, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up 0 recs

That's right.....

Keep everyone in line….

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on May 26, 2008 2:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

That one I will haha

“I could care less” is literally the opposite of what people are trying to say…

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on May 26, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up 0 recs

"I could care less"

As Steven Pinker says, that phrase isn’t illogical—it’s sarcastic. Plus its meaning is abundantly clear to anyone who hears it. In other words, “I could care less” is perfectly acceptable.

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on May 26, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

False.

“I could care less” is a lazy colloquialism adopted by those who didn’t know any better. It is in the same league with the term “irregardless,” which would indicate “without a lack of regard for.” The phrase “I couldn’t care less” happens to convey the sentiment that the author/orator is trying to accomplish.

In my experience, “I could care less” is not used to be ironic or sarcastic. It is always used to convey that the author/orator gives no credence to the argument being presented to him/her. This requires the literal translation of the phrase “I couldn’t care less.”

With all due respect to Mr. Pinker, he is rationalizing a colloquialism. That is fine if there is a reason for it, but don’t try to convince me that it is correct grammar.

by etp_stl on May 26, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up 1 recs

+1

by cardsgirl95 on May 26, 2008 6:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

at the risking of tedium...

Rationalizing a colloquialism IS grammar. ALL grammar began as common, everyday speech and only afterwards became codified into something called “grammar rules.” These rules are made, broken, and remade all the time. If the point of language is to communicate, and AdjustedExpectations communicated his/her meaning perfectly by saying “I could care less,” then what’s the problem? I mean, yes, I know “irregardless” isn’t in the dictionary, and I never use the word myself, but I’d also never correct someone who did use that word, unless of course I was trying to flaunt my education or something obnoxious like that. (And for the record, I didn’t say “I could care less” was correct grammar—I said it was perfectly acceptable, in the exact same way Larry’s all-lowercase lettering is “incorrect” but perfectly acceptable, esp given the context of this blog.)

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on May 26, 2008 9:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

But,

grammar rules necessarily take into account the actual meaning of the words in use. The literal definition of the phrase contradicts the sentiment that was to be conveyed by the use of the phrase. The fact that we have all learned to understand the repeated use of broken grammar does not make it correct. Grammar rules are defined to avoid confusion between multiple individuals attempting to use the same language to convey ideas. The question is, would an individual learning the language be able to understand the thought that is being communicated by the phrase “I could care less” correctly? Would a child learning the language understand the meaning? The answer is no, because the phrase would be interpreted literally, and thus incorrectly.

To say that the use of a phrase is “perfectly acceptable” without additional qualification is implying that the grammar is correct. In addition, you attempted to back the statement by referencing a quote from an Harvard linguistics professional. The only reason for doing that is in an attempt to persuade others that this is correct grammar in the eyes of that linguistics professional; therefore, those of us who disagree must be incorrect.

Your qualification in this post about lboros’ stylistic choice is not an accurate correlation. This is not a matter of style that is being discussed, but an individual choice of phrasing that is incorrect.

by etp_stl on May 26, 2008 9:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

hmm...

I did not invoke Pinker to prove that “I could care less” was grammatically correct, primarily b/c Pinker himself does not consider that phrase grammatically correct. I brought him up b/c the idea I mentioned was originally his, not mine.

My basic feeling is that there are several acceptable grammars depending on context. What passes for acceptable grammar in, say, a text message might not be so advisable when, say, writing a thank-you letter to a potential employer. And as far as I’m concerned, “I could care less” is perfectly fine, especially when the forum is a comments train on a blog and the readers are most certainly not your hypothetical child learning the language for the first time. What’s more, I would say that the breach in decorum occurred not with the person who used the phrase “I could care less,” but rather with the person who saw fit to rap his knuckles for it.

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on May 26, 2008 10:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

I addressed that topic below.

I commented to joker24 that one seldom makes friends by criticizing someone’s grammar in typical conversation, so I don’t disagree with your finishing statement. We all violate grammatical rules frequently here, and it is not necessary to have a 9th-grade English teacher here to police us. If your point is not understood, then one of us will ask.

That said, when you referenced a quote in your rebuttal, you are inferring that the quote supports the theme of your rebuttal. If it did not, then it was an incorrect choice of quote.

There is such a separation of communication, in that we often use what is defined as conversational speech. This is often filled with colloquialisms, and true grammar rules need not apply. As you stated, we know our audience and choose to bypass certain rules. This is not a new set of grammar rules, but simply an agreement that they are not strictly enforced.

by etp_stl on May 26, 2008 11:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

Open Ears

Oddly, perhaps, I found this exchange to be fairly riveting.

by mcurryatl on May 27, 2008 12:45 AM EDT up 0 recs

...

“That said, when you referenced a quote in your rebuttal, you are inferring that the quote supports the theme of your rebuttal. If it did not, then it was an incorrect choice of quote.”

What does that mean? I don’t ask that rhetorically - I’m asking honestly. B/c I still completely support Pinker’s notion that “I could care less” is sarcastic. But that’s different from saying “I could care less” conforms to proper grammar rules. Because neither I nor Pinker ever claimed that “I could care less” was “correct” - merely that it was acceptable. (In the same way that, say, “If anyone calls, tell them I’m not home” or “Who are you talking to?” are grammatically incorrect, but completely clear, logical, and acceptable in both spoken and written English.)

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on May 27, 2008 2:41 AM EDT up 0 recs

by the way

there’s an incredible essay by David Foster Wallace called “Authority and American Usage” that’s more or less about this argument. Wallace wouldn’t necessarily agree with everything I say here, so I’m not using him to score points. I just think it’s one of the most fascinating things I’ve ever read, and if you’re into grammar and stuff you might want to pick it up. (It’s long, though—over 60 pages.)

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on May 27, 2008 2:51 AM EDT up 0 recs

This probably carried on WAAAYY too long.

I’m sorry I took so much umbrage to your first post, but since you asked a question I’ll answer that question.

You asked what I meant. I stated above that your initial post indicated that this statement was “perfectly acceptable” without additional qualification. Consequently, since the post to which you were responding was challenging the grammatical value of the statement, then you were implying that you believed this was correct. You used Mr. Pinker to support your assertion. If Mr. Pinker’s assertion did not define the statement as grammatically correct, then his was the wrong quote to invoke in your rebuttal.

I would challenge Mr. Pinker’s assertion that “I could care less” is sarcastic, as I have never experienced it being used in that manner.

BTW, we were all completely wrong by defining this as a grammatical inaccuracy, anyway. There is nothing grammatically wrong with the statement, as all of the rules have been followed. The question is more of a literal nature. Did the statement convey what the author was trying to accomplish? If you believe it to be a sarcastic statement, then the answer is an emphatic yes. If you believe as I do, that it is not, then the answer is no.

I’m sorry to anyone we may have BORED during this exchange. As I stated elsewhere, I don’t think it is necessary to police grammar within polite conversational exchanges. It certainly won’t make friends, and often it turns the other party off from listening to anything you have to say.

Brian, I enjoyed it because I’m like that. Thanks for introducing me to Mr. Pinker and Mr. Wallace. I will try to check them out.

by etp_stl on May 27, 2008 8:15 AM EDT up 0 recs

Sounds good

And yes, fun exchange. Hope all is well. Go Cards…

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on May 27, 2008 11:36 AM EDT up 0 recs

It's meaning has become clear to anyone who hears it

Because kids couldn’t hear it right when they were young and its idiocy has been perpetuated to the point where people just don’t pay attention to just how stupid it is. You’re right it isn’t illogical: it’s wrong. It’s backwards and dumb…again it’s the literal opposite of what someone is trying to say.

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on May 26, 2008 6:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

BTW, ...

in my experience, you seldom make friends correcting their grammar. Especially in a forum such as this, when so many statements are made quickly. You are absolutely right in your assessment of the phrase, but does it really matter here. I cringe every time I read that phrase, when someone writes “should of” instead of “should’ve” or “should have,” or when someone uses less when describing a quantifiable number of items instead of fewer. However, I am not interested in alienating those members for the sake of proving a point.

Now, when I hear a professional journalist or author make the same mistakes, I tend to go ballistic.

by etp_stl on May 26, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

+1000

Nitpicking grammer doesn’t impress me either. If we were all employeed as journalists paid to write for the forum or in an english class then go ahead.

by birdo rojo on May 26, 2008 7:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

Point taken yeah

But I’ve been around here for awhile, it’s not as though I’m making too many posts about grammar here…

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on May 26, 2008 7:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

True.

I’ve noticed a couple of “grammar” posts lately. I don’t generally have a problem with it, I was just pointing out that it is a sure way to devolve into an argument. As I said, you were correct in your assessment; but it seemed as though you were starting to get irritated with the rebuttals.

by etp_stl on May 26, 2008 8:07 PM EDT up 0 recs

Sorry, not necessarily from you on the grammar posts.

by etp_stl on May 26, 2008 8:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

I could care less, if only I had not already hit the bottom of the great jump of not caring.

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 27, 2008 1:10 AM EDT up 0 recs

This

is the stupidest thread in the history of this blog.

"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols

by cardzfan24 on May 27, 2008 1:14 AM EDT up 0 recs

Someone always told me...

that it is “I couldn’t care less” because if you could care less, then care less. Stating that you could not care any less for the subject matter shows no importance to you which is what you are trying to say when you say “I could care less.”

by Jumsy on May 27, 2008 12:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

My take

I actually use the phrase, slightly modified, in a sarcastic way. “I could care less, but it would require too much effort on my part.”

That said, the Cubs do deserve my pity, but never my support.

by Solanus on May 27, 2008 1:31 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yes, because

he isn’t the bullpen ‘ace’. Is he one of the best we’ve got out there? Certainly. But for high leverage situations elsewhere in the game, I’d rather have K-Mac. He’s got 4 pitches, is very good at changing speed and seems to have the same bulldog attitude that Perez has.

Don’t get me wrong, I want Perez as the Closer. But I also believe that in most high leverage situations, I want K-Mac out there.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on May 26, 2008 1:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

i seem to be in the vast minority

that doesn’t have a problem with the current setup. i like perez’s stuff and everything and think he’s going to be a dominant closer one day, but why mess with what’s working? franklin’s had a damn good year so far and has yet to do anything that would warrant him being pulled from the position. i know we’re all excited about perez’s future, but franklin should get a fair evaluation first.

by stlcardinalsfang on May 26, 2008 12:00 PM EDT 0 recs

I can agree

I got a little down on Franklin latter part of last year, but his stuff has looked better this so far this year with better movement on his pitches. He could be a better closer than setup man.

by ridgesee on May 26, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

Also, I would like to see

the Cardinals make a decision on Barton soon. He is not going to be of great value to the team this year i the role he is in and I do not see the necessity to keep him as some here do. If he was younger..yes, but he turned 26 in April and that is old for someone with no experience above AAA. Stavanaha, Mather and Hearther are all younger and more experienced (not to mention Rasmus) To me, Barton doesn’t look like a power hitter, but show good speed on the bases and in time might hit for a decent average.
I know Stavanha, Mather, or Hearther are not noted glove men, but neither is Barton and I would about as soon go with them as to give up a young prospect, or prospects for Barton. If you cna get him reasonable from Cleveland, good, if not send him back. One way or the other he should be in AAA getting playing time.

by ridgesee on May 26, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

+1 on barton

i know everyone around here likes him and blames his numbers on lack of ABs, but he seems to have no role with club, present or future. the cards should either make a reasonable offer to cleveland to get his rights (seems unlikely), or give him back to the indians. either way, it has to be done soon.

plus, getting him off the roster opens up a spot for a guy who seems to be mashing the crap out of the ball in AAA lately.

by stlcardinalsfang on May 26, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up 0 recs

If we are getting rid of an OF

how about we get rid of the one who can be replaced fairly simply by Joe Mather? That would be Chris Duncan. Mather is a better defender than Duncan (that’s not saying much) and is absolutely raking right now.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on May 26, 2008 1:33 PM EDT up 0 recs

but where are we going to put duncan?

he can’t exactly be sent down to AAA and no one really seems interested in trading for him at the moment.

plus, do you think tony would do something with a coach’s son? i would like to see duncan gone too, but you have to think realistically.

by stlcardinalsfang on May 26, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

Why can't Chris be sent down to AAA?

He has options.

No, he wouldn’t do something to his godson. Which only gives credence to all those people that claimed he was playing because of nepotism. He’s a talented player who has value. I hope the organization doesn’t make personel decisions based on family connections.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on May 26, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

but you know they will.

so duncan is here to stay.

by stlcardinalsfang on May 26, 2008 5:12 PM EDT up 0 recs

barton goes ??

according to mo, cleveland is not willing to let us swap for barton on terms acceptable to mo, so i think leverage for maximizing his value is to package him in a deal with an other team. as this became known it would pressure cleveland to either be more “reasonable” , lose him to the royals or some other team that would keep him, or start all over dealing with some other team. right now i feel his value to others exceeds his value to us or cleveland and we should take advantage of that. we seem to have plenty in the pipeline of equivalent or better outfield talent. it would be particularly helpful to have a roster that does not have 5 players who are basically outfield only players.

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, perhaps you haven't grasped the situation!

by sportsman on May 26, 2008 4:04 PM EDT up 0 recs

But what makes Barton less valuable to us

than Duncan or Skippy?

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on May 26, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

value

the reason to package barton (+/- skippy or dunc) is that he is least developed. potential always seems to intrigue suitors more than accomplishment. i am assuming neither skippy or dunc is viewed as having great upside, so teams will “pay” less. plus, at his age (and theirs), he needs to play. also, i’m not opposed to moving dunc down and letting him play. in both cases i expect the player’s value would increase. we need to change the structure of the roster by finding someone who is not limited to infield only or outfield only (aka spiezio, marrero, inge, etc.). if we are going to make a real run this year, we need more flexibility (and performance).

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, perhaps you haven't grasped the situation!

by sportsman on May 26, 2008 6:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

I dunno

I think he still has some upside, and could even be a passable Willie McGee type player. Then again, it sure has been looking lately like he’s a fluke. then again, we need a bigger sample size, which is the argument of not having ABs

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 27, 2008 1:12 AM EDT up 0 recs

He's 6 for 20 as a pinch hitter

he’s got great speed and is a better defender than Duncan. He’s a cheap version of So Taguchi with a much higher upside.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on May 26, 2008 1:32 PM EDT up 0 recs

All good arguments hardcore...however

You make it seem like a family argument about who sits where at thanksgiving dinner.
I’m not feeling so many warm fuzzy feeling about our outfield. Ludwick looks like a keeper. Ankiel has serious holes in his swing… I know that opposing scouts and teams have noticed. He needs work…...Skippy seems game although I don’t see him making any other teams starting outfield….. His big up side is that he is a lead off style hitter on a team that has no other choice save Miles….... I look forward to Mather and Rasmus showing up. This team sucks for situational hitters. Get a back up catch that can hit…...get a back up corner infielder that is first off the bench as a pinch hitter…......

Westcoastbirdwatcher

by westcoastbirdwatcher on May 26, 2008 6:48 PM EDT up 0 recs