A Modest Proposal
by the red baron on Jul 16, 2008 4:17 AM EDT
369 comments
Wow. That was quite an All Star Game last night, wasn't it? What pitching performances! And the home runs, from all those guys! Wow. Words fail one.
Note: The author of this piece did not watch the AS Game. In fact, it was actually written a couple of hours before it even began, so the above statements may not, in fact, be true.
Anyway, the 'second half' of the season is just about to start. The Cardinals find themselves in second place in the division, well back of the Cubs, and just a hair up on the Brewers for the Wild Card. There's been a lot of talk lately about the Cards making a move to try and compete this year, or move some players as sellers to plan for next year, and all these other things. Well, I've been thinking about it a lot lately, and you know what? The Cardinals can do both. They can build a team to make a run this year, without tearing apart what they have going forward. You say that you want to be a winner? Well, I'm going to tell you how. Now, please don't thing I'm advocating this without reservations. I do, however, think I have a pretty decent plan.
First off, the Cards probably need some more runs. This offense has been plenty iffy at times, and worse than that at others. Unfortunately, the positions that the Cards really need upgrades, namely in the middle infield, don't really have upgrades available that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg. So instead of trying to fill a specific spot on the diamond, we're just going to get the best bat available. So, first off, you sign Barry Bonds. Now, before everyone out there gets all upset, I don't particularly like the idea either. I've long been on the side that despises Bonds for all he's done to our precious game, and all of that. In fact, I was just discussing the notion of Bonds in a Cardinal uni the other night, and everyone pretty much agreed it would be a travesty. However, the longer I think about it, that's kind of a BS way to look at it, even if it's mostly the way I still feel.
The Cardinals already have PED users in uniform every day. Our very own golden boy, Rick Ankiel, purchased HGH, and he's the most heartwarming story any of us have ever seen. But HGH wasn't against the rules at the time, you say? How about Ryan Franklin? He tested positive, and served a suspension for, steroid use. None of us boo him every time he comes on the field. Well, technically, some of us might, but that's not for the steroids, that's because we think he's going to give the game away. Troy Glaus was named in the Mitchell Report; we don't have a problem with him. I realise that Bonds really bugs a lot of us, but to single him out as the face of the steroid era, and try to turn him into a pariah, is hypocritical, when it has become increasingly clear that a pretty large percentage of the players in the past fifteen to twenty years were juicers. Okay, enough soapbox. I still don't necessarily like the idea, but we're trying to win here, right?
Right. We sign Bonds. He has gone on record as saying that not only would he play for the league minimum, but that he would donate his salary to charity. He may be a jerk, but it's pretty clear that the guy really does want to play baseball. So, he costs you the prorated portion of league minimum, which in baseball terms, literally doesn't exist. He costs no talent to bring in, so he's as close to a free player as you're going to find. He also becomes the teams' second best hitter in all likelihood. At this point, you need to move Chris Duncan, so you either send him down to Memphis to work on his swing some more or you just package him with a minor league reliever to try and bring in a LOOGY from some team that's out of it.
All right. With Bonds in place in left field, your every day outfield becomes Bonds, Ankiel, and Ludwick left to right. Mather and Schumaker are your fourth OF/ defensive replacement guys when you need them.
Okay. Take a look at the middle infield. The thing is, Aaron Miles has pretty much done exactly what we've needed him to do this season, and he needs to be starting every day at 2B. I realise that Kennedy is hitting a bit at the moment, but Miles has been much better on the season. So Miles is your everyday 2Bman. Unless, of course, you can come up with something better.
Enter Ray Durham. You look around the league, and he's really the only name that pops up that gives you what you're looking for. Guys like Brian Roberts or Dan Uggla are awesome, yes, but they're also going to cost you, big time. The Giants seem to want to move Durham, partially just to get his salary off the books, but also because they are a team in full rebuild mode, and as such, need as much opportunity for auditions and so on as possible. Durham could easily be had for a middle of the road prospect, I think.
Why Durham? Well, given that he's 36 years old, I can understand you asking that question. However, he's a free agent after this season, meaning that you aren't tied to him long term. More importantly, even at 36, he's currently putting up an OPS right at .800 in one of the toughest pitcher's parks in the game. The move to Busch might actually bump his SLG numbers up a bit. Even if they don't move any, an .800 OPS from a second baseman isn't anything to sneeze at. Even better than that raw number is the OBP chunk of it. He's carrying a .385 on base percentage, which is, as those of us in the biz like to say, not too shabby. Durham doesn't have much in the way of wheels anymore, but I don't look for him to be in a situation to run much anyhow. You trade any one of Garcia, Todd, Mortensen, and Boggs, I think you net Durham easily, and still have a pretty good shot of at least one productive major league pitcher out of the three you hold on to. You trade a guy like Garcia, I would hope you could get maybe a decent throw in prospect as well. Honestly, I think you could probably fetch Durham without giving up any of those guys, but even if you do have to include one, it isn't the end of the world.
I'm not sure where Durham would fall in the free agent classification. However, since it's based on a three year average, we can safely assume he would be at least a 'B' for service time alone. He's OPSing .800 this year, which is pretty damned good for a 2B. Last year he was awful, posting a .638, but the year before that he was the man, with an OPS near .900(!). .891, to be exact. Based on those numbers as a second baseman, I would think he has a very good chance of being a Type A, so there's a decent chance you could get two draft picks for him anyway.
With his on base abilities, I think you could slot Durham right into the top of the lineup immediately. He would be an upgrade, and a pretty decent one, but not massive, so if the price is too high, it doesn't kill you to pass on him.
At this point, you need to rearrange your assets in the lineup to maximize what you get out of them. Here's your new batting order:
- Durham/Miles 2B
- Molina C
- Pujols 1B
- Bonds LF
- Glaus 3B
- Ankiel CF
- Ludwick RF
- Pitcher
- Izturis SS
I know, Molina is kind of an odd choice for the second hole, but I think it works. He makes contact well enough to be an excellent hit and run combo with Durham or Miles, and you don't run ahead of Albert anyway, so speed at the top of the order is essentially wasted on this team. The only concern with Yadi, of course, would be his penchant for grounding into double plays, but he doesn't hit into an enormous amount, particularly when you consider just how slow afoot he is. At the very least, he should get on base a fair amount ahead of the big boppers.
Okay. That's the lineup taken care of. Time to shore up the pitching staff. Go out and trade for Jarrod Washburn. Lb made all the important arguments for Washburn yesterday, so I won't go back over them here. Personally, I'm not all that excited about the prospect of dealing for Washburn, but as a salary dump, he wouldn't cost any kind of real prospect, and he has only limited no trade protection, so you could potentially move him after the season if you really wanted him out of town. For now, though, he provides some protection in the rotation, and frees up one of our current starters to potentially be dealt if you want. (Braden Looper, I'm looking your way.) There's been plenty of talk about A.J. Burnett, and I agree he would help you more, but I'm not sure I want to give up what it would probably cost to bring him in from Toronto, plus dealing with the whole opt out thing? Feh.
I wouldn't give up a better prospect than, say, a David Freese type guy for Washburn, since we're talking about pretty much a straight salary dump here. If you're taking on the guy's contract, you won't give up a top 20 type talent to the Mariners. That makes your every day rotation look something like this:
- Lohse
- Wellemeyer
- Washburn
- Pineiro
- Looper
When Wainwright or Carpenter come back, you simply flip Looper to a team looking to bolster the back end of the rotation. Again, what you're looking for is bullpen assistance, particularly of the lefthanded variety. If both of them come back, you might even consider moving Pineiro. He could bring a pretty solid return, I would have to think. Hopefully, by the middle or possibly the end of August, you're looking at a rotation of:
- Carpenter
- A.D.A.M.
- Lohse
- Wellemeyer
- Washburn
Of course, at the end of the season, you either let Lohse walk or trade Washburn and sign Lohse, opening up at least one rotation spot for Garcia/ Boggs/ Todd/ Mortensen/ McClellan/ whoever. It's not a cheap rotation, but particularly if you move Lohse, it's one that doesn't tie the Cards' hands long term.
So that allows us to potentially trade Chris Duncan, Braden Looper, Adam Kennedy, and possibly Joel Pineiro from the big league squad. In addition, I would be willing to trade any one of Jaime Garcia, Jess Todd, Clayton Mortensen, or Mitchell Boggs, even outside of the trade for Ray Durham I already mentioned specifically. In this particular scenario, I don't see a reason to trade Bryan Anderson, so I wouldn't. If you move Anderson, I think it needs to be for a guy who's going to be a big piece of the future, and I'm not describing any of those sorts of deals at the moment. Again, I think you could move one of the four pitching prospects simply because there are four of them, and I think they all have a pretty similar chance of making it to the majors. Note that I did say similar, not exactly equal.
Any and all AAAA roster filler can also be moved; guys like Mike Parisi, Anthony, and so on. Randy Flores can be moved, too, if anyone seems interested in him as a throw in. If you simply can't move Kennedy, either just DFA him or send Brendan Ryan back to the minors. It would leave the team thin on third basemen, but that's not a prohibitive downside, in my opinion.
Out of all those players to be moved, you need to turn them into one good left handed reliever. You want to turn the rest of them into a promising young MI prospect, but that's not really the point of this. For this exercise, I'm only interested in this year. Find a team that still believes in Chris Duncan's bat (if there are any), and try to get their best LOOGY. Depending on whether they're in contention or out of it, you'll probably need to try and create a package of either Duncan and Looper/Pineiro or Duncan plus, say, Boggs. You can try to pry one of the Pirates' lefties away, or look at a guy like Jimmy Gobble from KC, maybe. (I think he has good lefty splits, but I don't feel like looking it up at the moment, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Arthur Rhodes of the M's would be a good target, too. Point being, just find the best lefthanded reliever you can and try to get him. Villone can serve as LOOGY if need be, if you simply can't find a guy, but Tony seems set on using Ron for whole innings, much to my dismay. So, try to get someone else.
The one real downfall to this plan, aside from the fact that you may not like the idea of Bonds here, is the money. This would require ownership to take on some extra salary this season. Not a prohibitive amount, and I think they would probably be willing to do so. I'm sure that some will argue they won't take on any salary, no matter what, but the point of this exercise is to demonstrate something, namely that you could turn this team into a big time contender, I think, without mortgaging the future too very badly.
So, we've got our big bat to slot in the middle of the order. He can't play defense too very well, but he's not any worse than Chris Duncan, I don't believe, and far better than a guy like a Manny Ramirez. You can make Bonds work on this team. The salary is so low there's no real risk to the clubhouse, either. He creates a problem with the team, just release him. As I said, in baseball terms, 200K or whatever it would cost to get him right now almost doesn't exist.
We upgrade in the middle infield, at least from an offensive standpoint. You may take a bit of a hit here on defense, too, and that does concern me. Kennedy has been quite good with the glove; Miles, just okay. Durham is pretty average, so you lose a bit in regards to Kennedy, but the extra offense definitely offsets it, in my opinion. You have a new high OBP guy for the top of the lineup. No speed at the top, obviously, with Durham and Molina, but this team doesn't run with those guys anyway. You do have some speed further down, with Ankiel and Ludwick, and they're in a better position to use that speed and be a bit creative with the bottom of the order up.
You help to upgrade the rotation for right now, and don't have to go overboard committing to the guy long term. Again, Washburn has only limited no trade protection, so I'm sure you could move him if you really, really wanted to.
With the amount of players you would have free to trade, I'm sure you could come up with at least a little bit of bullpen help. The 'pen is probably going to be a bit of question mark this year, though, pretty much no matter what, so I think we may all just have to live with it. Still, one more lefty reliever isn't too much to ask, is it? You've got to be able to get one of those for what you have to give up.Guys like that are out there, you just have to be willing to give up a little bit to get them sometimes.
Bottom line, you could do all these things and not spend much of anything in the way of talent. It would cost you something in money, but money is much less valuable than talent. You can trade one of your four pitching prospects and stil have a pretty good chance that one of the other three will become something useful. This utilises mostly talent that's very nearly freely available, and there's really very little risk or opportunity cost lost going forward.
I've gone on record as saying that I think this team should just wait, sit tight with what they have, and give it a run. The pipeline of talent they've managed to develop to this point is just too valuable to blow up, in my estimation. You go with this sort of a strategy, though, and you can turn the team into a real contender without doing so.
Do I think they should do it? Hell, I have no idea. Do I think it would work? Absolutely. If I didn't, I wouldn't have wasted your time with it.
Thoughts?
Second author's note: Apparently, I have the absolute worst luck in the world when it comes to picking which games I should and should not watch. The 20-2 Phillies shellacking? Totally saw that. The Boston epic? Nope, not even an inning. Thus, it figures that I skipped the greatest All Star game ever. It's really beginning to get on my nerves.
0 recs |
369 comments
Email
Print
Comments
durham's defense is dreadful
he probably wouldn’t be better than Kennedy, this year and next, and if he IS a type A based on his offensive stats, he’ll not play after this season due to the heavy weight that modern GM’s (rightfully) place on draft picks. No sane GM will trade a 37yo for negative draft pcks plus $xM.
Bonds OTOH is a clearly HUGE upgrade over Schumaker, costs nothing, and should have been signed in May to play LF. Esp if we can trade schu.dunc/barton etc for something useful.
"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN
by SleepyCA on Jul 16, 2008 4:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't see why Durham is...
such a better option than Grudzy. Mark is sporting a .770 OPS (.360 OBP) now which is just a tick below RD. He also is MUCH greater defensively, and may even be an upgrade over Kennedy…not to mention he is already well liked by the Cardinal faithful. He may cost a tick better prospect than what Durham would, but would surely be worth it. I would also think he’s a lock for being a Type A free agent – if we don’t just decide to re-up for 2009.
by cardzfanbub on Jul 16, 2008 7:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't dislike bonds because he's a PED user
i dislike bonds because he’s an arrogant prick. say what you want about donating his salary to charity, etc., but from my outward impressions he seems to crave attention so much that i believe his personal needs would clash with the current personality of the team.
between the personality issue and the media circus swarming the team as a result of signing him acting as a distraction, i don’t care if he donated $10 million to the team’s payroll in order to play, i wouldn’t want him on the st. louis cardinals.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 7:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1 Bonds is known as a CLUB HOUSE CANCER... Do the Cardinals need that?
Bonds is so bad with teamates that I recently heard he has been known to play with teamates for YEARS and not speak a single word to them…even if they are in the lineup everyday and bat either directly in front of or behind him…This team has chemistry (minus a strong closer) do we really want to mess with it?
mattnj
by mattnj on Jul 16, 2008 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if he's not talking to his teammates
how bad a cancer could he possibly be?
Any lack of clubhouse chemistry inflicted by Bonds (which I believe to be overhyped by a media that has complete contempt for the man) would be resoundingly outweighed by the offensive improvement he would bring. It wouldn’t even be close. The team that signs Bonds, and I think someone will, improves their team markedly immediately by 2-3 wins at least.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Bonds is just one guy. Based on reports this season the clubhouse atmosphere seems to be great. I have a hard time believing that Bonds could someone affect it that much when there are 24 other guys in the clubhouse as well. He would almost have to try to cause that much of a problem.
"The right-hander is throwing up in the bullpen." -Mike Shannon
by DJ87 on Jul 16, 2008 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
most of the good chemistry this season
has come from the fact that there are no “stars” on the team. even the better players on the roster (pujols, ww, etc.) lead with humility and work ethic, not a prima donna attitude. rolen and edmonds didn’t fit into that and wouldn’t accept their roles on the team, and thus were traded. i am worried bonds would come in with too big a sense of entitlement, as he has seemingly had his entire career. i don’t want to see another bonds/kent-esque feud with whoever he finds distasteful on our roster. last year’s team had enough drama for a decade.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This post is utter insanity
How can you presume to know the culture of the clubhouse without spending any time in it? How can you presume to know any of the following claims you make:
- The Cards’ chemistry comes from having no “stars”
- Pujols and Waino lead with humility and work ethic and aren’t prima donnas
- Rolen didn’t fit into the chemistry (we know he didn’t agree with LaRussa, but how can you claim to know how he fit in with the rest of the players?)
- Edmonds didn’t fit into the chemistry
- The Edmonds trade had ANYTHING to do with his clubhouse presence
You’re stating a lot of things as fact that you have no way of actually knowing.
by mojowo11 on Jul 16, 2008 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
pardon
i should’ve clarified that several of my statements were my own speculation. (though i thought it was fairly clear that edmonds was going to have a reduced role in ‘08, so he demanded a trade… as well as most details of the rolen/la russa feud. management does play a part in clubhouse chemistry, do they not?)
but frankly, everything regarding bonds is speculation. nobody knows that he’s going to come in and be a perfect gentleman either. and heck, nobody knows if he’s even going to come in and be a healthy, productive player. so to each, their own opinion.
the one thing we can probably assume with certainty is that any team that signs bonds is going to be scrutinized heavily by the national media, for better or for worse. and i don’t think media attention is what this team needs. it seems la russa’s teams tend to thrive in the neglected/underdog role (most notably the 2004 season and 2006 postseason), so i tend to believe that any gains in performance from picking up bonds would be offset by the negative psychological toll brought on by playing under a magnifying glass.
so, i’m going to say it – signing barry bonds would, in fact, be “utter insanity”.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
steve kline said the clubhouse cancer thing
was total crap on the radio the other day. Coming straight from someone who was on his team….
by azruavatar on Jul 16, 2008 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and...
correct me if I am forgetting someone, but the only teammate I have ever heardof Bonds not getting along with is Jeff Kent. Does anyone get along with Jeff Kent?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 16, 2008 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bonds got into a fight with Jason Christiansen.
by greenback06 on Jul 16, 2008 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think much of this year's success is attributable to a collection of players who actually embrace 27 hard outs.
Bonds would inject a whole lot of indifference into the team, create media mayhem and generally undo a lot of what has gone well for the team. Check that, no UNDO, destroy.
Cry havoc and let loose the Dogs of Tony before adding Bonds!
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 7:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
bonds has never won a world championship
I think that would be enough to motivate him to “embrace 27 hard outs”. Besides, if there ever was a player who is hard to get out, it’s barry bonds…
"..and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped." -Sir Belvedere
by SleepyCA on Jul 16, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trade Talk
Under no circumstances would I be pleased to see the Cardinals trade Garcia (potential #2-3 starter), Mortenson (fast tracked to AAA in what, his second year of pro ball?), Todd (moving up w/a bullet), or Boggs (I think he could evolve into Jeff Suppan in time) for Durham. Durham? Please sir, say it isn’t so.
by Callaway Kid on Jul 16, 2008 8:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yes
That worked really well with Dan Haren
by rthorat on Jul 16, 2008 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You give me Dan Haren
I’ll give you Bud Smith and Jose Jiminez. Both were sold high and recouped a player greater than them… it’s not always a bad thing to do.
by Hal Lanier's Pants on Jul 16, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
one sweet day
we’ll get over danny haren and mark mulder.
by spencegrif on Jul 16, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be great...
I know I’m ready to move on!
by tbell61 on Jul 16, 2008 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
But Todd is no Bud Smith orJose Jiminez. I guess that my beef is that “sell high on Todd” implies that Todd’s value is at its highest now. In my opinion, that is way off base.
by rthorat on Jul 16, 2008 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What does that mean?
Todd is no Bud Smith or Jose Jiminez? The guy is a pitching prospect, just like Smith and Jiminez were. Whether he is a “better” prospect than Smith or Jiminez is irrelevant. The issue here is whether he is “at his highest value” for trading purposes, which you seem to state in your post. How does a comparison of the pitchers at issue apply here?
by Hal Lanier's Pants on Jul 16, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whats the risk of bud smith and jose jimenez though?
you arent paying them a thing. trading them away is a lot riskier than keeping them.
by UNCDubya on Jul 16, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but...
thnk about the team on the other side. They’re taking on some risk too. They could trade an established vet who goes on to give the Cards serous value for 6 months to 6 years, and get a prospect or two who fizzles out and leaves them with nothing in return.
I’m all for prospects and generating homegrown talent, but I think people forget the low success rates for these guys. Even a lot of can’t-miss guys just don’t really pan out. Some do, of course, and that’s what you hope for. But a lot just don’t.
by Hal Lanier's Pants on Jul 16, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a lot of trades
dont pan out either. but if the trade doesnt pan out for the team acquiring prospects, theyve typically given up and older high paid star and have low paid guys under contract. and theyve moved a high salary off the books, giving themselves flexibility. if it doesnt work for the other side, you are stuck with a player with a huge contract or worse yet, youve given up a cost controlled star.
by UNCDubya on Jul 16, 2008 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where is the optimism?
We seem to be disucssing the obvious here, but I’ll plow on.
You are correct on everything you say. However, the one big thing you are leaving out is the common scenario where a trade DOES pan out. Look at the Edmonds-Kennedy deal. Yeah sure, the Angels got a low paid guy who played many solid years for them. The Cardinals, however, got a superstar who cost a lot of money, and was worth it.
The “hedging” logic you present is pretty defensive. If all a team worried about when making trades was how to minimize their damage in the event of a bust, they’d go nowhere. Teams make trades with the hope, whether inspried by research or the GM’s gut, that they do pan out.
by Hal Lanier's Pants on Jul 16, 2008 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about
Kent Bottenfield – not exactly the same because he was no longer a prospect, but the Cardinals sold at the absolute pinnacle on that guy.
by roarke on Jul 16, 2008 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
might be a position player, but, that is like selling Ludwick right now.
by hoofhearted-pujols on Jul 16, 2008 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garcia, Todd, and Mortenson are untouchable for me
unless we get a top shelf player for them. Boggs is expendable and Parisi even more so. Mortenson and Todd are possibly top of the rotation guys and Garcia is a 2 or 3. That’s a lot of years of cheap, good pitching. And all 3 of them will probably be ready to start within a year or so.
by rthorat on Jul 16, 2008 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ray Durham? Maybe Bonds? Also no
Bonds is a great player, and the PED thing doesn’t bother me all that much, but the guy is 43 and about as immobile as they come.
As for Durham? If we can get him for cheap (basicly a 2nd level prospect like Shane Robinson), then sure.
boo cubs, hooray beer
by Raconteur on Jul 16, 2008 8:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So not to be a huge Richard or anything...
and seriously, not to knock the post above, but but I got 1 bazillion cyber-dollars that no one rips Red Baron for posting what amounts to “trade rumor/speculation” stuff.
Look, I am completely fine reading stuff like this; I think about it myself and I enjoy reading others’ creative (and even sometimes not-so-creative) thoughts on the subject. I think such posts often generate some pretty decent discussion and if nothing else, they give us all a chance to procrastinate a little while at work.
What rubs me the wrong way is that when Fan X authors a Fanpost with no links to sources and what basically amounts to his or her opinions on what team could/should do, we inevitably get the enforcers who feel compelled to chime in and point out just how worthless the post is and how it doesn’t deserve to be its own entry, yet here we have 2,843 words (sans the author’s notes…yep, I counted) as the “main page” entry today.
Again, I’m sure Baron’s opinions on acquiring Barry Bonds, Ray Durham, et al. have the potential to generate some good discussion today. I’m just saying that we’re all fans here and if one of the regular contributors can use nearly 3000 words on pure, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants trade speculation on a main post, maybe we should be a little more tolerant when other readers devote far-less prominent spaces to their own speculation.
Bring on the criticism…..
by goodymobb on Jul 16, 2008 8:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i'm in agreement
although i think everyone goes a little overboard with the wacky trading ideas. i suppose it’s fun for some people to talk about… but i’d prefer the main posts to focus on analysis rather than pure speculation. the global rumor thread fanpost was a fantastic idea.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm fine with a fanpost
that is well thought out and well written dealing with any subject, including trade proposals.
The fanpost clutter begins when there is just a title like: “Aaron Cook?” and a subject of: “What would it take to get this guy? Anderson>?? Rasmus?? I’d do it!!! He’d be AWESPOME!!! and for some reason i have to keep typing tp get to mu characterlimit even though i mades my point to sign aaron cook no matter waht it takes!”
Well who the hell can see forever?
by Alxfritz on Jul 16, 2008 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+9,395,289,395,358,257,932,684,852,356,257,002,893,189,025,486,361,593,482
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
and then there are 3 different fanposts about acquiring the exact same player when they could have simply replied to either of the other previous fanposts about that player.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But again,
how much of RB’s main-page post today is “new?” There have been tons of discussions on acquiring Bonds and bullpen help and I’m 99% sure that someone mentioned Ray Durham fairly recently.
Look, I totally get that we all prefer to read well-reasoned trade ideas, but your argument (i.e., repeated posts on the same thing detract from the site) doesn’t really hold up here. Ultimately, today’s post is an “I think the Cardinals should get Bat X, Bullpen Help Y, and Middle Infielder Z” post. Sure, there’s not as many double question marks or typos, and again, I’m not picking on RB here, but this post is basically the same thing, except it uses waaaaaay more words to say it.
by goodymobb on Jul 16, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
alex fritz nailed it
most of the objectionable FanPosts have about 1/1000th as much thought put into them as RB’s main-page post today. RB gives a rationale, analyzes the strengths / weaknesses of the players involved, and weighs the costs / benefits of his proposed acquisition. the typical “let’s trade !!” FanPost doesn’t do any of those things. a FanPost that does meet those specifications generally gets into the Recommended category.
there’s a reason RB is writing on the main page — it’s because he used to write FanPosts (then known as “diaries”) that were really, really good. nobody ever objects to a thoughtful, well-written FanPost. it’s the tossed-off-in-60-seconds junk —the equivalent of FanPost spam -—that everybody hates.
by lboros on Jul 16, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if this is the best we can do
ill play with the hand were holding please
we dont need the Bonds circus, unfairly ostracized or not
the difference between Barry and a guy like Franklin is Barry is a colossal jerk
and has always been
we dont need the clubhouse cancer that is Barry Lamar
Washburn has been good of late, but has been a career back end guy
if hes the best we can do, we need to look to the bullpen and just try to bring along some guys for next year
id take him over Burnett though, truth be told
and goodymobb has a great point
i dont do a lot of posts on here because i cant tell whos allowed to post what
Come on 2009!
by benstl on Jul 16, 2008 9:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you're being a bit unfair to Washburn...
...when you call him a “career back end guy.”
This is a guy who has posted ERA+s of 136, 120, 141, and 132 over his career. True, he is often quite average (his other ERA+s: 93, 99, 97, 95, 100), and will probably never get back to his former glory. These days he’s probably #4 in the NL. But he’s certainly been better than a “career back end guy,” and he even finished 4th in Cy Young voting in 2002.
/nitpicking
by mojowo11 on Jul 16, 2008 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said this the other day, and got absolutely LIT UP over it, but I will stand by my comments....
If Bonds is signed, I will boycott the Cards for his entire putrid term of existence on the team. My dislike for this guy and what he has done to bastardize baseball knows no bounds.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jul 16, 2008 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably more of a loss...
for yourself than for the team.
by cardzfanbub on Jul 16, 2008 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
dont think....
hes the only one
i can name five people i know closely that would look for other things to do until he left town
about time to build that Koi pond
Come on 2009!
by benstl on Jul 23, 2008 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO
he didnt do a thing to baseball, and HE is a creation of what the culture of baseball has/had become. he wasnt the first, nor the last, he did not push other players to do anything. he just happens to be the most talented player to use PEDs. to which i say meh, there have been roids in the NFL since what the 70s and no one even cares.
feel free to disagree
by FunkeeC on Jul 16, 2008 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
FunkeeC......
I view the PED era just like you do, oh well…....
by ICbirdfan on Jul 16, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I don’t know why people can’t see this. We are blinded by our emotions, I guess.
Looks, Bonds is a Class A dick. We all know that. But what makes him worse than Ryan Franklin? The steroids worked out better for him and he broke the HR record? Just because you are a more notable player who took steroids doesn’t mean you’re more guilty. And the funny thing is that Bonds hasn’t even tested positive like Franklin did.
Dislike him as a person, fine. But this “what he’s done to the game” line is a load of media force-fed crap. He hasn’t done anything to the game that a dozen, two dozen, two hundred, a thousand other steroid/PED users haven’t also done. He was a good player who became elite after he (probably) took steroids. Other guys were bad players who became passable when they took steroids, and nobody gives a crap about them other than their role as a miniscule part of the “steroid era” as a whole. Just because Bonds’ ceiling was higher doesn’t mean he deserves more punishment, more scorn, or the role of the scapegoat that he’s been assigned by the public and the media.
I don’t want Bonds. I don’t want the media circus, I don’t want to deal with his legal problems, and I don’t really think that the marginal gain he provides is worth it. But people have got to stop pretending like Bonds is the devil when it comes to this steroid crap. If Franklin can be on the Cardinals, then it makes no sense to say Bonds shouldn’t be on the Cardinals because of the steroid allegations.
by mojowo11 on Jul 16, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nice post
although, i thought bonds was an elite player who became elite-er after taking steroids?
i think part of the issue is that there are subtleties that people overlook or don’t want to admit. is a serial killer more guilty of murder than a man who killed only once? sure, maybe bonds did more steroids than anyone in baseball, ever. i don’t know, i can’t speculate. and it does seem like he’s unrepentant, but do i know for sure how many other players are repentant? nope. i wish players would be encouraged to get it all out in the open instead of just doing our best to sweep it under the rug. that way there might be potential for coming to terms with it.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, the media didn't force-feed me any crap. I force-fed it to myself!!!
:)
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jul 16, 2008 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not the PED's that I object to.
It is the way that he has created this horrible melodrama about himself. I feel that, when Bonds is around, the game is almost trivialized. McGwire and Sosa didn’t do that. I want to win games. I want to win games the right way. I want the wins to be the news, not indictments or divorces or mistresses or dugout fistfights or hat size or shoe size or personal trainers. And, I definately don’t want Carlos Gomez reporting daily from the clubhouse about how Bonds sneezed yesterday after the game.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jul 16, 2008 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
pedro gomez
carlos = twins’ CF
but yes, i agree with you.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So basically your main concern
is the media coverage of the man.
by FunkeeC on Jul 16, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they’ll send Jeremy Schapp “for E-S-PEEEEE-IN” to monitor Bonds attempt to get his body physically able (not ready…able!) to play baseball and discuss ad nauseum how his Dad used to be a Cardinal and how emotional it all is.
by cardschinmusic on Jul 17, 2008 7:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bonds
Was just going to echo what Benstl said. It isn’t so much the PED thing with Bonds, it’s that he’s a jerk.
by Chris68 on Jul 16, 2008 9:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
this is a BS argument
Tony LaRussa and Dave Duncan can be, on many occassions, world class “jerks”. The club should be interested in winning games, so if there’s nothing morally incorrect with signing bonds (as the previous posters have claimed), then the club is seriously failing in its responsibility to sign one of the greatest hitters in the game at bargain basement prices.
Now, if you can give me a reason based on actual performance or numbers why they shouldn’t sign him, you might be onto something. Citing his age alone doesn’t count because you could have screamed 42!!!!! last year and the argument would have been just as false.
by spencegrif on Jul 16, 2008 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah...
it’s taken me a while to admit it to myself, but the controversy surrounding bonds has become such a circus. if he did ped’s, he’s merely the most accomplished and best player to do so. i really like troy glaus, and even ryan franklin, and guess what, they did it too. he also happens to be a jerk, which has little to do with “playing the game the right way”, it’s just nice to have players who aren’t jerks. he’s the perfect storm, so to speak, of the ped era, and so far more than his fair share of bitterness is heaped upon him. and i’m not saying he doesn’t deserve bitterness, either; i’m just saying he has become for many people the incarnation of steroids, and it’s as if by denying him the chance to play anymore, it makes the whole thing better in some way.
on the other hand, i wish i could say i was brave enough to advocate signing him and ignoring the tidal wave of negativity that will crash upon the cardinals for doing so, but i’m not. i don’t think we need him, because he’s kind of old and could break down, and out outfield is good enough. but the truth is i just don’t want to deal with what would surround us signing him. blah.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
its not a BS arguement
chemistry can be everything
this team is considerably better than last year
could we honestly not say it could well be due to no more scotty and jimmy fueding with tony
the atmosphere you play in can make or break a team
its BS to dismiss this arguement
with his talent he should have a ring, it wasnt like they didnt have good teams in san francisco and pittsburgh
Come on 2009!
by benstl on Jul 17, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
Why don’t you go back to Pitt and San Fran and analyze the 1000+ things that go into wining.
I don’t think chemistry does not exist but come on you are bascially saying the reason Bonds did not win a WS ring in Pitt & San Fran was due to chemistry alone. I will have to call complete BS on that.
by ICbirdfan on Jul 17, 2008 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This seems like as good a time as any to say it
but how do we know that Bonds is a dick , jerk, whatever other uncomplimentary label that has been applied to his personality? Granted he comes across as arrogant, but other than that and the fact that some in the media really don’t care for him, what exactly proves that he is a jerk, dick, etc.?
I am not saying he isn’t one, I just one to know if there is any justification for it, or if it comes from the fact that some people just really don’t like the guy.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 16, 2008 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if people repeat it often enough
it must be true, right?
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
one person yelling fire....
you might not believe it
two organizations later, several ex teamates…....
you might outta believe rome is burning
Come on 2009!
by benstl on Jul 23, 2008 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see how this improves the team...
Before the Giants started rebuilding, they were considered an “old team,” and now you are wanting the Cardinals to acquire two of the players that were causing the team’s “old” label? It just doesn’t seem to make sense or benefit the current team enough. Could one of these possibly be like Will Clark and be a huge help to the club? Maybe. Is weakening your defense a good reason to improve your offense marginally? I don’t think so. Errors can affect a team that statistics don’t show. Just in the All-Star game, we saw how one error led to another for Dan Uggla and the NL squad was lucky to escaped unscathed.
by Jumsy on Jul 16, 2008 9:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Bonds
improves the offense marginally? No. He improves the offense significantly. He’s still one of the 5 best offensive players in baseball and Schumaker, though he’s been great this year, isn’t anywhere close.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
correction.
He’s the BEST offensive player NOT in baseball.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jul 16, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I still wouldn't sign the man.
POISON!!!!!!!
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jul 16, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry I didn't state it...
but I was referring to Durham.
by Jumsy on Jul 16, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
I’m starting to like the idea of Grudzielanek more than Durham anyway
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i would have to
second that emotion
Come on 2009!
by benstl on Jul 17, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like this idea of Bonds...
And as far as everyone saying he’s a jerk, I’d trust the judgement of the Mo and TLR on that one. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that his recent experiences with not being signed, legal trouble, etc. may have humbled him a bit. At the end of last season, he was looking for (and this is from what I can remember) around $10M a year….now he’s just looking for a job. I see that as a positive step forward and sign his personality is moving in the right direction.
Bonds is a low risk, high reward move that costs us nothing in prospects. If he gets in here, makes an ass of himself and is the clubhouse cancer everyone is afraid of, then just release him. At least the effort was made to make the team better in a year where we originally did not intend to be a playoff contender without damaging the long term rebuilding of the team.
"Baseball is the only field of endeavor where a man can succeed three times out of ten and be considered a good performer." - Ted Williams
by WiscCard on Jul 16, 2008 9:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
he's looking for a job
because he desperately craves the attention from the media circus that will follow him when he’s on a major league ballclub (or for that matter, on an independent minor-league team, which i’m surprised he hasn’t considered at this point). right now, he’s not playing and therefore not in the spotlight. that’s why he’s offering to play for the minimum – it’s worth it to him to see his face all over sportscenter every night and give himself a chance to boost his career HR total. he’s not discounting himself in order to benefit any particular team, because he doesn’t care about the team… and that’s an attitude that would carry over to whatever team signed him.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
how do you know that?
have you spoken with him recently? I don’t buy all of this clubhouse cancer stuff … I guess I need more compelling evidence to say I don’t want him on my team.
by jeff_abs on Jul 16, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the comments that his teammates have used.
“Barry’s Barry”. If that is the best thing you can say about a person, then that is a pretty good indicator of his personality.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jul 16, 2008 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess for me this brings up a question:
If you did sign him, how soon would he be ready to play? If it takes 3-4 weeks, that may be too late to affect the race much, depending on how close they can hang with Chicago and Milwaukee. Does anybody have any idea of what kind of shape he is in? What did his agent say about that, if anything?
by tbell61 on Jul 16, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think he has said he's be ready in 10 days or so...
don’t know if that’s bonds talking or his agent though
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the all star game
next year, i hope they start it at 10pm EST, then i wont even have to think about it. last night i think i saw the first inning and a half.
by UNCDubya on Jul 16, 2008 9:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Next years All Star Game
I hope Stan is still with us to get the treatment Teddy ballgame did at the AS Game in Boston back in 99.
Also, filling in that giant dirt hole in left field (no, that’s not a Chris Duncan shot) would be nice, too.
Well who the hell can see forever?
by Alxfritz on Jul 16, 2008 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard they're gonna turn the pond into a park
Fill it in, put some sidewalks, benches, trees, etc. Honestly, I like that idea a lot better than some stupid retail center that blocks the views to the courthouse.
"Give a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a night. Set him on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life."
by BigMOman on Jul 16, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
name it "sportsman's park"
ok, kind of corny… but i like that idea too. at this point i don’t care whether or not it single-handedly revitalizes downtown (since we’ve all heard that one before) as long as it’s something nice and useful.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope they do something. The hole in the ground is embarassing.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 16, 2008 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
right. doesn't have to be fancy.
although, it would be awesome if we just told everybody that it’s leftover damage from when the black hole monster attacked the city. if anybody has seen the modern classic sci-fi channel original movie “the black hole” starring kristi swanson and judd nelson, they know what i’m talking about.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe build an annex to the Bowling Museum. No critic of the city can bypass that one!
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm still having trouble believing the Bowling HOF is moving to Arlington, Texas
Akron, Milwaukee, even Chicago makes sense to me. But Arlington???
by random on Jul 16, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or Toledo......
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 16, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dewitt Crater
I like the “sportsman’s park” idea; however, the “stupid retail center” would improve economy greatly in downtown. Just seeing what the Power and Light District has done in downtown KC is amazing. I know that the “stupid retail center” (I use that now because it doesn’t really have a name, not to spite you BigMOman) would not be as large as the P&L District in KC, but I would love for my home town to have something like it.
by stlfan on Jul 16, 2008 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'd be cool with that too. i'm just not gonna get my hopes up that downtown st. louis completely transforms
as a result, no matter what they do. it would be pretty sweet to take another step toward making downtown more lively and inviting and all that.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the problem is
that saint louis has been sold that same bag of magic beans that will be revitalizing down town about twenty times in the last fifteen years, so we’re all a little jaded about about a project that promises to do the same which, by the way, is three years behind schedule.
As they say, show me.
My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.
by Alxfritz on Jul 16, 2008 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
st. louis centre baby!
it’s the wave of the future!
/1986
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no offense taken..
but it does have a name: Ballpark Village :-)
I don’t think it would add anything without also taking away the viability of some of the old favorites downtown. There’s only so much money to spend after the games. The main attraction of a place like that is that it would provide $XX million revenue for downtown. However, how many of those revenue dollars are merely replacing dollars that used to be spent on the dozens of bars and restaurants that are already downtown?
KC’s P&L district is really cool, but it is a destination in itself – a reason to go downtown. In StL, we already HAVE a reason to go downtown – baseball 81 times a year (or football, 8 times a year), and so I really doubt it would add a whole lot of incremental revenue to the downtown economy.
Just my two cents
"Give a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a night. Set him on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life."
by BigMOman on Jul 16, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really "fixing" St. Louis requires increasing
the city’s population. That will do more than any string of nightclubs or shopping.
And BTW, as a former resident who’s been away for 8 years now but visits often, St. Louisans are too close to really appreciate how much better the city looks compared to years ago.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jul 16, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's true that it's improving
and the work they’ve done in Soulard and on Washington is nothing short of amazing. The one thing that will help the most, however, will never happen: re-merging the city and the county.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 16, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's for sure. Why would
the County ever take on that responsibility?
I live in Baltimore now, which, oddly enough, is in the exact same position w.r.t. Baltimore County. Baltimore is in about as bad a condition now as I can ever remember St. Louis being, but IMO it will never bounce back the way STL has.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jul 16, 2008 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It'll never happen
But I’d love to see a block or two of it sold to local bars/restaurants, a pro-tailgating parking lot, a couple of little league fields, and a big lawn/common area.
It won’t make the most money, but sometimes simplicity is best.
My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.
by Alxfritz on Jul 16, 2008 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
make it a true "ballpark village"
and not just more commercial/retail/residential space. I like the idea.
"Give a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a night. Set him on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life."
by BigMOman on Jul 16, 2008 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
little league fields
i remember an article on stltoday a couple weeks ago talking about how there are few quality fields left in south city. while i know the ballpark village isn’t south city, but the city and MLB could use a really nice field complex.
a mini Busch stadium complex with a couple fields could generate more interest in little league. also, the complex could hold tournaments for regional travel teams to have a weekend tournament and have tickets to cardinals game that night. my team had a similar setup for a tournament up in Omaha during the college world series. i know its a big idea, but could be a sweet piece of baseball heaven.
by stlsportsfan06 on Jul 16, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention the publicity would be astounding
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 16, 2008 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
its a win win situation for all. lake dewitt is gone, the kids get a nice complex to play ball at, cardinals get some positive publicity and revenue, and the city gets some economic benefits as well.
or you could get another retail giant blacktop area…choice is yours.
by stlsportsfan06 on Jul 16, 2008 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do like that view
KTRS has their radio station down by the stadium already, right?
by liam on Jul 16, 2008 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
KTRS is the big 550?
if so they are in westport plaza, not anywhere close to downtown
www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com
www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D
by jealousblues on Jul 16, 2008 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From today's Post Dispatch regarding the All Star game:
“Slay said, “Certainly the Village won’t be done by then. I’m not exactly sure what will be there at this point. But I know this: The Cardinals are committed to making it look very presentable. And I’ve talked to (chairman) Bill DeWitt directly about it and, hopefully sooner than later, they’re going to get something done there.”
by Ray Lankford on Jul 16, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Swift
Does the Baron’s choice of titles mean we’ve been duped into believing he endorses an excessive series of trade/acquisition proposals, when he’s satirizing ‘efficient’ solutions a la Swift advocating killing and eating Irish babies as the best thing to do? Look up Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” if confused.
Seems just like the wily old RB to pull one like this. There’s just something stupidly breathless in the tone, no?
by jfs on Jul 16, 2008 10:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
he just wants to eat babies. Is that so wrong?
Well who the hell can see forever?
by Alxfritz on Jul 16, 2008 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could be
a little of column A, a little of column B…
Why don't you just make like a tree, and get out of here?
by the red baron on Jul 16, 2008 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, it's no secret that barry bonds eats babies... i think you guys are on to something.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
now if that was true
it would be one hell of a reason not to want Bonds on the team. Unfortunately, Barry Bonds does not really eat babies.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 16, 2008 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
How depressing is it being you? Is it closer to being a lifelong cubs fan or being born without lips? - Janitor
by themanthemyth on Jul 16, 2008 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Swift wrote in response to the potato famine. Perhaps we can opine on the late Budweiser crop!
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A potato famine that wiped out a large portion of the population
of a country that is an island. Plenty of fish in the sea, as they say…
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy and Randy Flores!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jul 16, 2008 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
evocative title
Baron’s title is evocative of Swift (and perhaps provocative?), but Swift’s essay was unrelated to the potato famine: Swift lived more than 100 years before the 1840’s potato famine and published his essay in 1729.
by ncgostl on Jul 16, 2008 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, the Irish landlords and their opression of the tenant farmers were well established even then,
the potato famine just made this even more obvious to everyone.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 16, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
there was terrible poverty, and Swift satirized the opressive system that perpetuated suffering among the Irish. The landlords were of Scottish and English descent (and protestant, while the catholics lost their land). The famine forced the great migration of Irish to the US in the 1840s, including some of my ancestors. (There was also an Irish famine in 1740—also after Swift’s essay.)
Back to Baron’s title: Obviously, Swift was not serious about his modest proposal. Did Baron (deliberately or not) pick this title to convey how serious he is?
by ncgostl on Jul 16, 2008 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
mea culpa - 'twas a different era of starvation. spot on for catching that one
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Type-A/B
Why is it even worth mentioning whether someone like Ray Durham is Type A or Type B? Would we really risk offering arbitration to an old guy like that to get the draft picks? I would hope not.
by blahquaker on Jul 16, 2008 10:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Type A for Durham
outside of last year, he’s put up Type A #’s
boo cubs, hooray beer
by Raconteur on Jul 16, 2008 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and he wouldn't accept arbitration
so you dont have to worry about that
boo cubs, hooray beer
by Raconteur on Jul 16, 2008 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but he's really old
who’s gonna sign him long term? arb might be his best bet, especially if he falls apart in the second half.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
and if he’s type A, would someone really give up a draft pick to sign him?
by blahquaker on Jul 16, 2008 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So I'm a hypocrite
I won’t dispute that label. But the thought of Bonds in a Cardinals uniform is very hard to accept.
As frustrating as some of this team’s losses have been this year, I have gotten a huge kick out of watching them compete and seeing so many young guys get a chance as well as watching not-so-young guys like Ludwick and Ankiel and Lohse perform so well.
For me, the joy of this season would leave in a hurry if Barry Bonds climbed aboard.
by Youneverknow on Jul 16, 2008 10:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Your comment
“I’ve gone on record as saying that I think this team should just wait, sit tight with what they have, and give it a run.” By far your best comment. IMHO, just forget MI or big hitter behind Pujols..be nice but ain’t gonna’ happen without giving up the farm. Bonds, don’t want to even go there. Go for pitching, relief style righty or lefty. If this team makes the playoff, thats what will take them there.
If you want a reminder of just how pitching can take you, then replay last nights allstar game.
by ridgesee on Jul 16, 2008 10:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Moved to neutral
I have moved to neutral on the subject of Bonds. I haven’t been a fan of the guy through his career, but I have to believe he will be on his best behavior now.
The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!
by Zubin on Jul 16, 2008 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll even go on record as predicting
that if we pick up Bonds, we’ll win a championship. Even so, Bonds is a tough pill to swallow.
The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!
by Zubin on Jul 16, 2008 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Poll: Would you rather win with Bonds or lose with dignity and effort? Not sure how I would vote
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I vote to win
and I’m not sure how adding Bonds costs us dignity. Other teams won’t like us? Who cares? Some in the media who want to see Bonds blackballed from baseball would visit scorn upon us in their writings—so what? They’ll test Bonds. He’ll come up clean. He’ll hit homers and score runs and the team will win. Then some whiners can complain that we “sold our soul to make the playoffs” or some bullshit like that but so what? I really don’t get this obsession some have w/ what others will think.
What they ought to think is—“that was a damned good baseball move they made that improved their team more than the Brewers did when they added Sabathia and more than the Cubs when they added Harden.” They might not think that but, if they can’t figure that out, who cares what they think?
There’s an old expression—never argue w/ an idiot b/c people might not know the difference.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Win and it's not even close.
And Bonds is probably the guy I hate most walking this planet.
"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"
by rocKStark5 on Jul 16, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hyperbolize much?
So hyperbolize might not even be a word, but I couldn’t resist commenting.
Win, Win, Win
Isn’t that the point? I doubt signing Barry Bonds sets in motion a string of events that causes the Cardinals to be contracted. As long as the team is still around after he is gone, I am fine.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 16, 2008 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreement
I agree with most people on this forum in the fact that Bonds is a clubhouse cancer, and would be a massive jerk. I also agree that it is unfair to label him as the poster child for the Steroid Era. But, whether we like it or not, he is considered by the media to be steroids personified. So, with that in mind, even if the team accepts him (and I have the childlike image that the Cardinal Way will straighten up most characters), and he starts, the fact of the matter is, the Cards will be shunned by the baseball community. The media will be dogging us, and any mistake we make will be well covered. Just an observation.
As for a LOOGY, look at Tyler Norrick in Palm Beach. I didn’t look at his lefty splits, but the kid is a lefty, looked pretty sharp last year. He got a start in Memphis the other day, and had control problems, but outside of walks had a decent stat line:
4.0 IP/ 1 H/ 2 R (1 earned)/ 6 BB/ 8 K/ 1.75 WHIP/ 2.25 ERA
Not too shabby in my sight, considering it was his first ever AAA start.
by Ganzo on Jul 16, 2008 10:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i totally agree with your first point...
that’s what i’m really afraid of. i wouldn’t mind signing other pariahs like a-rod or problem children like lastings milledge or what have you… but bonds is just too much for me because we’d never hear the end of it. oh well.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you mean like
scott spezio? Plus, I’d give my left hand for a “pariah like a-rod”
by spencegrif on Jul 16, 2008 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A-Rod, pariah?
Huh? When has this guy been linked to any kind of dickery within the clubhouse? He seems like a good guy to me, Madonna-Cynthia situation be damned.
Now, if we’re talking about being a pariah in the hospital while his wife is having a baby, then you’re talking about something.
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search?q=cynthia+rodriguez
As Junior points out, apparently A-Rod is quite unclutch in the delivery room…
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 16, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
heh. i love firejoemorgan...
anyway, i just meant that i’d be more than willing to welcome other baseball players that have negative associations, partially for what Ganzo pointed out ; st. louis does seem to be an environment that is pretty welcoming and that players usually respond positively too, though the city does pat itself on the back a little too hard for it.
i would have jumped up and down with joy if we had signed a-rod to play 3rd base, though i knew it would never happen. though it’s no longer at its peak, i still think it’s ridiulous that he can never live down his contracts, his illusory un-clutchiness, etc.
in spiezio’s case though, it’s just probably just in his best interest to not be in baseball for a while…
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
by the way, if anything i've said makes me kind of a hypocrite
i’m fully aware. it sucks but at least i’m trying to acknowledge it.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we're in a good position with Bonds, if nothing else
Sit him down, tell him, “Look, we’ll sign you. But we’re going to release you if anything goes amiss. We want you to be cordial with the media. We don’t want any clubhouse altercations. We don’t want you talking about how you’ve gone unsigned because of race or false accusations. We just want you to say you’re happy to be here and leave it at that. We have other options, and we won’t hesitate to get rid of you if we think it isn’t working out.”
Then if Bonds is on good behavior, you can keep him around and maybe the media circus is lessened by 0.01%. If he goofs off and says stupid stuff, you cut him and get Skip back out there.
That said, I still don’t like the idea of signing him because of the media insanity that would follow, and Mo continues to say it’s not happening, so I think it’s sort of moot.
by mojowo11 on Jul 16, 2008 11:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Bible warns of old wines in new bottles. Or is it the other way around?
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bonds
The Red Baron seems to have bought into Bernie’s nonsense that it is hypocritical for Cardinal fans to accept Franklin, Glaus, Ankiel, and reject Bonds. Leaving aside for the moment such “minor” matters as Bonds’s arrogance, selfishness, and well-documented reputation of being a poor team mate and “cancer in the clubhouse,” to say nothing of his advanced age and immobility in the field, there is the not-so-small problems of an outstanding perjury indictment, a colleague sitting in jail for contempt because he refuses to testify about what he knows about Bond’s use of illegal substances, and Bonds’ own stonewalling refusal to admit any fault of his own. Say what you will about the aforementioned Cardinals, their cases have at least been “adjudicated” and dealt with by major-league baseball, and they have moved on and shown themselves to be good team mates and significant contributors to this year’s Cardinals. Let Bonds pollute the Red Sox or Yankees if they are foolish enough to take him!
I also hope now that the Red Baron has caught up to last night’s All-Star Game, he is having second thoughts about the “awesomeness” of Dan Uggia and the value of solid defense at second base.
by Mike G on Jul 16, 2008 11:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
A cancer
as I said earlier, any “cancer” Bonds brings (which is, I believe, overhyped by a media who has nothing but complete contempt for the man) is far outweighed by the offensive value he brings to the team. There seem to be many here who think that we would win FEWER game w/ Bonds than we would w/o him. That’s absurd. He improves this team by at least 2-3 wins over the last 75 or so games of the season—AT LEAST.
Also, Glaus was never adjudicated, as you suggest. He, like others, were swept under the rug as they should have been. Bonds is in the same boat w/ MLB as Glaus. The perjury indictment won’t affect Bonds until after the season, as has been well documented and Greg Anderson was released from prison 8 months ago.
If the Yankees sign Bonds, they’ll become a playoff team. You may feel that making the postseason “pollutes” a team, but he would, I think, also propel the Cards to the playoffs. The team that signs him will be better off for it—he’s just that good offensively, despite many people’s waxing sanctimoniously about it.
And, as for Dan Uggla, his 3 K’s and 1 GIDP hurt the team more than his errors did.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So Houston Cardinal
believes that as long as the Bonds trial won’t interfere with the current season, there is no problem with the Cardinals adding Bonds. He is apparently so eager for that hypothetical 2-3 extra wins that his statistical model tells him Bonds is worth that he feels that a pending perjury trial is meaningless. I beg to differ. Even George Bush expected Scooter Libby to leave government service while his perjury trial was pending, even though he obviously considered Libby a valuable member of his team, but I guess he couldn’t prove Libby was good for those extra wins! As far as I’m concerned, having Bonds isn’t worth those wins, even if they are really there for the taking. As for Glaus et al, I’m well aware that these cases haven’t been formally adjudicated, which I why I put the word in quotation marks. Perhaps I should have used the word “settled.” In any event, Bonds’s case is far from settled. It’s hard to keep track of whether Greg Anderson is incarcerated or not at any particular moment; if he’s not, don’t be too surprised to find him back in jail again when the court once more feels the need to try to coerce his testimony In Re Bonds.
As for Dan Uggla, if his horrible hitting hurt the team more than his atrocious defense, that was no thanks to him. At any rate, I didn’t mention his hitting because I was responding to the Red Baron’s apparent unwillingness to accept mediocre defense at second base in exchange for a stronger bat. Last night at least Uggla provided neither.
by Mike G on Jul 16, 2008 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great analogy - Bush/Libby:: Cards/Bonds
Difference is that Cards cannot commute Bonds. . .
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
(Most articluate) spot on!
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't want Barry Bonds on my team....
and it may be for the silliest reason of all. It’s because of Hank. You know, Hank Aaron. Everytime I look at Bonds’ arrogant, smug, big head I think of Hank Aaron. How do you think he feels about losing his homerun record to someone that everyone knows has cheated? He’s been classy about it, but it just has to eat him up inside.
I hope ARod, Pujols, Fielder, H Rameriz, or someone, anyone, can best Bonds.
Yeah, I know. It’s a stupid reason…..but please, no Bonds.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 16, 2008 11:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not just to you Jills
but everyone knows MANY players cheated. Bonds just happened to be a great player when he cheated. I dont understand why he takes such a hard hit for cheating. Is it because he was so dominant while cheating?
by njnick on Jul 16, 2008 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I happen to be upset with all of them that cheated.
Even Cardinals from the past and Cardinals right now. Cheating is cheating. I don’t care if everyone does it-that doesn’t mean it’s okay. Nothing can be done about it now…...just hoping everyone has stopped it and that ML baseball does everything they can to prevent it in the future.
Bonds probably bothers me the most because Aaron was one of my favortie baseball players when I was a child. I’m still not completely over the Cards trading Curt Flood and Steve Carlton either…..
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 16, 2008 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
without getting too much into this
if it wasn’t against baseball rules, was it cheating? Now, when Bonds did it, MLB had finally outlawed it but for most of the people to which you’re referring, it wasn’t against the rules.
Also, the big problem I have w/ this sort of argument is that people get so sanctimonious about steroids and how they hurt the players of the past (like Aaron) but no one addresses the amphetamine usage by baseball players of the 50’s and 60’s (including Aaron). Now, I love Aaron, Mays and the rest, but if McGwire was a cheater, so was Aaron. Speed is a PED just as steroids are, but few want to honestly address that. HGH, as has been noted myriad times, is not a PED as it doesn’t add muscle, unless it’s used along w/ steroids. Steroids and amphetamines are BOTH PEDs and if steroid users are cheaters when it wasn’t against baseball’s rules, then so were all the players who used amphetamines in the 50’s and 60’s—many of them Hall of Famers who were treated as heroes last night.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention
cortisone shots. I still don’t really get how someone being able to play only b/c they got shot up with drugs is okay, but taking hgh (or anything else) during a rehab isn’t.
My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.
by Alxfritz on Jul 16, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I agree with you that people need to quit overlooking greenie use from the 50’s-70’s, which according to most players from that day were taken by damn near everyone. Without being a medical expert, I would imagine that both anabolics and greenies can help a player a ton, with the added wrinkle that amphetamines don’t require any level of workout work-ethic…just pop and go. I’m not saying it makes modern PED-ers right, it just means that older players are also wrong in a different way.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 16, 2008 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say yes
Laws are passed continuously – why is that? Because clever people come up with new ways to cheat the system. At thetime, they did not necessarily break any laws, but enough people were outraged by it that laws were created. cheating could be defined as ‘breaking a law’ or could be defined (as does webster) ‘to practice fraud or trickery’. Clearly the whole ‘clear’ was designed as ‘trickery. They were coming up with compounds with steroidal activity that weren’t actually the steroids that were tested for – by anyone – anywhere – ever. Clearly there is intent to deceive. I don’t buy into the ‘it wasn’t against the rules’ argument. I don’t like Bonds – partially for the roids, partially because of his arrogance, and I don’t like that so many Cardinals and others around the league used it.
by cdb on Jul 16, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get that at all
For a long time, the spitball was a legal pitch in the majors. It was later banned, does that mean that everyone who threw a spitter before it was banned was a cheater? Just trying to follow the logic here.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 16, 2008 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gaylord Perry
was given a hero’s welcome last night at the ASG. He threw a spitball when it was illegal and he’s treated by people as quirky rather than a cheater. We laugh off his crime as though he was a submariner or wearing shark teeth around his neck.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I told my 8-year-old
...that Perry & Ford were cheaters, Gibson was the real thing & Musial couldn’t be there but we were going to remember him anyway.
by random on Jul 16, 2008 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will not even pretend to know who is clean.........
15-20 years from now you may look back and say “I thought he was clean”........ I am not going to get on a high horse.
PED’s are something I will look past and time will move on.
by ICbirdfan on Jul 16, 2008 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No on Bonds
If all we were talking about with Bonds was his performance and his contract, then I’d be all for it. If nothing else, the guy has the best batting eye in the history of history and could draw a ton of walks. Right or wrong, teams would still be quite cautious pitching to the guy, and I’m willing to bet he’d do no worse than a .360 OBP in his time in St. Louis. I’m not sure how well he’d hit or how much power he’d have, considering he’s not played baseball since last season. However, he’d still likely be a good offensive tool, and he couldn’t be worse defensively then Duncan, as azruavatar has pointed out numerous times on here.
However, with Bonds you have moved to an entirely new level of douchebaggery. And yes, I used the word “douchebaggery” and I’m okay with it. Now, moving on…This is a guy who treats everyone around him like dirt, including his kids and his first wife, and then is shocked when people call him out on it, crying racism all the way. Please. I have no doubt he’s been the victim of racism in his life, and I’m sure it was painful, but there was once these guys named Josh, Jackie, Roy, Hank, and Willie, and they suffered death threats and shit just to play the game they loved at the highest level. They win.
When he hit his record home run, he refused to even hug his fucking kid at home plate. Mac probably cheated too, which is another discussion entirely, but did you see what HE did when HE hit number 62? Yeah. Then, he has the gall to take his kids to press conferences with him, sit them there, and make them act like human shields so he can flippantly dismiss any questions regarding steroids, cheating, or generally dickery. I’m also ok with the use of dickery, so there. Honestly, if the Cards went out and got Bonds, even if they won the WS, I’d feel a little weird about it. I’d feel like they made a deal with the devil or something.
Finally, there are some perfectly good baseball reasons why NOT to sign Bonds. The outfield, quite frankly, isn’t the biggest issue with this team. Bonds would make it better, true, but really we’re talking about moving a strength on the team and turning it into a slightly bigger strength. That still leaves gaping holes in the bullpen and in the middle infield. I mean, Flores, Miles, Kennedy, Izturis, Ryan, a recently shaky Perez, Izzy being Izzy, Franklinstein…are these things you really want to leave to chance? Are these the guys you want to carry you down the stretch in two critical areas? I wouldn’t if I were GM!
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 16, 2008 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Signing Bonds
doesn’t preclude upgrades in any other area of the team. He’s even being signed for the minimum. Not that I think carrying a 44-year old with a .305 EqA (uncharted waters for PECOTA, but it’s as good a guess as mine) who needs to be sent out the LF with a walker is as big an upgrade as people are suggesting.
Anyway, I don’t want to have to stop visiting baseball websites or mute the TV for the rest of the year. I’m already sick of people talking about it and Mo’s gone so far as to unequivocally say it will not happen. I don’t care about baseball players being jerks (or what people think they can know from the outside) and I don’t hold him more responsible than any other player for the steroid era, but I can see why the Cardinals wouldn’t want to roll the dice on senior citizen that can barely play defense with all the PR baggage be brings.
by haltz on Jul 16, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's true
...that it doesn’t prevent upgrades in other areas. However, energy/time that could be spent finding other people would likely be devoted to negotiating, signing, reasoning, and dealing-with-media-regarding-Bonds. So in an indirect way, it could make it more difficult to get other, more essential pieces.
I chuckled a bit at your senior citizen quips BTW.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 16, 2008 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
energy? time?
the team has staff devoted to those other areas. all it would take is a phone call and watching the guy work out a few times.
by spencegrif on Jul 16, 2008 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Douchebaggery needs to be added to Webster's next edition. Maybe emblish with a picture of Bonds or a syringe.
Great post
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Glad to see...
...That you are also a fan of words invented to fit a certain situation.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 16, 2008 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
isn't the real question
which addition adds the most wins to the team this year? Even if SP is a relative weakness, the addition of Bonds will add more wins this year than Washburn will. SP will get no better, but the offensive improvement will be more than what Washburn could provide. Also, Bonds will cost nothing in terms of prospects this year, nor will he cost any money next year, thus tying the team’s hands next year or beyond.
There is no player the team could realistically add this year who would improve the team more than Bonds. Everyone else would cost a prospect or more, money down the road or whatever. Adding Bonds would be like finding 2-3 wins in your couch cushions. Many here would turn that down so that they don’t have to see Bonds on the back of a Cards’ jersey. It’s difficult to argue w/ that but there is no addition—not at SP, LHRP, or 2B that would improve the team more than adding Bonds, despite the relative strength of the OF.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're assuming two things...
One, that a 65 year old who hasn’t hit a professional pitch since October can just magically fall out of bed and put up an .850 OPS and hit a decent number of bombs, and two that said 65 year old will stay healthy during his limited time here. Those are real questions. For the sake of full disclosure, I think (as I said before) that Bonds, if nothing else, could stilldraw a ton of walks due to his great eye, and could hit enough to post a line that would look better than Skip’s or Duncan’s. I’d imagine he’d pull a .280/.400/.450 or something, which would look pretty good hitting around Pujols.
For me it comes down to this: I have certain things that just bother me. One thing that I’ve always enjoyed about being a Cardinals fan is that the organization conducts itself with a high level of professionalism and class. This is something that has been slipping a hair given La Russa’s DUI and the nasty business with Rolen, in combination with the Hancock tragedy and the Spiezio situation, situations in which their employees were clearly heading down a bad road without much aid. However, this is still a class organization. Bringing in Bonds calls that into question. It is saying that the front office would rather win and spit on 100 years of tradition then carry on what makes the BOB special and just wait a little longer. NO trophy or award in this world is worth that in my book. Bonds makes my skin crawl, and NOT just because of the PED issue. That is a seperate subject. This is a man who has bullied reporters (at one point shoving one down and physically threatening him until he left the clubhouse), cheated on his wife while buying his mistress a mansion with non-reported funds, cried racism at every turn when he’s called out for being a dickhead, and, worst of all, used his kids (who he’s been a shitty father to btw) as shields from criticism when he can’t even be bothered to hug his son after hitting number 756. As a father of two, that makes me just sick. Maybe I’d be a shitty GM for thinking this way, and so be it. I’d rather the Cardinals never win another ring in my lifetime then watch Bonds shit all over my favorite team with his mere presence for his limited time here. It’s like making a deal with the devil to me, like saying winning is more important than anything else. It’s not.
So really, no, the question isn’t which addition brings more wins to the table this year. It’s what addition can the organization live with. As Mozeliak has already said, that addition will not be Barry Bonds, and for that I’m glad, no matter what he brings in a baseball sense.
Ok, now I’m going to quietly put away my soapbox, take a few chill-pills, and go back to my corner…
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 16, 2008 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bravo - please keep the soapbox ready and come out of your corner at the bell. Nicely said
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's fine
you’re certainly entitled to prefer a “nicer” team than one that wins more often. I’d rather win. I don’t worry about whether or not the team has jerks on it. Bonds probably is a jerk. I just don’t care. The truth is though that we don’t really know if Pujols is a jerk or Russ Springer or anybody else. We don’t know these people at all and yet we think we do based on an image that has been crafted through the media. Bonds has chosen to say “F… his image” and so we end up w/ this perception of him. Perhaps it’s correct but maybe it’s not. Either way, I don’t really care. It’s certainly your prerogative to care.
That said, let’s not pretend that he would be only marginally better than Duncan or Skip. That’s a disingenuous argument. Your argument about preferring nicer, classier players is honest. The statement that he’s “65” is beyond ridiculous and the argument that he’s not really that much better than the people we already have is just simply false, and I’m sure you know that.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes...
It is false…That is absolutely true. Generally I prefer good players, its just that Bonds crosses into a whole new territory. I respect your knowledge and genuine appreciation of the Cardinals in your own way, and in a way I wish I cared less about perception and class and all the shit that has nothing at all to do with performance on the green meadows of a baseball field. However, after having raised a family and watched the way he’s treated his, I have a hard time supporting anyone like Bonds. It’s also the reason I’ll never defend Ozzie Smith on this forum, or Chad Johnson, or any of the other deadbeat dads in professional sports. Hell, if Pujols came out as a deadbeat I’d have a hard time defending him too…It’s just the way I’m wired, and I can’t help it. That’s why I’d be a shitty GM.
BTW, I mean what I say when I say that I respect everything you’ve done to make this forum such a great place. Honestly, you’d be a far superior GM than I would. Please, keep up the good work, and I’ll sit in my corner and do my thing!
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 17, 2008 2:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe
that “dickery” and “douchebaggery” are my new favorite words.
Do Work
by iwannarock24 on Jul 16, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Media Circus"
What is the actual tangible downside to ESPN saying Barry’s a jerk for the team? I can see how it might be personally annoying for a fan to have to defend his team to his/her drinking buddies, but I’ve had to do that against far worse criticisms following any number of tragedies that have faced the club in the past few years (plus TLR’s DUI, which was an absolute laughingstock). People will still go to games and fans will still buy jerseys. They just might not want a Bonds jersey. If it’s a choice between a shot at the playoffs and a weekly rachel nichols feature story on how Bonds is “controversial” and slowly fading down the stretch, i’ll take the former.
by spencegrif on Jul 16, 2008 11:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the comparison w/ the DUI is apt
what Tony did was much worse than what Bonds ever did, including lying about steroids to a grand jury. Tony’s sin was worse and he was largely treated heroicly by Cards’ fans. Bonds is a jerk. Isn’t Tony? Now, I never said that Tony should be fired or punished in any way (by the team or MLB) for what he did. He should pay his debt to society (as I believe he has) and never do it again. People make mistakes. I’m not immune, nor is Tony. But Cards’ fans have defended worse actions than anything Bonds ever did.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i completely agree
bonds, like hundreds of his colleagues, used PEDs. his behavior was par for the course for MLB players, regardless of whether or not you think he’s a jerk.
tony got behind the wheel of a car after he had been drinking, and put innocent lives at risk. give me bonds over tony any day.
i feel the same way about josh hamilton—it’s truly wonderful for him that he was able to overcome so much adversity in his life and become successful. but let’s not forget that, for a period of a few years, he was consistently getting behind the wheel while drunk and high, and he’s damn lucky he didn’t kill anyone.
bonds used the same drugs everyone else in baseball was using, and he lied about it, like a lot of other players did. but because he hit the most home runs, we’re holding him to a completely different standard. and the drugs he was using didn’t put anyone else at risk.
by djones9 on Jul 16, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Note to self
Delete possible Monday post about the merit of adding Bonds. Thanks RB for taking the heat for me. I’ll go w/ something everyone likes such as “Boy that Rick Ankiel’s really good, huh?”. Kidding (sort of).
I knew that a post like this would get about 80% of its comments against it—as it probably would in any city. I don’t think the Cards will even consider this anyway but it would improve the team more than Washburn or any other addition the team could make. I’m ok w/ going w/ what we’ve got, but if we’re on the outside looking in come October, I think it’ll be fun to look back and see whether Bonds could have put the team over the top.
I’m going on record right now as saying that, if we miss the playoffs by 3 or fewer games, adding Bonds would’ve put us in.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 12:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
I’ll go on the record, too, in saying I will accept the risk to our playoff chances by not signing Bonds.
Although I will also note that signing Bonds is not the team’s only option for improving itself this season, and reference lboros’s post re: Washburn as an example of another possible improvement.
I don’t, by the way, feel that most of the heat here is directed toward Red Baron. One post in particular questioned the nature of his piece, comparing it to a fanpost, but the discussion for the most part has been about Bonds, not RB. I’m certainly OK with people supporting the thought of signing him. It’s interesting to me that it has that much support here. I just happen to disagree.
by Youneverknow on Jul 16, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what I find funny about this thread
red state vs blue state atmosphere in here….I’m about ready to start slurring THEY TOOK JOUR JAWBS!!
"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"
by rocKStark5 on Jul 16, 2008 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you could always review how the mulder/haren deal worked out instead. haven’t seen much about that in the last few days.
by adiueordie on Jul 16, 2008 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking about
going w/ something about putting Reyes in the rotation or trading him! We haven’t gone over that subject in about an hour and a half.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DFA Kennedy, Miles and Skip!
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 17, 2008 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about trading a left handed first baesman to the Giants?
That’d be new as well
by birdo rojo on Jul 16, 2008 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm gonna catch hell for this but ...
Can we look at this from the ownership’s perspective? If I owned this team, I’d be damned concerned about the bottom-line effect, long-term, of Bonds. I’m talking about those fans who would be so disgusted they would stop giving me their money.
We all know those people exist, and some of them would be vocal about it. All I’m saying is that I would do my due diligence, in the form of intensive market research, before making a move like this.
No, I’m not being ironic or sarcastic. It IS an issue, perhaps in the long run not a huge issue (which I’m sure some of you will argue), but at this point we don’t yet KNOW how big of an issue it would be.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jul 16, 2008 12:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
they should
take a peek at the giants’ receipts
by spencegrif on Jul 16, 2008 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd look at all the cash I'd make
if we’re in a pennant race and make the playoffs. Two things far more likely with Bonds.
by azruavatar on Jul 16, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes...
but the competition got a LOT tougher in the last two weeks. Not to mention now the NL East (Mets, Marlins, Phillies) is looking like a contender for the wildcard.
by cardzfanbub on Jul 16, 2008 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i know its a big if
but we add a similar amount of wins to our team if Carp and Wainwright come back healthy. and i also think those guys progress, and the org’s belief that they’ll be back will determine the direction we take. without one or both of them, i just dont think this is our year, and would be hard pressed to give up any players or drop additional payroll if i dont think it puts us over the top.
by UNCDubya on Jul 16, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we're talking about Bonds here...
he would be paid a pro-rated potion of the league minimum. I don’t think you can call that “adding payroll”. His salary could be offset by the sell of Bonds Bobblehead dolls on Ebay.
by cardzfanbub on Jul 17, 2008 7:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and how about revenue
from home playoff games?
The wins Bonds would provide would bring in more $$$ than the losses the team would incur from people disgusted by Bonds.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, you are probably
right, but of course you’re not sure, just like I’m not sure. And when my multimillion-dollar cash cow is on the line, dammit, I want to be a hell of a lot closer to sure.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jul 16, 2008 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
also....
if i’m correct…ticket sales are down this year from the last two. i find it hard to believe that signing bonds doesn’t sellout every ticket, or darn near close the rest of the season. i understand how some people believe in taking the supposed moral high ground, but bottom line, bonds draws attention, as todays post illustrates. if we sign bonds, people are going to come to the ballpark to see him. espn and fox are going to pick up cards games for national broadcasts. there will be several bonds shirts/jerseys sold. regardless of whether you like the guy, bonds is a huge draw, and that is going to make the team money. at least imho.
by bwhitt on Jul 16, 2008 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Views of Bonds
Yes, Bonds is a jerk! In fact, he has been my least favorite player since way back to his Pirates days. But, he would help the STL line-up immensely, even if he is just 75% of what he was last year. The hugh plus for STL signing Bonds is what it would do for the line-up batting Bonds behind Pujols. Not only is Bonds a big offensive upgrade over Skip, he would make Albert that much more effective. Then I would put Ankiel second in front of Albert. Just imagine what Rick will do seeing more fastballs! Then Glaus goes to his natural place in the order at 5, which makes him most effective. Yes, I hate Bonds, but I want to hate him making Albert, Rick, and Troy better!
by finmsully on Jul 16, 2008 12:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
On buying Bonds (even) when the economy is realing . . . .
Having watched Musial, Gibson, Flood, Brock, Boyer, Ozzie and hosts upon hosts of other icons through the years, what a terrible legacy it would be to gunsling Bonds now. As per a previous post, one can only hope the gods of the diamond allow Musial to circle the all the bases at next year’s ASG at a time when he is otherwise rounding third.
Bonds having worn the birds on the bat would be a sordid footnote to all that greatness.
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 12:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
All teams have greatness
Don’t see how that would diminish anything.
by saladdays on Jul 16, 2008 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bonds is Bullshit
Right out of the box, I agree that the Cardinals need a stick in that lineup somewhere. But I would like to add a very strong no to the idea, crazy really, of signing Barry Bonds. Bonds is 40+ and hasn’t played baseball for 9 months, so if you signed him today it would be mid August, at best, before you got any kind of rhythm, whatever that would be. On top of that, the guy really IS a cancer – in the clubhouse, the media, to the fanbase. Is there one shred of evidence that that will change – that a guy with his head up his ass will suddenly get the taste for fresh air? Imagine TR’s delight when Bonds shows up in the clubhouse with his Leopard skin lounger. As for his real bad news – you say it is hypocritical to single him out for his drug use. I’m sorry, but that is a load of crap; Bonds is fully deserving, and then some. While many other players used PED’s to augment their play, Bonds, from 2001 on, set the repulsive standard. Not content to merely use available steroids, Bonds worked with Balco to 1) develop a systematic regimen for a stew of PED’s which "pumped him up" to ludicrous size, and 2) when steroids became illegal, to tweak them so as to evade testing positive. I’m sorry, he’s the Poster Boy because he’s the Poster Boy. If you doubt that, please read "Game of Shadows." That book will make you physically ill.
I have a load of respect for the people that put this blog together and contribute to it, but the idea of bringing Barry Bonds to St. Louis and putting "The Birds on the Bat" across his chest is garbage. It’s the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read here.
by deweydell on Jul 16, 2008 12:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Let's not forget...
if he becomes a nuissance he can be cut at anytime with no ramifications…see Ponson, Texas Rangers 2008.
by cardzfanbub on Jul 16, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
too many promising, young players on this team
to poison them with bonds’ presence.
by el_duderino on Jul 16, 2008 12:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
come on
guys. This entire post is exactly what we don’t need. Everyone acts like we can draw a line in the sand and “rebuild”. My point is….we should always be rebuilding. It takes time to gather the right pieces together. I would rather us stand pat, then go out and get mediocre players. I don’t just want to make the playoffs, I want to win the world series. Thats been the problem with this organization every year. We piece together mediocre players and hope they play over their heads…..just so we get to the playoffs. What about selling high, i.e. Ludwick, to put a package together for Holliday? Now there is a concept and a piece of the puzzle that fits nice and snug with Mr. Pujols. And no, I don’t care if we have to give up prospects outside of Rasmus. Go out and get the best bat available that you can build around for a long time.
Life is short! Break the rules! And never regret anything that made you smile.
by Section8 on Jul 16, 2008 12:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why ship out a guy who will...
make ~ $13 mil total over the next 2 years for a guy who is marginally better (if at all….790 career OPS away from Coors) and will make $13.5 mil next season and be a free agent after that? I’m all for selling high…i.e Skip Schumaker or Lohse (neither will probably have a place with the team next year), but the trade should benefit the team in some way.
by cardzfanbub on Jul 16, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
honestly
do you think ludwick is better than Holliday? Thats pretty much the argument you’re making. So what about the $13 mil. Who else are we going to get next year out of FA that is better than Holliday? Obviously the trade should benefit the team. I just think too many people on this site are over valuing our prospects. Even if we have all those prospects, you have to find a place for them or they die on the vine. Holliday, ludwick, Holliday, ludwick….you can’t honestly say you would take Ludwick over Holliday.
Life is short! Break the rules! And never regret anything that made you smile.
by Section8 on Jul 16, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"So what about the $13 mil."
?!?
You don’t think salary should be taken into account when considering player value? Obviously if they were the same cost most people would take Holliday over Lud (although it’s worth considering his home/away splits), but if you can get Lud plus another big bat, or a year’s worth of a front-of-the-rotation starter, or some serious bullpen help, etc., it seems pretty clear that has to be taken into consideration. I’d personally take Lud and the money over Holliday and his salary and splits. You may disagree, but it’s certainly not the no-brainer you’re making it out to be.
by BTown Birds fan on Jul 16, 2008 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they were the same cost
EVERYBODY would take Holliday over Ludwick. Not knocking Luddy, but he’s no Holliday.
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy and Randy Flores!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jul 16, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure I said...
Holliday was “marginally better than Ludwick”, and until he proves he can hit better than a fourth OFer outside of Coors field I’m gonna stick by that. Ludwick has a similar line to Holliday this year, and plays in a park that suppresses offense rather than bloating it. Holliday is 1.5 years younger for what that’s worth, but he’s still IMO only marginally better at best. I can honestly say that considering the difference in salaries…I prefer Ludwick to Holliday…I haven’t even brought up the three of our top five prospects it would probably take to get Holliday anyways.
Why do we have to get someone out of FA next year…especially an OFer? Truthfully this team probably only adds bullpen help and a mediocer MIF in free agency, unless they decide to spend big on Hudson or somebody like that…that’s a signing I could get behind.
by cardzfanbub on Jul 17, 2008 8:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Juan Gone
I think Gonzales would solve all this. He’s still around right? Right? Hello?
by paposse on Jul 16, 2008 12:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ha! I'm pretty sure he declined the opportunity to work himself into shape at Memphis....
Sure don’t see his name around anywhere.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 16, 2008 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats exactly what he wants you to think.
see you and your plus power October 3rd, Juan Gon; you sneaky son of a bitch.
My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.
by Alxfritz on Jul 16, 2008 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Heard he’s been playing under a pseudonym: Amaury Cazana Marti
by paposse on Jul 16, 2008 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say the real Amaury Marti
is the answer! To any question the team has even!
I am going to be serious for a minute and say that I really hope Marti gets a call-up in September.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 16, 2008 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I heard he looked pretty good in training.
by Ray Lankford on Jul 16, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Until he got hurt and went back to the Carribean
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 16, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sarcasm...
just isn’t effectively relayed through typed messages for some odd reason… I have to say that sarcasm not being relayed through typed messages is one of the greatest travesties this country faces on a day to day basis.
by Jumsy on Jul 16, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is funny...
...But I’d forgotten about him entirely. What happened with that?
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 16, 2008 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
bonds
Should not play baseball. Being a liar and a jerk is not a media invention
His trainer went to jail for lying for him. People went to jail so Bonds could be the hero.
If the cards had last years bullpen they would be in first place.
Pitching is the problem.
And yes, I would rather finish second that first with Bonds.
by leftcoastfan on Jul 16, 2008 1:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
people dont go to jail for jerks.
Jus’ saying.
by Evilfrog on Jul 16, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the trainer may well be a jerk himself.
You think the trainer went to jail because Bonds didn’t pay him off???
Perjury and money. Millions and millions of dollars for Bonds to hit home runs.
Everybody does it so it is ok. Bonds should be in jail.
by leftcoastfan on Jul 16, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frankly, a horribly thought out proposal...
First, no need for Bonds and/or his baggage. The OF has put up great all-around numbers this year. If anything, we have a surplus in Duncan/Mather/Barton to move out in a trade for MI help (either SS or 2B is fine). So if you trade one of the Barton/Dunc/Mather surplus for MI help, you can’t help but help your offense (and retain a solid late inning defensive replacement in Iz2).
Dealing for Washburn is dumb too. Perhaps I am just an optimist, but once Wainwright comes back, that shores up the bulley, by moving back one of the rotation subs back to where they belong (in the pen). Further, IF (big IF) Carp does come back, and they want to limit his exposure by keeping him in the pen, who is to say he can’t become the closer for the team this season? He has the heat, control, and testicular fortitude to be outstanding in that role. Franklin and Izzy are too shaky for my liking as closers right now, but as set-up men could be a real asset. Perez is not yet ready for prime either. McClellan has been pretty salty, but I don’t want him closing out games in the stretch drive. Basically, by Carp coming back to the ‘pen you strengthen it. By Wainer coming back to the rotation your strengthen the rotation and bulley at the same time (also helps off-sets the Aces that the Brewers and Cubs just traded for).
Also – Yadi should NEVER hit in the 2 hole. Ever.
by Mills on Jul 16, 2008 1:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Just b/c you disagree w/ the notion of Bonds
being a Cardinal, doesn’t make it a “horribly thought out proposal.” A lot of people don’t like it and are entitled to their opinions but yours is no more well-thought out than RB’s was. It’s a legitimate idea and worthy of criticism, if you like. The logic behind it is solid, whether you like the idea or not.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously I disagree the logic behind it was solid...
OF is a strength for us right now. We need to use that strength to help other areas of need (like MI pop or pitching help). Why bring in Bonds to impede the seasons (and progress) of Ludwick, Ankiel, and Schumaker? What have they done to warrant being sent to the bench? It really does nothing productive for this season (short-term) or long-term to bring in Bonds. Also, Joe Posnanski said that Bonds’ agent is full of poop. Dayton Moore said that 1) Bonds’ services were never offered to Royals (so not every team), and 2) not at the league min. So even bringing him at the min. is untrue.
I feel like this post was the equivilant of sports talk radio throwing crap up against the and seeing what sticks just to get people talking. I expect better from RB for my free! reading pleasure.
by Mills on Jul 16, 2008 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed that our outfield is one of our greatest strengths
but you ignore the obvious upgrade over Skip that Bonds would produce on offense. I guess you’re assuming he won’t be up to his usual numbers and will be atrocious on defense. Unless you think that him being on the team will freak out everyone and weaken their resolve. sounds like your in favor of not making any moves and standing pat, which would be a decent argument to be made I think.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bonds v. Skippy
I think Bonds would be an improvement on offense over Skip (just not sure what to expect out of a 43 year old with bad knees who hasn’t seen a pitch in about year), but his D would probably off-set it.
RE: Standing pat – I think our biggest need is some MI help, so if something makes sense there (and frankly, Grudz and Durham don’t interest me…only Roberts does, and he is probably too expensive to make it worthwhile).
Other than that, yeah, we can get a CY Young and Ace back here in the next month or so for a late playoff push. I like that concept, and it doesn’t cost us anything.
by Mills on Jul 16, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His D would offset his bat?
On what are you basing this claim?
by jeff_abs on Jul 16, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Counting on Carpenter to come back and pitch like a Cy Young
Is MUCH more speculative, in my opinon, than counting on Bonds to put up big numbers (at least OBP and SLG).
by Ray Lankford on Jul 16, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point
Carpenter still has to be able to take the ball every fifth day and perform.
Bonds presence in the batters box will be felt the first time he comes to the plate. His batters eye is incredible and I still think he is talented enough to be a better hitter than skip even if he takes the next 2 years off.
by hoofhearted-pujols on Jul 16, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that Bonds is that hobbled
that his D would offset the offensive upgrade. but when you couple in the “bad apple” and media factors, it may just be a wash. I’ll be ecstatic if Carpenter returns and is that effective, but don’t count on it. Wainwright will probably be the key factor in seeing how effective he is after that tendon thing. I’m still amazed that pitching a ball could cause a tendon to rupture or whatever, that was some pretty bad luck imo.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"OF is a stength for us"
this is a line that gets thrown out there a lot when talking about improving this team. I agree, the outfield is a strength, but that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be even more of a strength with the addition of Bonds. Whys is it that this team should only be improved through the MIF, or pitching?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 16, 2008 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm on the fence about Bonds
I’d be convinced if I knew that he would continue his home run hitting ways. but there’s no guarantee after having all this time off that he’d just come in and start tearing up pitching. now, if they saw him doing what he has been doing in some sort of simulated game or whatever, and he’s not being his arrogant asshat self, then he might just be what we’re looking for. on the downside, the media circus might affect the team, since he’ll be getting all the attention unfortunately. that’s the nature of the media coming into play, blowing things out of proportion. I personally think that he might be respectful of the Cardinals, Larussa, Pujols, etc. and that he won’t be quite the clubhouse cancer as has been hypothesized. but the media would make it into a situation regardless. I still don’t like the guy and his stupid cross earring and shit eating grin, but he could very well bash quite a few and take a lot of walks to be an offensive force to be reckoned with. but the media circus coupled with his Duncan-like defense in LF (maybe even worse than Duncan cuz the guy has no wheels left), and you see why I’m on the fence there.
As for Ray Durham, I’ll have to say no. As unpopular as this may sound, I’d rather stick with Kennedy and the infield platooning then risk having someone that’s going to let a lot of hits get out of the infield, etc. I think our starting pitching would take a dip from having him in there a lot. And if we get another starter, I’d like to take a pass on Washburn and get someone that is ridiculously awesome (although it would cost us a lot). I’m not a big fan of getting a starter (unless we don’t get one of those guys back), so I’d say try and concentrate on the bullpen.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 1:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
O/T: Need help finding a specific piece of merch
Been looking for a STL license plate. The Official website/mlb has a few, and I’ve seen several others through google but I want one that is all dark blue-ish with the simple StL logo in red/white. Sort of like the away hats. Anyone see anything like that with local vendors in the city or around the stadium?
by paposse on Jul 16, 2008 1:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
a couple thoughts
i can’t really fault anybody for their impressions and opinions here, first of all. i personally think this has been a pretty decent discussion so far.
anyway, as for bonds being a “club house poison”; i’m not sure this is necessarily true. if they did sign bonds, isn’t it possible the players would see it for what it is, ie an attempt to get a guy to help the team? i think it’s also possible that the players as a whole would not be so damning of bonds as the fans tend to be. this is a guy who, at least in some way, is one of them. who knows, maybe they’d embrace him? i think i vaguely remember a story about zito and bonds hitting it off or something when zito joined the giants (before he started sucking). i don’t think every player just hates him automatically. as for the media storm… doesn’t negativity sometimes inspire? don’t teams like to be thought of as “the underdog” for example?
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 1:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
maybe Pujols' cool and calm demeanor
would offset Bonds’ giant head? maybe Barry could learn a thing or two from the Mang, and Albert might get a few tips on hitting that thing outta the park.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO
Pujols would try to pick up some tips from Barry because that is what kind of player Pujols is. Bonds, on the otherhand, probably wouldn’t take anything away from Pujols. Still can’t teach an old dog new tricks. (mainly someone as self-centered as BB)
by hoofhearted-pujols on Jul 16, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was mainly thinking
that Bonds might learn a thing or two on how to act from Pujols, but that’s probably just wishful thinking.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
even if it's wishful thinking
it’s not much different from assuming 100% that he’s kill the clubhouse. no way to know for sure.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2008 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I don’t think you can change anything about Bonds, but that wouldn’t stop me from signing him. If one guy can change a clubhouse then the other 24 personalities are pretty weak anyway. The other guys have to rise above him and realize he is there to stand in the batters box and do his job, help produce more offense, that is it.
by hoofhearted-pujols on Jul 16, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
to change the subject a bit
do you think this whole clubhouse cancer thing is a misnomer? do you think teams are just not signing him because they don’t want to risk signing an old guy who has been on steroids for quite some time (I have to say theoretically to be fair) and then not using them? it seems like that would make him a different player, and it may be hard to quantify what his new effect would be.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
But for as cheap as some team could get him now it seems like it would be worth the risk. You don’t have to give the guy any commitment at all. Drop him if he sucks.
by hoofhearted-pujols on Jul 16, 2008 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
true
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No.
Bonds in theory was not on roids/peds last year as they have been testing for two years. I actually seem to remember him being tested last year and he paseed.
Look at his numbers and you would be crazy to say he could not help.
2007 Number
304 AB’s
.480 OBP
.565 SLG
1.045 OPS
28 HR
.276 BA
by ICbirdfan on Jul 16, 2008 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he coulda bribed the tester
j/k
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
San Fran players have consistently been quoted as saying
“it’s a lot better here now” all year.
by sdrone on Jul 16, 2008 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the record would indicate
things are about the same if not worse
by hoofhearted-pujols on Jul 16, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not that much better
unless they’re not very concerned with winning. but they are in the NL West…
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure if this is relevant, but
you don’t see many of Bonds’ former teammates saying, “Gee I really wish Barry were still here.” Didn’t Bonds and Kent have some sort of public punch out in the dug out? At least Izzy only takes out a TV in private. . . ..
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Manny and Youkilis
had a fight in the dugout this year, but I suspect the suggestion of a trade for Youkilis or Manny wouldn’t generate the venom that Bonds does. I’ve heard that Jeff Kent is a first rate dick head. Maybe it was Kent’s fault. Wait, nevermind, Kent never did PEDs, so that’s obviously not true.
The “its not the PED use, its because he’s a clubhouse cancer” argument is pretextual, in my opinion. NYC loved Paul O’Neil when they were winning World Series Championships, but by all accounts he was one of the biggest pricks in the game.
by Ray Lankford on Jul 16, 2008 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the funny thing is
Manny has shown far more disrespect for the game on the field than Bonds has. For all of the jerky things that Bonds has been accused of, he just has not acted anywhere near as ridiculously as Manny on the field, where we can see him.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 17, 2008 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't heard
any Cards long for Scott Rolen this year and we went to 2 World Series w/ him and won a World Championship!
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
But Kent is maybe the one guy who could rival Bonds for douchebaggery in all of baseball.
A story I heard once, which may or may not be utter bullshit, is that Kent once sat in the clubhouse after a game and was part of this conversation…
Kent: I don’t want to leave this game with any friends.
Jeff Bagwell: Well, you’re well on your way!
Bagwell is unanimously regarded as a “good guy” in the game of baseball. He’s part of this game’s history as part of the Killer-B group that made the Astros a truly relevant franchise. Besides that, the dude could play. And he might have said this…Hmmm…not exactly a ringing endorsement for Jeff Kent.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 17, 2008 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of thoughts on signing Bonds...
1) You can’t say don’t sign him because of the steroids. As the author said, about 25% of our roster may be juiced, and this is true for every team in baseball. If you’re not going to sign him it has to be (a) he can’t play the field anymore, (b) he is a huge distraction with all the attention he would bring, thus taking the focus to ‘Barry Bonds is a Cardinal’ instead of ‘look at how hard this team plays,’ and finally© the guy is a jerk. All of those reasons are fine with me.
2) I love the notion of getting a good hitter for nothing, and signing Bonds for $200,000 is getting a good hitter for nothing. I guarantee if you stick Bonds behind Pujols in that lineup, Pujols hits 25+ homers in the remainder of this season, and that’s not even counting what it would do to the rest of the lineup. Look at Pujols effect on Ludwick, Ankiel, and Glaus, or perhaps better put, look at how they slumped when Albert was on the DL. Imagine having 2 hitters in the lineup with that kind of presence! The Cardinals would have, in my opinion, the best lineup in the NL.
3) The author fails to realize Barton is coming back from the DL, and he has to be on our major league roster. So we’d be sending Mather AND Duncan back to AAA or trading them. Skip isn’t going anywhere this year, too valuable in the leadoff spot and he is a great defensive outfielder capable of playing all 3 OF spots.
4) The idea of trading Garcia, Todd, or Mortenson for RAY DURHAM??? You had to be really drunk when you wrote that one! There is no GM in baseball that would send Morentson (a 1-2 starter) or Todd/Garcia (both 2-3 starters) for a 37 year old, middle of the pack 2nd baseman. That is hillarious though, and I’m sure it would take the Giants about .0002 seconds to pull the trigger on that one. I’d take Aaron Miles starting 75% of the time and having Kennedy platoon with him part time over Durham anyway! No way we give up that starting pitching for him, NO WAY!
5) Trading for Washburn, horrible idea. Isn’t he a free agent at the end of the year? Why trade for him when we might just sign him in a few months? That is dumb. If we get Carp and Wainwright back, where do you put him in the rotation? Lohse is the #3 starter in that group. Then you follow him with Welley and Looper in my opinion. He might be better than Looper or Pinero (odd man out in my book) ONLY because he is a lefty. That is the only reason, but he isn’t enough of an upgrade over what we’ve got ASSUMING CARP AND WAINWRIGHT COME BACK…. if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, we’ll be at home for the playoffs.
So in summary, I say go get Bonds. I hate him, but it is a great move and costs nothing, and it makes our team a lot better. Other than that, we need to try to get a lefty reliever, and we could surely get somebody decent for Duncan and/or Reyes. Reyes still has some value to bring in a decent reliever.
by 573STLCards on Jul 16, 2008 1:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
YOU CAN NOT
get a valuabe LOOGY for reyes or duncan. Lefties cost a ton, even if they aren’t that good. Believe it or not, if we were out of the race we could get a GOOD prospect for Villone. That is just how it works with lefty relievers. Fuentes isn’t have some incredible year and wait and see what he brings in a trade.
by hoofhearted-pujols on Jul 16, 2008 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stuff
2) I’m not sure I buy the whole thing with protection, but personally I’d bat Bonds second. With the pitcher batting 8th, it’s the equivalent of having Bonds/Pu 2-3 in the first and then 3-4 over the rest of the game. Plus, Bonds is going to walk. A lot. More runners on in front of Pujols is only a good thing. Ludwick can protect him adequately in the 4 hole.
5) Washburn is signed through next year, bridging the gap to the minor league starters in 2010.
by mojowo11 on Jul 16, 2008 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry, I just read the first sentence
that said you can’t just say no to signing him because of the steroids. you CAN just say no because he’s not on the steroids now. might not hit it out of the ballpark quite so much.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don't know anything
In fact, he might have been on steroids during the offseason, built up muscle, and was biding his time for them to get out of his system/let the masking agents do their work. Or he might have been clean since 2004. Even a harsh testing regime can create it’s own insanity, as innocous things (like Minoxidyl, I think) can be used as masking agents. It’s a very dicey situation without a good solution.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 16, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
3) Barton will go on a 30 day rehab assignment after coming off of the DL. We won’t see him until mid-August, unless there’s a major need for him before that point.
by adiueordie on Jul 16, 2008 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anybody else ready
for the Cardinals to start playing ball again? All-star break might be great for the players, but it is really killing me!!
by hoofhearted-pujols on Jul 16, 2008 2:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ready!
I’ll get to watch the game on Saturday afternoon! woohoo! game on tomorrow night right?
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barry Lamar Bonds
The fact is all you people out there who hate Barry Bonds have to realize one thing, there is no other player on the face of the earth who strikes more fear into pitchers than perhaps our very own Prince Albert. His mere presence in the on deck circle guarantees more strikes to Albert and his guaranteed high OBP due to walks will result in numerous RBI chances for whoever hits 5th be it Glaus, Ludwick, or Ankiel. I would go so far to say as his presence in our lineup guarantees us a playoff spot just by his name alone. Getting people on base more which Albert will do considering he has a .471 OBP with no protection will only increase with Bonds presence behind him.
by BethelRedbird on Jul 16, 2008 2:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That is it
I do not like the man, but that is what it boils down to. We all want to win, none of us want to give up our prospects, and we need a bat. He is the best option and he is one heck of a hitter. I would sign him over any other options because there is very little risk involved. He might be a prick and start to destroy the clubhouse, well, cut him if it is that big of a problem, which I don’t think it will be.
by hoofhearted-pujols on Jul 16, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
hopefully he’ll just be glad to be playing and not mess up the chemistry too much. but the media probably will affect it though.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not like I'll be pissed if we do sign him
I think it’ll be very interesting if we do. I just think there’s a lot of reasons Moz won’t sign him.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we signed Bonds for just this season then let him walk
Would he net us the return of a Type A free agent? It would be the gift that kept on giving!
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy and Randy Flores!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jul 16, 2008 2:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought
you had to be on the 40 man for the entire year to be a type A free agent, could be wrong.
by hoofhearted-pujols on Jul 16, 2008 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
someone else would have to sign him in the offseason
good luck with that
by blahquaker on Jul 16, 2008 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you have to offer salary arbitration to him
What do you think the arbiter would offer Bonds? I think it would be something insane and more than he’s worth.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 16, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
and he might actually accept arbitration if he doesn’t think anyone else would sign him. so we’d be on the hook for $20million or something.
by blahquaker on Jul 16, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only thing that scares me is...
we have a lot of young guys, this team is a “feel good” story, and Bonds could rock that boat. Other than that, there is no reason not to roll the dice. We have to do something to score some more runs and shore up the bullpen.
And I agree that Reyes alone is not going to bring a good lefty prospect, but Reyes will still have value in that kind of trade. We aren’t going to get Matt Holliday or a top line player for Reyes. But Reyes has performed well in the minors, and had inconsistent success in the majors. I think he is a bit uncoachable, and the “pitch to contact” philosophy of our major league club hurts him because he is uncoachable. But he has good stuff and another team is going to value him as part of a package deal.
I talk more about Bonds on my Blog if you want to check it out: http://573stlcards.blogspot.com/
by 573STLCards on Jul 16, 2008 2:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I hate the idea of Molina batting second
He gets on base at a good rate and doesn’t strike out. However, he hits into a good number of double plays. How frustrating would it be for our leadoff man to come in the bottom of the ninth and work a 9-pitch walk off of Kerry Wood, only for Molina to wipe him out on the DP and have Pu up with nobody on?
So with the players you have listed, I’d go:
1. Durham/Miles 2B
2. Bonds LF (yes I liked Tony’s decision to put him up here in last year’s ASG)
3. Pujols 1B
4. Ankiel CF
5. Glaus 3B
6. Ludwick RF
7. Molina C
8. Pitcher
9. Izturis SS
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy and Randy Flores!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jul 16, 2008 2:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I really liked it when
Molina batted 5th and Ankiel 6th
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i still think Ank needs to hit in front of Albert
and Bonds hit behind Albert
Ank is still a young hitter & he gets a great majority of his hits off of fast balls. thats a lot of pressure to put on him to hit 4th & protect Albert. i dont think he’s ready. Bonds is ready. sign him up. sign him up now.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Jul 16, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But I want Barry and Albert to bat the first inning...
Sorry I would rather have Barry maximizing his AB’s…........
by ICbirdfan on Jul 16, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well then what about batting Ank first, Bonds second, Pujols 3rd?
Ank can steal a base or two as well
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy and Randy Flores!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jul 16, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Team USA:
Barden and Rasmus will be competing in Bejing: http://web.usabaseball.com/teams/index.jsp?team=940
by StLHugo on Jul 16, 2008 2:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
awesome for them.
Sucks that this means neither will be here in September. But this is a once in a life team thing. And I hope the represent the Cardinals well and bring back a USA gold medal.
by Evilfrog on Jul 16, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the gold medal game
is august 23 – they wouldn’t be back in the states after that?
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mo has stated
That players on the Olypmic team will not be called up.
by Evilfrog on Jul 16, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought he meant
pre Olympics. I think they’ll still get called up in September but I could be misremembering/interpreting.
by azruavatar on Jul 16, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
along with john gall
there’s a blast from the past.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's having a decent year
.321/.375/.503 .878OPS 11HR for AAA Albuquerque in the Marlins’ system.
by StLHugo on Jul 16, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
...and david eckstein's brother rick
as third base coach.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For unlawful carnal knowledge!!!!!!
I really don’t want Rasmus playing in exhibition games in August!
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buster Posey
won the Golden Spikes Award today. He beat out Brett Wallace and Aaron Cook, who were also finalists.
by cardsgirl95 on Jul 16, 2008 3:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
NL might have won
if they left Pujols in. save David Wright for a pinch hitter. Congrats, APu, you were 2 for 3!!!
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 3:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't agree with most of this.
1). Washburn is terrible. Unless he is acquired for (almost) free, we’re better off with what we have.
2). Bonds has apparently been blackballed. There’s no realistic chance he is signed, so why worry
3) Durham’s power is gone, his average is being aided by a high BABIP, and his defense has been a negative for some time now. he doesn’t help us one bit unless somebody goes down for a long time with an injury.
4) You want to hit Ludwick and Ankiel as close to the top of the order as you can, bumping them down to 6-7 (epically if you continue to bat the pitcher 8th) is going to cost this tam a few runs, which would cost us a game, which could keep us from reaching the playoffs. It’s just not smart.
Unless there is a team offering a large upgrade at second (Ellis or Brian Roberts), or short then there’s no point in making any changes to the lineup. As far as the rotation is concerned, we all know it’s in dire need of an upgrade. Washburn isn’t the answer he suuuuuuuucks. He’s just another crappy no-stuff veteran like Pineiro or Looper, he offers us next to nothing. The Cards should be seeking out positionally undervalued talents like Burnett, Wolf, or even Bedard (if the M’s are willing to sell low), or they should seek out a capable innings eater like Maddux. Or both.
by JI on Jul 16, 2008 4:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
pretty sound
analysis JI. Competition for pitching is going to be fierce for the next 15 days. Doubt if this team will make any move that require them to take on salary.
Westcoastbirdwatcher
by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jul 16, 2008 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Washburn is average, not terrible
as Lb’s analysis yesterday showed. And the point is that he can be had for (almost) free.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 16, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Valatan
Some of us believe that playing on a loser with a fat, guaranteed contract ,can take the heart out of a player. I doubt if he is “free”. His salary would have been easily absorbed by the many wealthy and pitching challenged teams out there.
Westcoastbirdwatcher
by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jul 16, 2008 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you base this theory of "taking the heart out of player" on?
That’s not a quantifiable statistic, so how do you come to that conclusion?
by saladdays on Jul 16, 2008 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He rarely makes much sense
boo cubs, hooray beer
by Raconteur on Jul 16, 2008 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I watched him pitch a game early in the year.......
Westcoastbirdwatcher
by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jul 16, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and you can judge "heart"
based upon watching him pitch a game early in the year….....
What did he do – lie down on the mound in a fetal position and cry?
by TNTinCO on Jul 16, 2008 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if he did do that
I am all for acquiring him. That is what I call quality entertainment.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 16, 2008 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 on the fetal position
I would be all for that. I’ve long held that Ank had something break in his brain as he was uncorking all of those wild pitches…But to see a pitcher go fetal on the mound would be a whole new level. Painful…absolutely. But truly and utterly unique, if not entertaining. Does that make me a sick bastard?
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 17, 2008 2:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They were having some
success at placing him in a difficult position. More like a prison rape than a childhood regression.
Westcoastbirdwatcher
by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jul 16, 2008 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"More like a prison rape than a childhood regression."
Best comparison EVAR
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy and Randy Flores!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jul 16, 2008 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, you could also argue that being injected from a deadweight team
into the middle of a pennant race can do a lot to energize a player, á la Will Clark and Woody Williams.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 16, 2008 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those guys had talent, Washburn does not.
He’s not suited to anything more than Villone’s role on a team that is serious about winning.
by JI on Jul 16, 2008 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As in the case of Izzy
sometimes the heart and the body are on different pages. I say we get him and see. He is free right?
Jarrod Washburn lhp
4 years/$37.5M (2006-09)
- signed as a free agent 12/05
- 06:$7.45M, 07:$9.85M, 08:$9.85M, 09:$10.35M
- limited no-trade protection
- 1 year/$6.5M (2005), avoided arbitration 1/05
- 1 year/$5.45M (2004), avoided arbitration 1 /04
- 1 year/$3.875M (2003), avoided arbitration 1/03
- 1 year/$0.35M (2002) 3/02
- agent: Scott Boras
- ML service: 8.131
Westcoastbirdwatcher
by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jul 16, 2008 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No he's not
If you comb through the Lookout Landing / UssMariner archives you will find several articles about how terrible he really is.
by JI on Jul 16, 2008 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did I mention that Washburn is probably more of a clubhouse cancer than Bonds?
http://ussmariner.com/2008/06/28/jarrod-washburns-still-an-idiot/
http://ussmariner.com/2008/05/12/shut-up-jarrod/
http://ussmariner.com/2008/05/21/my-favorite-pitch-sequence-ever/
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2008/7/9/568189/washburn-s-command
by JI on Jul 16, 2008 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks again for these JI
great entertainment.
Westcoastbirdwatcher
by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jul 16, 2008 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you sure?...It reads like hot air...have you seen him pitch and do you know what Dunc
could possibly do with him? They also take shots at Ryan Franklin as well for being an idiot. He pitched pretty well for us last season. I get the sense a lot of these people like to take their frustations out on wealthy athletes….our posts are a bit better natured…
mattnj
by mattnj on Jul 16, 2008 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Franklin has been bad this season
and he was a pretty lousy teammate in Seattle.
You can’t fix talentless.
by JI on Jul 16, 2008 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
how can you say franklin's been bad this season?
....my quick smells like french toast...
by mstreeter06 on Jul 16, 2008 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
must we go over this every week
more walks, dramatically fewer groundballs and a 4.66 FIP.
Ryan Franklin = middle reliever
He had a career low (aberrant) walk rate and a lucky BABIP last year and everyone drank the koolaid.
by azruavatar on Jul 17, 2008 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having Bonds
would give the team a second player capable of hitting a lousy sacrifice in a timely manner.
But considering the current administrations attack on the Players Union via the steroid debacle, and taking into account DeWitt’s relationship to said administration, it seems to render the point “moot” wouldn’t you say?
Personally I’ve been calling for Bonds since April as you all know. I would love to see The Mange challenged and come alive in the inner team competition which I think would reflect well on team winning percentage.
I was exposed recently to the full 1hr of pre-game hype along with the full hr of postgame hype you all enjoy in St Loey by Fox Sports. Doubt that the national media could get through that mess to bother Bonds or players…..........Yanks are talking about it.
Westcoastbirdwatcher
by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jul 16, 2008 4:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No,
it is moot point.
Moot = not relevant or arguable
Mute = unable or unwilling to speak
by cardsgirl95 on Jul 16, 2008 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes I forget
that things sound funnier in my head than they look on a screen.
I guess I should’ve gone w/ “Moo point” to woo The MooCow out of hibernation.
by effin fisk on Jul 16, 2008 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's cool.
Internet humor can be difficult for the very reason you stated. But many people do seem to think that it is a “mute” point, so I stepped in to clear that up. Guess I am just Lil’ Miss Know-It-All.
P.S. – I think that “moooo” point (with lots of Os) would have been funnier. Just for the record.
by cardsgirl95 on Jul 16, 2008 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't want to say anything
But I found a space bar in my ribeye the other night
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy and Randy Flores!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jul 18, 2008 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hehe
Out of all that…You picked the one thing he got right.
by Evilfrog on Jul 16, 2008 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
bad froggy
you are truly special. Research the points. Educate yourself. see farther. be happier.
Westcoastbirdwatcher
by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jul 17, 2008 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rasmus, Barden named to USA Olympic Team
Congrats to the duo for having the honor to represent the United States in this summer’s Olympic Games. Pretty exciting stuff.
The Cardinals top prospect and one of the team’s top minor-league performers this season have been invited to represent the country at the Summer Games in Beijing next month. Outfielder Colby Rasmus and utility infielder Brian Barden were two of the 23 players named to Team USA on Wednesday.
by bgh on Jul 16, 2008 4:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Heyman
just wrote that the Cards might be willing to part with Rasmus for (get ready for this)......Xavier Nady or EVEN Jason Bay. I will stop watching baseball if Rasmus is traded for Nady.
by njnick on Jul 16, 2008 5:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Heyman is not a reliable source
don’t worry.
by azruavatar on Jul 16, 2008 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Until I read your post Azru
I thought Heyman was a greeting. You know, like at a frat house: “hey man, the Cards traded Rasmus for Nady!”
by Ray Lankford on Jul 16, 2008 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't believe that for a minute
if Mo trades Rasmus for Bay (he wouldn’t be stupid enough to trade him for Nady), he should be fired immediately.
by chuckb on Jul 16, 2008 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
key word is might
like if someone offered hanley ramirez, then he might make that deal (of course he would).
by FunkeeC on Jul 16, 2008 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You misread the quote
• Overheard at the pre-All-Star Game bash out on Randall’s Island. The contending Cardinals might even consider parting with top outfield prospect Colby Rasmus, a major surprise. If so, it may put them in line to land Pittsburgh’s Xavier Nady, or even Jason Bay.
He overheard that Mo is willing to move Colby, but Mo said nothing about Bay or Nady, those two names were purely speculation on Heyman’s part
boo cubs, hooray beer
by Raconteur on Jul 16, 2008 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rasmus for Nady/Bay
I would be heartbroken.
Wouldn’t even pull the trigger for both of those OFs… let alone one of them.
by AndyB83 on Jul 16, 2008 6:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
maybe
Rasmus for Nady and Bay, with a bullpen guy thrown in to sweeten the pot
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No no no
No no no no no no
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy and Randy Flores!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jul 16, 2008 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rasmus sure has a lot of reverance around here
for a dude who’s not in the majors yet. I know I know, top prospect and all. I just hope he doesn’t let anyone down (including me!)
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a big Rasmus "let's hold the phone"-er
But he’s nearly guaranteed at this point to be an above average MLB CFer with a reasonable chance at being Grady Sizemore+. He’s free for three years and half off for three more. That’s outrageously valuable. I’d puke if we trade him for Xavier Nady.
Expectations are probably way too high, but they don’t need to be really don’t need to be. Plus defenders in center with at least an average bat have value. He costs nothing. Value > nothing = baseball asset.
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on Jul 16, 2008 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Exactly… Rasmus is not only valuable because of his offensive and defensive tools… it’s how much he will cost (or, put more accurately, won’t cost) that really makes him valuable to this franchise. Good luck trying to land an impact hitter for the middle infield next year if we have Bay’s contract in the outfield as opposed to Colby’s.
by AndyB83 on Jul 16, 2008 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks
I wasn’t thinking about how inexpensive he would be… very good point.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 17, 2008 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said in another thread
Trading Rasmus would be one thing. Trading him for Xavier Nady (even with Jason Bay thrown in) would be inexcusable. Trading him for that package WITHIN OUR OWN DIVISION would be grounds for dismissal. Even if you throw in a lefty reliever it’s not worth it to me. Xavier Nady and Jason Bay wouldn’t really upgrade our outfield that much, and would take away time from Skip and Luddy, both of whom are having outstanding seasons.
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy and Randy Flores!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jul 16, 2008 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
I was sort of joking that it might be a good trade… I’m the first to admit that we have a glut in the outfield, even with Barton gone. my personal opinion is pretty much the same as what I read, just go after some bullpen help and hope that the starting pitching holds up. isn’t our offense number 2 in the NL with room for improvement?
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 17, 2008 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Throw in the Pirates “Pirate Parrot” mascot and Rasmus is outta here!
This may have been your best War and Peace style approach to upgrading the team yet RB!
by cardschinmusic on Jul 17, 2008 7:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just seen this rasmus thing
all I can say is wow, and no
by from First to Third on Jul 16, 2008 6:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't believe everything you hear
I’m sure Mo still wants his job.
by saladdays on Jul 16, 2008 6:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
and his house. cars. etc
I am not gonna name names, but I know of some crazy fans that would go as far as to burn down the stadium if it was Rasmus for Nady or Bay. *
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 16, 2008 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Post
To distill the BS I think “generally” the hardcore fan can see that getting Bonds would improve the team. The problem is < 20% of the dollar spending fan base would look at it that way. Most of the folks at the ballpark don’t look at the game as analytically and nobody wants to “potenitally” alienate 80% of the fan base.
I’d love signing Bonds. It’s like asking – would you trade the next three months of Chris Duncan for Barry Bonds – DUH!
by Lawless on Jul 16, 2008 6:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
we won't sign Bonds
due to the nature of the organization
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Washburn
The Ms are terrible, I agree that if he can be had he may turn it around. I don’t know about almost free(valatan) but I read somewhere that the Ms where unwilling to part with beltre because they didnt want to field a worse Offense for the fans. So maybe dunc for wash. They get a lil pop(very little) for there pitcher.
I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2
by punchinjudy on Jul 16, 2008 8:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
How is Bonds worse than Tony?
They are both Jerks to the media.
One is convicted of endangering the LIVES of other people, while the other is believed to be guilty of cheating.
Just a reality check. You cannot bash one as a problem without the other.
by DriverZn on Jul 16, 2008 9:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What a night -- quote from BP below sums it up
If anything, Tuesday night’s drama showed that the players do care about the All-Star Game, whether or not the convoluted idea of giving home-field advantage to the winning league in the World Series is part of the deal. “Baseball has the best All-Star Game and always will,” Young said. “In hockey, guys aren’t going to go out and beat up on each other, for obvious reasons. In football, the season is already over and so is the intensity. In basketball, it’s an alley-oop fest. But baseball is different. The sport is just made to have a great All-Star Game like this. This was so much fun. If you love baseball, there is no way you couldn’t have enjoyed this game. It had a little bit of everything. It was just a great, great game.”
by The Duke on Jul 16, 2008 9:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Stavinoha singles to left in the AAA All-Star Game
Well struck, Nick.
by mojowo11 on Jul 16, 2008 9:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
reading the stlcardinals.com website today
the organization feels content to ride out with the players that they have (and they said it is extremely unlikely that they would add a short term, big name rental). they did hint at getting some bullpen help somehow though…
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 16, 2008 9:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ya they probably will be linked to all the names
and get some reject
I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2
by punchinjudy on Jul 16, 2008 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From MLBTR
a little props from MLBTR to Viva
They caught wind of LBs and others pitch for Burnett.
C'mon you Redbirds, lets prove em' wrong, again!
by yer dog first on Jul 16, 2008 10:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not very good at this
It was Washburn, not Burnett.
Craptacular! Sorry bout that.
C'mon you Redbirds, lets prove em' wrong, again!
by yer dog first on Jul 16, 2008 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good thing you're not at work...
wait
I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2
by punchinjudy on Jul 16, 2008 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually,
I’m not. Im at home. But, I have to go back in at 2300.
C'mon you Redbirds, lets prove em' wrong, again!
by yer dog first on Jul 16, 2008 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
u wont be on then
I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2
by punchinjudy on Jul 16, 2008 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not til I get home
how late will you be on?
C'mon you Redbirds, lets prove em' wrong, again!
by yer dog first on Jul 16, 2008 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
u wont be home til late right?
i dunno how late ill be up
I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2
by punchinjudy on Jul 16, 2008 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
right
well, if youre on when I get back home, I’ll inv you. If not, theres always tomorrow… well, maybe anyhow.
C'mon you Redbirds, lets prove em' wrong, again!
by yer dog first on Jul 16, 2008 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be willing to trade Rasmus for Jason Bay
.....and Ian Snell, Damaso Marte and a throw in of Andrew McCutchen.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 17, 2008 1:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
All these posts later...
...and Red Baron, I must tip my cap to you…You know how to generate a discussion with your long and intentionally anti-concise musings. I must say, even when I disagree with you, I am greatly entertained by you.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 17, 2008 2:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- After locking up of AL MVP, it's time for Twins to lock up Mauer
- November means R&R for Raiders fan CC Sabathia and others
- D12: Honeymoon over for big Bobby Jenks and Ozzie Guillen?
- Timmy is so wicked: Lincecum's hair grows with his legend
- D12: Strasburg feels 'pop' in knee, scares Nationals to death
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
