How NOT to fix the 2009 bullpen
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 22, 2008 3:55 PM EDT
Email
Print“Interest exists in retaining pending free-agent Jason Isringhausen after the franchise’s career saves leader required surgery earlier this month to repair a torn tendon near his right elbow.
Manager Tony La Russa and pitching Dave Duncan have broached the possibility of Perez closing in Memphis or spending next season in St. Louis in a different relief role.”
Perhaps over the weekend you missed these little nuggets being busy with, well, whatever it is you do on the weekend.
However, In Joe Strauss' article about building the bullpen for 2009, and it goes into lengths about how Dave Duncan thinks that while Perez is improving, he needs Dave Duncan Complete Home Makeover, which includes losing weight and a brand spanking new higher arm slot, all in the name of consistency.
Tell me, is this going to be the same medical staff that will deem whether or not Izzy warrants an incentive based contract for next year that was the same to deem Matt Clement ready for Opening Day, Mark Mulder only a few weeks away and saw no problems with Chris Carpenter...until he experienced more and more pain.
Pardon me if I think it would be a colossal failure on the GM's part to be 'being open-minded to doing something' in the Izzy department, as John Mozeliak said. Why is that such a collassal failure of an idea?
John tells us why:
"Given his role, what he's accomplished and what he's represented to us, we need to think about it."
Bringing back an injured closer with a bad shoulder, bad arm and bad hip because of 'what he's accomplished' smacks of 'we want to get him 300 saves'. And as LaRussa has proven over the years, if you give him the matches he will light fire to the library if need be.
So, already on the table? Status quo. The failpen will be fixed by rewinding back to April 2008, sending Chris Perez to Memphis, putting Izzy back in the pen, counting on Josh Kinney to get healthy and bringing back Russ Springer.
Yikes!
212 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Meet the new boss
same as the old boss.
Barring drastic, unlikely moves, 09 is going to look very familiar.
hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit
As long as Tony is the manager and calling the shots
there won’t be any champaign showers in the Cardinals locker room for the next couple of years unless ownership decides to go out and get some guys that can fill up our holes that are not named Izturis, Isringhausen, Kennedy, Chris Duncan, Lopez and Franklin.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
For me
the scariest part of this article is not the possibiltiy of Izzy coming back. (although that does create horrid nightmares…oh so horrid!) It’s the part about Duncan toying with Perez’s mechanics over the offseason…isn’t this what he tried to do with Anthony Reyes? And how did that work out?
Delgado an MVP candidate!........seriously!? Wait Ryan Howard is now too!?...Ah WTF?!?!
i saw this over the weekend & i couldn't believe my eyes
for the life of me i can’t understand why MO would consider bringing IZZY back. not to be cruel to IZZY who i love, but who f’ing cares if they want him to get 300 saves? the dude was a mess on the mound this year. how can they not remember that?
and just trade YP now & go pay a billion dollars for KRod already MO. Dunk is quickly turning him into Anthony Reyes 2.0. and i for one will not stand for it.
this really pisses me off. i mean seriously. what the hell are they thinking?
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
hummmmm.........
1. Don’t sign a closer……
2. Perez could probably drop some weight. He is a tad heavy (however he looks to just have a big build)
3. I thought Perez has been dropping his arm a bit as of late, leading ot more sailing on his ball…
Someone with time/knowledge should see if they can pick up stuff on Perez’s arm slot..
Just give Perez first shot and stop screwing around. If he struggles you have Motte, Franklin, and KMac who can close for short stints I am sure.
The problem is that he is a much better pitcher
when his ball ‘sails’ the tailing movement with the velocity is what makes it deceptive.
Dave wants him to come over the top more, which of course, we all know what that motion does to the ball. (hint, forces it downward more).
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 22, 2008 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
exactly, we've all seen this before
DUNK refuses to believe a pitcher can actually be successful pitching up in the zone. so he forces said pitcher to change, therefore taking away the very thing that made him a success in the first place.
grow a pair & make the madness stop MO. or stop drafting & acquiring pitchers like YP.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
hummm....
Perez’s issue is more release point in my opinion.
Also Duncan does let Motte throw up in the zone, so I don’t know if it’s a Perez thing only or what. But you can not say Duncan does not let guys work up in the zone unless you failed to watch Motte throw this year.
not going to last
dunc’s already been quoted as saying that motte needs to locate better and for dunc that means low in the zone.
i have no doubt in my mind that motte will come into the 09 season pounding the low part of the strike zone.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
locate better.....
I agree….
Motte needs to command his fastball better. To be honest he needs to locate it better to have long term success.
exactly
but, imo, our idea of locating better and dunc’s are two different things.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
ture, hopefully they have seen his results throwing up a bit in the zone.
I hope by locate they just want him to be able to hit a corner if need be. If he is only really working with a FB he better be able to have some command over time.
Oh yeah, I don't want him over the top.....
I thought his arm angle was a bit lower pitching against Cinci than I had seen earlier. I like his movement.
At the time I said his biggest struggle is actually working on consistent release point. SInce his ball moves away so much he needs to figure out where he needs to start the ball so it tails away and hits the corner/closer to the corner. Some of his balls were moving so much out of th zone hitters were laying off them.
gdm426 you are right.....
Yikes! I’m telling you, it’s “Groundhog Day” Izzy-WT#? Why?
Perez did fine throwing how he throws-tweaks, no major overhaul. Are they nuts?
I can’t fairly comment on his conditioning. He looks like a big fellow. That doesn’t mean he’s not a well conditioned athlete. It probably wouldn’t hurt to lose a few pounds—but just because he doesn’t look all trim and svelte doesn’t mean he’s not in good shape.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
Oh good god
Can’t they just refine someones stuff and not flipping overhaul it.
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .259 .360 .378
Skip Schumaker: $Free .305 .361 .414
Skippy needs a new publicist
yeah he just needs tweaks at best....
I think he may need to get the arm up a tad, and work on finding a consistent release point so he can command his fastball better.
That should be the thing they work on. I don’t know how hard it is? however he seems very close to being consistently nasty.
"Given his role, what he's accomplished and what he's represented to us, we need to think about it."
Should Mo have instead publicly stated that he wants no part of the franchise saves leader? Isn’t that kind of disrespectful and unprofessional? Just because he says he’ll think about it doesn’t mean he’s planning on signing him already.
The Perez thing is stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
This is the statement he is putting out for general consumption
and while it may be respectful of Izzy to say those things, it also is an instance of the GM of a Major League franchise saying they are going to leave the door open to bringing back one of the 5 worst pitchers in baseball this year.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 22, 2008 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions
exactly...
… so far during his tenure, Mo has always made non-committal statements so as not to burn bridges and unnecessarily ruffle feathers. remember his quotes about Rolen? they were all “he’s a valuable part of the team” and “we’re not going to trade him unless we get value”. what’s he supposed to say about Izzy? “dude has pitched like shit 2 out of the last 3 years, he can barely stand with that hip and his arm has fallen off, so it doesn’t matter what he’s done for us in the past, we won’t even consider re-signing him”. no way.
they do have to listen and be open-minded. that’s the GM’s job. doesn’t mean they’re gonna offer him a big contract. Izzy has earned respect from the organization, and it’s right and proper to give it to him.
as for Perez… it can’t be a bad thing to want him to get in better shape. i don’t know about arm angles and release points, but Perez’s biggest flaw has always been his control. if that can be improved without sacrificing effectiveness, then i don’t see the downside. i’ve never gotten the impression that this team wants him to be a groundball pitcher; just that they want to improve his control so as not to have their closer give out free passes late in close games. that’s a rational position to take.
let’s also remember that Duncan doesn’t yet have a contract for next season, and Mo makes personnel decisions. Duncan doesn’t have a lot of leverage here, unless Mo thinks the team can’t compete without him.
Hrbosky said on the broadcast the other day
that he wouldn’t be surprised if they already had a deal worked out for Dave Duncan and were waiting until the end of the season to announce it.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 22, 2008 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions
i wouldn't be surprised either...
… but that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. i think it’s just as likely that Duncan isn’t renewed and TLR retires.
Dan just said tonight that they are VERY close
to an extension with Duncan.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 22, 2008 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I hope he's wrong.
Really, really, hope he’s wrong………
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
marty mason
i think mason has learned enough from duncan and yet he is still open-minded.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
not everyone thinks Duncan is the best pitching coach out there
Rick Peterson is still available, I believe,
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
I would promote Brent Strom, right in our own organization.
Don’t want tro go there? Get a coach from the Giants or A’s. They know quite a bit about developing pitchers, both young and old. Or the Twins. Got to have some coaches that get blocked, just like players.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
I'm kind of torn between Strom & Peterson
But without question there are good alternatives to Dave Duncan, many good alternatives, if that’s the way management decides to go.
"The strike zone was slightly amorphic today." - Joe Maddon
I had seen the first comment but not the second. I have always been a big LaRussa fan, but I’ve had enough. My Birthday Wish is for Tony to retire.
If they want to invite Izzy to spring training I wouldn’t have a problem with that. If he manages to find 8 more saves, I’d be thrilled. He has been a warrior and deserves a break. But I don’t forsee him being the Cardinal closer next year. At least I hope not.
And leave Chris Perez’ s mechanics alone!! Not a good track record here. I’m shuddering, imagining a 2009 that looks a lot like 2008.
Then who
who would you hire that can get more done than tony… no one theres just no one else that can get the job done like tony. there are so many pissed off cardinal fans that think we need to make huge changes to the team because we had a disapointing year but the fact of the matter is we played in tough division with the brewers and cubs and we got unlucky with injuries all year. but getting rid of a hall of fame manager isnt gonna make them any better
HOF Managers do get replaced
from time-to-time.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 22, 2008 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions
It can't be much worse than than the 2007/2008 seasons.
If we’re going to suck we might as well do it with somebody that will actually play guys in the positions they are supposed to play. I find it a crime that Tony puts our middle infielders in the outfield and the fans have to pay the same large amount of money on tickets to the games as if we were fielding our best team to win games. If we are going to play a sub-par team then let’s at least do it with a manager that can give the fans and the media an explination on what is going on. We don’t get this with Tony.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
whatever...
… again, the Cards have out-performed their Pythag the last two years. maybe it’s random luck. maybe it’s not. if it’s random luck, then the conclusion to be made is that TLR has had a roughly neutral effect. if it isn’t luck, then he’s been a positive manager.
nobody’s forcing anybody to go to games. if you don’t like the org or its direction, you are free to boycott. but that doesn’t mean that your personal preferences speak for the other 3+ million of us who go to games, or the millions who watch every game on tv or gamecast.
Tony has been a positive manager for this team
the past couple of years in many ways…but for some reason the team tanks when September rolls around. This is the 3rd year in a row this has happened. Yeah we can blame it on the injuries …but we had injuries from April-July as well. We were lucky in 2006 that we played in the worst divison in baseball when we had our September slide or else we wouldn’t have that WS trophy in our case. Is Tony to blame for this? That is a good question that can go in many ways and is sure fire to bring up heated arguements.
Again as I stated before if management is willing to spend some money this winter to make the team a contender then I hope Tony stays. But if they are going to tread water again then there is really no need to have Tony come back. It wouldn’t be fair to him since he want to “win now”.
And I know nobody is forced to go to the games. But if I were Bill DeWitt I would be a little embarrised if I increased ticket prices an average of $1.15 per seat for the ‘08 season, a 2.9% increase over ’06-07 prices and let the manger have guys like Kennedy and Miles patrol the outfield. But if DeWitt is fine with it and the “3+ million of us” who go to games are fine with then it must be a sound and winning decision by Tony. It’s not a matter of me “boycotting” because I don’t live close enough to go to any of the games (last game I went to in St. Louis was 2005) it’s just a matter of me pointing out a pretty freaking off the wall move by our Hall of Fame manager….which I think I am entitled to do.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
September slide...
… i agree that it’s curious. but part of it is that team over-performed early in the season, and slide back towards the mean late. part of it is that injuries compounded late in the year. part of it is that bullpens got worn down and were less effective (2007 story). part of it might be Ankiel’s HGH revelation. who knows? there are a lot of possible answers, only one of which is that TLR is an ineffective manager. and yet that seems to be the default.
lots of teams struggle for extended stretches without a clear explanation. Willie Randolph got fired for it. Ned Yost got fired for it. sometimes it might be their fault. but usually they are just the scapegoat. is it Willie Randolph’s fault that David Wright and Jose Reyes were piss-poor last Sept. and Carlos Delgado was so awful at the beginning of this year? is it to Jerry Manuel’s credit that Delgado turned into Pujols in the 2nd-half?
TLR’s problem this September is that his best OF combination is Barton, Skip, and Luddy. that’s a pretty bad combination in the best of times, and these are not the best of times. Ludwick has cooled off this month (.811 OPS), Skip has been downright horrible (.594 OPS), Stavinoha and Phelps have been amazingly bad, and Barton is still learning on the job. meanwhile, Lopez has gone bananas (.973 OPS), Miles has been steady (.704 OPS) but nobody wants either of them near SS. so one gets stuck in the OF. we also have a replacement-level catcher, and we’ve been playing a series of playoff contenders. it’s a recipe for disaster, and disaster it has been. but i’m not sure how much of that is TLR’s fault; he’s got a really bad team right now, and he’s trying to make the best of it. i wish Barton was getting more ABs, but he’s going to AAA next year regardless of what he does this Sept., so that doesn’t really matter too much either.
Nitpick
David Wright was in no way, shape, or form piss-poor last September. He posted a 1.034 OPS that month with 6 bombs. Other than that, your point is spot on. Managers can’t control who plays well and who doesn’t…they are at the mercy of their players’ hot and cold streaks.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Sep 25, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
since when did stating a opinion
carry over to assuming that it means someone is speaking for the other 3M + who go to ballgames.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
The Whitey Herzog reasoning
Didn’t he come in and clean house? Hernandez at first, yeah he’s a gold glover, yeah he can hit…we can lose with him, though…Shit, we’ll just lose without him. :)
Hernandez was sent packing
because Whitey was pissed about Mex’s love for the nose candy.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 24, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Sometimes
and sometimes not:
Reds replaced Sparky Anderson after 1978, then won 90 and 89 games the next two years.
and then the other side of the coin of HOF managers is when they hang around too long and the team sucks for years WHILE they are there and maintain the same on past that. (Tigers)
Stengel was the premier winner (titles) of HOF Managers, but his antics were driving his Yankee team into the ground and make his star player (Mantle) crazy. He tortured his young players and went against upper management every chance he got.
They gave him the boot after the 1960 season, and then went on to win 109,96,104 and 99 games until their racism when evaluating talent finally caught up to them.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 23, 2008 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions
"his antics were driving his Yankee Cardinals team into the ground and make his star player (Mantle) (Pujols?) crazy. He tortured his young players and went against upper management every chance he got.
This is like a Mad Libs for our situation.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
yeah?
first of all, two times in 50 years doesn’t constitute “often”. anyway, let’s look at your examples a bit more closely:
in the years before Sparky was replaced the team won 95, 99, 98, 108, 102, 88, and 92 games. the next two years after replacing him they won 90 and 89 (as you mentioned) but then 66 and 61. obviously there were mitigating factors, but it’s not as if Sparky was dragging the team down. his average performance was above his replacements’, no matter what time period you choose.
Stengel’s win totals as manager? 97, 98, 98, 95, 99, 103, 96, 97, 98, 92, 79, 97. what a shitty guy! out of those 12 years, he finished out of first place twice! after ditching him, the Yanks didn’t have sustained success on that level again until the 1990s.
either TLR is effective in changing team performance or he isn’t. so either he deserves credit for managing this team to an above-Pythag record this year (and last), or he deserves no blame for their recent slide.
i’ll let you decide. you may consult with KYCards if you like.
My main beef with Tony being the manager next year is
Why have him come back if ownership isn’t going to spend that extra money or trade a few of these prospects to fill our holes with some players that can make a difference in us being a 4th place team or a actual World Series contender? Look I will not mind if Tony & Dave comes back for 2009 if ownership wants the team to be a World Series contender and tries to put us on the level of the Cubs & Phillies, ect. to make a serious run at October. Signing guys like Lopez, Izturis, and keeping guys like Kennedy and Izzy just won’t cut it in my opinion.
Tony is a very good manager, even great…but he thrives when he has “above average” talent that he wants/needs to fill every hole. Like the A’s teams of the late 80’s and the Cardinal teams of the middle of this decade. Those teams were powerhouse teams with many stars filling many of the positions. Those were the teams that he could take to October and become a force in the playoffs. Even if they did not win the WS, all of these teams either got there or came with in a game of getting there. What the Cardinals ownership (DeWitt, Mo ect.) is giving him to work with now is not even close to those teams and it really makes having Tony as our manager kind of pointless.
So what I’m saying is, if Dewitt is dead set on keeping Tony & Dave then he needs to pony up and do what he can to give Tony the star players he needs to try to win a championship. Because it really makes no sense to keep Tony around and give him a team with many holes and question marks because in turn it makes Tony frustrated and he tinkers and toys with things to try to prove something to management, himself, the media or whoever. Tony is a “win now” manager, he always has been. But ownership isn’t giving him the players to “win now”.
If they decide this winter to go into “win now” mode then by all means I hope Tony & Dave stay. But if not…. it makes no sense to me to keep him and then we will have to re-live the drama of the past couple of seasons and we will be talking about this a year from now as well.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
To follow up: If Mo can find a way to get us
1. A 2nd basman that can hit with a little power/rbi ala Brain Roberts/Polanco
2. A SS that can field and can hit ala Edgar Renteria
3. 2-3 bullpen arms which includes a lefty specialist, a set-up man and maybe even a closer if one becomes available.
4. A solid #2 starter and a reliable #4 starter. (At least 2 starters of some sort that are not “Duncan projects”).
If Dewitt and Mo can fill this “Wish List” of our current “holes” (or come close to filling) then by all means I hope Tony & Duncan are with us next season. Of couse this will mean trading some prospects and spending some money ..that is if they want Tony to lead the club in the way he can and the way he wants…then it needs to be done.
But if they are just looking to re-sign Izzy and re-up with Lopez and Izturis then we might as well have Oquendo as our manager. It would still be a 4th place team but it would be without the drama and false expectations.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
There are only 17 HOF managers
and I really didn’t feel like spending all day looking up the records of all their teams post and pre dismissal.
No need to get glib about it.
i’ll let you decide. you may consult with KYCards if you like.
Being a HOF manager isn’t a lifetime appointment. There will come a day when he has to go when it is best for the organization. That day was probably at the end of last year. The HOF manager looked at the baseball landscape as a FA, couldn’t get a job after being rejected by the Yankees and came back to St. Louis after ‘promises’ were made.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 23, 2008 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Stengel
There were a boatload of HOF players on those Yankee clubs, and a bunch more MLB regulars that were wasting away in the minor leagues that would easily have been playing for most any other team in the MLB at that point — but players had no options then. Stengel was a great baseball mind, but his teams were LOADED with talent. Part of the downfall of the Yankees was their lack of scouting black players and the loss of a lot of good front office people in the 1960’s.
I think Joe Torre is a good manager too, but just about anyone could have ridden that wave in the late 1990’s with those Yankee teams.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Well, let's see
we had a HOF manager in Joe Torre, but were too dumb to realize it because the brewery was so cheap with payroll. Then we hire a different guy and give him the payroll resources a competitor requires -shazam! There are many managers out there who could do just as well as TLR if given the proper resources. It has a lot more to do with players than with the manager.
If TLR is so great then how come his record for the last three years is pretty much .500?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
not crappy talent...
… average talent. hate to keep harping, but the team has out-performed its Pythag. it’s also done pretty well compared to the prediction models (PECOTA, etc.). there’s a strong argument that this team shouldn’t’ve been .500 over the past few years.
If Pythag means anything
then TLR is a whopping +6 for almost 13 years. Not exactly significant.
As far as crappy talent goes, I think Joe Torre would trade the Cardinal teams he had to manage for the ones TLR has managed the last three years. I will agree on the injuries though. The Carp thing has been crushing, but I do think TLR has made the injury situation worse by playing guys who were both hurt and not performing.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Torre
isn’t a HOF manager if he stays in St. Louis — he’s a HOF manager because he had a great opportunity to come in and manage some Yankee clubs that were put together by the manager who preceded him (Buck Showalter) who gets absolutely no credit for those Yankee teams of the late 1990’s. All he gets credited for is creating a rift between the organization and Don Mattingly when it was increasingly apparent that Donny Baseball couldn’t play regularly anymore. Nice that Joe didn’t have to deal with that one eh?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
So
are you saying that if Torre had managed the same players TLR had in St. Louis he would have won fewer games, playoff games, etc.? Are you saying TLR would have done better with the Yankees?
I think you can make the corresponding argument that says the only reason TLR is a HOF manager is that he had great ownership commitment and good front office decision making in both Oakland and St. Louis.
I was unaware that Buck Showalter was ever the general manager of the Yankees.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
He wasn't
He was their MGR before Torre though, and he’s the one who really laid the groundwork for the way that team played. He plowed the field, so to speak.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Sep 25, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
tlr
is a fine manager but do you really think he matches up with organizational philosophy? you think there is anyway he lets raz play through his early season struggles that he will no doubt have?
now if raz was a veteran with a proven track record no big deal when he hits .150 for april. but a rookie? no way that flys.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
so how long of a leash does Tony get?
If he wants to manage another 5 years, does he get them here?
If upper management wants to go young and Tony loves his vets, how does that mesh?
He may do a great job, but if the next 2 or 3 years produce the same results, what then? Do we keep Tony because “no one else can get the job done like Tony”
Why are so many people so sure that Tony is the best man for this job?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
just strikes some of us as hysteria...
… like the old political joke:
1. we must do something
2. firing TLR is “something”
3. therefore, we must fire TLR
in other words, it’s possible that TLR isn’t the best guy for the job, but it’s far from certain that his replacement will be any better. a quick glance around MLB illustrates difficulties for teams that replace their managers with newbies, and general benefits for teams that can sustain long-term relationships with managers.
it is absolutely true that, at some point, it will be time to cut ties with TLR. perhaps now is that time. but it just seems unreasonable to expect that the team will magically perform better just because TLR isn’t there anymore. indeed, it seems more likely that the opposite is true.
There is also another side to 'politics' and it is why so many
incumbents get re-elected. People fear the unknown, they fear change.
The opposite? That the Cardinals would magically perform worse once LaRussa has hit the dusty trail?
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 24, 2008 1:55 AM EDT up reply actions
true about uncertainty...
… and point taken. but the overall performance of the team under TLR has been good for over a decade. it’s rational to be risk-averse in that situation.
as for the opposite, i shouldn’t’ve said “magical”. there’s nothing magical about it. what i meant was that at best, it’s equally likely that the team would perform worse with a different manager. we don’t know who that other manager would be. it could be Oquendo, could be Buck Showalter, could be Terry Pendleton. who knows? could be anybody. so to say that it is more likely that the team will play better under (undefined) instead of TLR seems presumptuous. unless you don’t think that managers affect team performance in any positively or negatively significant way. in which case: why rock the boat?
it can get a lot worse
ask the pirates or the reds. its not like he’s got anybody healthy or good in the outfield. i would rather see miles or lopez in or lineup than phelps or barton those guys dont give us a fighting chance at the plate. sure it would be ideal to start mather or ankiel but they just arent healthy
The managers aren't the reasons the Reds and Pirates suck
it’s the general managers.
And the Reds are more likely to be better than the Cardinals the next 5 years. They brought up their young talented prospects and let them play. They traded their Rick Ankiel for one of the 10 best pitchers in the National League.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 23, 2008 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Can you imagine if the Reds would have kept Bruce at Louisville all season
because Dusty said he hasn’t “earned” a spot on the team and continued playing Corey Patterson all year. I know one thing …Marty and Thom Brennaman would have choked Dusty to death by now.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
Bruce...
… wasn’t hitting .250 in AAA before getting hurt and ending his season. and the Reds didn’t have 6 other capable OF options. as you said, it was Bruce or Patterson. we had Ankiel, Luddy, Duncan, Barton, Schu. i didn’t even mention Mather, who dramatically out-performed Raz at Memphis.
i wish Raz had gotten a Sept. call-up also. but hey, according to Raz himself he’s too injured to play. so where’s the beef?
When did Raz say
he was too injured to play?
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 23, 2008 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions
that was his excuse...
… forgive me for not getting on my knees for the kid whenever he doesn’t get his way. he’s employed by the St. Louis Cardinals, after all; not the other way around.
Holy crap
what’s with the attitude in every response.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 24, 2008 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions
He's the same way in responding in my threads
But I will say this, Tony has some strong backers on here that will defend his honor to the end and will fight those who disagree with his crazy moves lately. Never let there be any doubt that there are strong loyal fans to the Hall of Famer. I wonder if they pay their membership dues to Al Hrabosky. (Note to Sooner fan & Kindred: That was a joke).
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
no attitude intended...
… i just don’t like scape-goating. and i can’t follow logic that says on the one hand that managers can’t really effect team performance all that much, but on the other hand everything is TLR’s fault and we’d be a lot better without him. that just doesn’t compute.
Very well put Kindred....
I don’t take any of your statements as backing TLR….. I never got from your tone you were a TLR backer 100%… I took your tone as trying to actually have logic and sense back into the equation.
Yes I would say TLR could have done some things better ie…. playing Barton in the OF more, but it’s not like firing him is the answer.
imo
most of the opinions on here aren’t “scape-goating” tlr for a lost season(s). its more his refusal to build for next year after this season was lost.
from my perspective tlr is the reason we have done so well this season. however, his decisions in the past month cannot be easily defended. and those decisions give a great deal of insight into how the future will be. tlr seems to always have issues with younger players and this team is going to see an influx of young players in the next few years.
tlr would be a great coach for the yankees but not the 2009 and beyond cardinals imo.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
I was a big defender of Walt Jocketty
I thought he was still the right man for the job and feared what would happen when he was gone. However, it has become clear to me that it was the right decision. The franchise needed to go in a different direction and needed the entire FO in harmony with each other on building the farm system to stay competitive with the money rich Cubs.
Tony, however, appears to be not of like mind with the FO’s direction for the team now.
That, above all, is why he needs to move on.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 24, 2008 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
unified organization...
… i think that’s the strongest argument to be made in favor of letting TLR go. he obviously doesn’t like being a lame duck, and he may not be willing to completely buy into Mo’s priorities. if that’s the case, then he should go.
but we don’t know that’s the case. a lot people read a lot into Mo’s supposed priorities without very good reason. maybe Mo doesn’t want a 100% Marlins-style youth movement. maybe Mo is trying to emulate the BoSox model: retain a strong core of vets and use the kids to fill in the gaps. maybe Mo is planning to spend some this off-season and make a run while we’ve still got all of Ank, Lud, and Glaus. if so, TLR would seem like the perfect guy for such a one-year job.
The problem with that plan is
that the Red Sox can give the JD Drews of the world $80 M a year and not have to worry about whether or not his shoulder gives out. They can pay Julio Lugo more than he is worth to be Cesar Izturis.
The Cardinals can’t afford to absorb more bad contracts.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 25, 2008 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
i said model...
… not exact replication. we can take a similar philosophy without giving Lugo an insane deal.
anyway, my point wasn’t to make a claim; it was to instill uncertainty in yours. my point is that we aren’t privvy to internal discussions. we don’t know what the overall philosophy of the team is. we don’t know what their plans are for the future. and so we really can’t judge whether or not TLR fits in those plans. obviously Mo wants TLR, or else he wouldn’t’ve re-signed him. maybe TLR fits in perfectly with the organization’s plans. we simply don’t know.
agreed
TLR being against the younger guys is largely assumption based. He is conservative on who he puts on the field, but I wouldn’t say that it’s anti younger players.
And if it’s because he doesn’t believe in babtism by fire like a lot think he should, well Rick may have set a little fear in that concept.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 25, 2008 3:20 AM EDT up reply actions
we do know
they plan on infusing this team with young talent hopefully and i just don’t see that vibing with tlr. especially while their are competent (and in some cases incompetent) veterns to play their positions.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
FWIW
Mo didn’t resign TLR. TLR was signed before Mo was hired.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
i'm pretty sure you're wrong about that...
… but i don’t have time this morning to check.
as for young players… i think the club has made it obvious that the youth movement will be slow and gradual, and that payroll will still be around $100mn. they’ll faze in Raz, Perez, and Motte this year just like they fazed in Ankiel last year and Wainwright/Duncan the year before that. that seems to be the model, and TLR is capable (and, i think, willing) to work within that framework.
TLR signed on 10/22/07
and Mo on 10/30/07.
I doubt TLR will be happy with a stagnant payroll – I sure won’t.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Just noticed
the use of “faze” vs. “phase”. I hope that was just efficiency of keystrokes and not a prediction that they will “disturb the composure of; disconcert; daunt” those players.
Just having a little fun!
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
haha...
… that’s what i get for posting before noon. my brain obviously wasn’t functioning yet.
i think TLR would be happy with a payroll that’s in between $100-$110mn. i’d be happy with that as well. that would have the team spending $30+mn this off-season, with about $20mn coming off the books in ‘10 when Glaus, Piniero, Franklin, and Kennedy are gone. if the team spends that money then i don’t think TLR or the fans will have much to complain about.
I guess it all depends on what you buy
but I am more concerned about the trend that the Cardinals are not keeping up within the division. Spending money doesn’t guarantee success, but not spending it comes close to guaranteeing failure.
In the last year of Busch II the Cardinals were 1st in the division in payroll with a $5M lead on the Cubs and more than twice the Brewers. Three years later the Cubs payroll is nearly $20M higher than the Cardinals and the Brewers have closed the gap from $53M to $19M. The Cardinals have the lowest rate of increase in the division since 2005 even with all the revenue from the pimping of Busch II and the boxes, etc. of Busch III.
I am all for player development – it is an absolute necessity – but ownership’s willingness to spend money over the past 13 years is a huge part of the team’s success. Maybe a day will come when we can compete strictly on in-house development and shrewd trades, but we are not there yet.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
I don't think Raz was hurt, but you made the point as to why Raz was not called up.
I think some people just want to see him so badly they are over-reacting a bit to him not being called up.
Yes if Rasmus was producing like Mather at the time of Mather’s call up there would be valid argument. Colby was not getting it done at the time he needed to be getting it done.
Let’s move on. He will be around next year and just as good/exciting.
Raz did not seem to think he was hurt... Seemed to feel he was healed....
You know I don’t have a problem with the org playing it safe… I just don’t know how well they communicated with Colby.
He's young
I’m not trying to stereotype him, but it does have some merit if you think about it.
Fresh off an injury while knowing callups are just few days away. Disappointed by not making it after Spring Training he positions himself as “healed”, “ready to go”, “call me”. When the team says they’re not going to and the season ends and he rests for a couple of days and then decides not to do any winterball, but rest. The boy has been pretty much playing ball nonstop for almost 3 years. His body took some hits this year in regards to an injury. It’s quite reasonable to play I’m ready during Sept callups. I would have done the same.
Similar situation – Sophmore in HS, caught 200ish yards in the first half as a tight end, up by three scores going into the second half. Coach benched me. “I can play, I can play”. But as soon as I sat through the 3rd quarter it was clear he was right. I was exhausted.
Now I would have played, without question. But I wasn’t 100%. Neither was Colby. To be fair, no one knows if he was communicated to before the paper ran with that bit about him not being ready, they may have. And while blunt, it was fairly accurate.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 25, 2008 3:30 AM EDT up reply actions
i would much rather have barton playing regardless of whether he gives us a better chance to win
why did we keep him all year if he wasn’t going to be part of the future? but instead we giving looks to miles and kennedy in the outfield. come on…
if its up to me 2 out of rick, lud, and skip are traded for starting pitching or prospects and next year’s starting outfield is raz, barton, and whoever is left out of the 3 but there is no way that is happening with tlr as the manager.
that is a building for the future outfield. two over 30, injury prone outfielders and a over 30 free agent is a tlr outfield.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
trade Skip and Rick first.....
If you can get a lot for Luddy maybe you trade him. See by trading Skip and Rick you ensure Colby is in CF… Although I don’t have a problem with Colby in RF or LF if Rick is still around because I think Rick is better in CF. If Rasmus is as good as advertised put him in RF or LF as he is the natural outfielder and can adjust better than Rick has at playing a corner OF position.
Why does "part of the future".....
Have to be this year or next? If Barton could spend next year in AAA, I think he’d gain a ton from that.
barton
will already be 27 next year. that’s getting a little old in the tooth for AAA.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
If they think he needs more time in AAA, they should just go ahead
and give him back to Cleveland, trade him, or just non tender him. I hope we are done with 27 year old outfielders in AAA.
The way they use him makes it obvious to me they don’t think much of him. What’s the big deal? Just send him on his way.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
consider...
… the injuries this year to Duncan, Ankiel, Mather, and Raz as well as Luddy’s extensive injury history. having a bit of depth is a good thing. 27 isn’t that old, fer Pete’s sake. he still has time and room to grow.
Barton is clearly not ready for primetime yet. but a year of full-time ABs (and fielding reps) in Memphis can go a long way towards that. he needs it. but even more important than that is that there’s no reason to release him. he’s on a minor-league contract. he’s still got the potential to be a solid MLB contributor after he’s had some seasoning. it costs us nothing to keep him, and could hurt us to release him.
he was always going to be the 25th man this year; that’s how Rule 5 picks work. that doesn’t mean they don’t value him. if they didn’t, they wouldn’t’ve taken in the Rule 5 draft and kept him on the roster all year.
I think you are just too rational at times..........
Kindred, you just need to fly off the handle a few times and make crazy acusations to be noticed around here.
I do appreciate your calm, thought out responses to things.
I don't understand what makes Barton
“clearly not ready for primetime yet.” In very limited duty he has put up nearly identical OBP and SLG (with significantly better ISO) to Skip Schumaker and has at least equal if not better range in the OF. He is also a better baserunner. Do you think he has somehow been protected from being overexposed, or lucky, or what?
Now, I am not saying he should play everyday or even necessarily make the roster depending on what happens in the off-season, but I don’t understand this notion that he needs more seasoning. If we have all the same OFs on the roster then I would rather see Mather, Ankiel and Ludwick, but I certainly hope at least some OFs get moved to fill need areas.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
all of those? that, plus...
… small sample. he has 176 MLB ABs, 101 of which are against LH pitchers. he has a .760 OPS with a .349 BABIP (.372 against RH pitchers). he also makes a lot of “immature” plays: bad routes in the OF, poor base-running decisions, poor situational hitting, etc. that’s not a knock on him; he’s just had less experience and less of an opportunity to learn and grow. i’m a big fan of Barton, and i think he’s a strong asset for the organization, which is why i oppose Jill’s suggestion that we just toss him off for no reason.
i wouldn’t mind it if Skip gets traded and Barton takes a reserve role next season, so long as the starters are Ank, Raz, and Luddy. but i don’t think Barton is ready for a “featured” role as a starter in the OF, which is what i meant by “not ready for primetime”.
The small sample argument
is pretty weak. He has had virtually the same number of ABs that Schumaker got last year. Those seem to have been sufficient for TLR to annoint Skip as an everyday player. Barton has over 1300 MiLB ABs with a .888 OPS while Skip’s MiLB OPS was .738.
As far as bad routes goes, it doesn’t seem to show up in the numbers. His fielding numbers are nearly identical to Schumaker’s both in and out of zone.
I think we are in agreement that he is not ready to be a starter, but it would be a waste to just throw him back in AAA. He’s a good enough OF, he is a very good PH and he is possibly the fastest player on the team. I don’t want to ever see Skip bat against a LHP in a meaningful situation again – well, at least not for the Cardinals.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
.349 BABIP in 176 ABs...
… i’d say that’s a pretty strong “small sample” argument. when he regresses to the mean, his OPS drops precipitously. he still might not be noticeably worse than Skip, but he’s only barely adequate right now; any drop-off would make him a negative.
like i said, i’m a big Barton backer. but he needs more reps. he’s got a TON of room to grow, but he hasn’t grown into it yet. i think a year of full-time ABs at Memphis, or maybe even just half a year, would do him well.
Tell me how it is different from Schumaker's .363 BABIP in 2007
in 177 ABs? The only way he should be in Memphis next year is if Schumaker and Mather are both still with the team. I like both guys well enough, but somebody in the OF needs to get traded to shore up other deficiencies. I Schu is still leading off, then Barton is the ideal complement to him in that role. No more Iz2 and his .309 OBP in the leadoff spot. Barton’s .280/.368/.460/.828 in the leadoff spot, while only 59 PAs, is just dandy with virtually the same OBP as Skip and .071 more ISO than Skip.
I agree with Jill, the kid is ready to play some sort of role on the big-league team. If they aren’t ready to admit that, or go out and obtain someone better, then they should just trade him. Just exactly how good would he have to do in AAA to actually increase his value? Anything short of a .900 OPS would probably decrease his value.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
lead-off platoon...
… would be fine. but i’m kind of hoping that neither one of them starts next year. i’d be fine with Raz, Ank, Lud as the starters, and Bombs and Barton off the bench. i’m not going to argue for Skip over Barton, but i will argue for Mather or Raz over him. and i think that that will be the situation.
Agreed
but still no reason to put Barton at AAA. All that does is erode whatever value he might have. Any public pronouncements to that effect by the TLR, MO, whomever would just be bad businees.
Barton is either good enough to be on the big league team or he needs to be traded.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
What if nobody wants him?
Or nobody wants to give up crap for him? Why not just let him stay in AAA, maybe improve, and fill in when we have an injury?
Obviously
if nobody wants him then you only have the option to play him in StL or AAA. The whole discussion was centered around the point that he “needed” to be in AAA because he wasn’t ready to contribute at the big league level.
I think the odds are that somebody will want a cost controlled OF with a career MiLB OPS of .888 who has demonstrated an ability to put up league average offensive numbers with a good OBP. If nobody wants to give up crap for him now, more time at AAA isn’t going to improve his value unless he puts up spectacular numbers.
I would be thrilled if we had five OFs on the big league roster who were legitimately better players than him who could actually play the OF.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
there's lot to be said about
putting him in AAA at the start of the season for depth reasons. I, personally, wouldn’t be too concerned about the trade potential between ’09 and ’10.
As of right now we have four OF on the ‘09 roster (counting Colby) with serious injury issues this year. No one knows where Dunc will shape out, Rick and Mather both had surgery, and Colby had an injury laden year. Luddy is only one true year removed from injuries and some could say that he’s an injury time bomb do to the work that his body has already gotten.
Personally, I feel he’s good enough currently to be on the roster going into ‘09 should we have depth problems. A swing man if you will. I don’t see any harm about giving him continued reps in AAA while we don’t have depth problems either.
If I was a team playing in a ballpark that was small and needed a quick guy, I’d jump on Barton or Skip. It would help out Barton’s arm issues and would inflate both of their bats. So I think they both have trade value going into this offseason, but there is a case for putting him in AAA, for his needs and team needs.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 6:05 AM EDT up reply actions
You don't think it's possible to have.....
Ankiel, Skip, Ludwick, Mather, Rasmus, and/or Duncan on the roster next year?
by SoonerfanTU on Sep 27, 2008 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't disagree
on Barton being in AAA if the issue is injury protection. Like Sooner says, if we have all the same OFs we have this year, plus Rasmus on the big league roster then I am OK with it. The issue I was taking exception with was that Barton didn’t merit a spot on the big league roster because he “need seasoning”, “hadn’t earned it”, “wasn’t ready for primetime”, etc.
It is my fervent hope that one or more of our OFs not named Rasmus gets traded this off-season to address other needs. Maybe Barton is one of those guys.
I just think when you have a guy who has essentially skipped AAA, who has outstanding tools, who performed at league average in limited playing time, who has been a good pinch hitter, that he has proven he is ready to contribute on the big league roster. Having him at AAA is a luxury, not a necessity.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
I think it depends how you look at it.....
Is Barton ready to start everyday, and be a productive OF? I don’t think he is, but I guess that is going to differ person to person. Do I think he is adequate as the 4th/5th OF off the bench? Yea, probably so. But if he rides the bench, or only gets the occassional starts against lefties, he probably isn’t going to get much better. I, and this is just my opinion, think that if he were to spend a year in AAA playing everyday, he could, maybe, turn himself into a guy that could be a productive starting OF.
That is my line of thinking.
by SoonerfanTU on Sep 27, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Most teams/scouts are going to understand that he was a AA’er who was on the Rule 5 Draft. Going to AAA at the beginning of ’09 isn’t going to destroy his value.
He’s good enough to be on the Cardinals when/while we have depth concerns. AAA allows him to improve with at-bats and allows him one step away from helping team needs.
This is based on ’09 as it appears now. I can’t see Jay jumping Barton by opening day ’09, and Barton on all accounts is better than Stav.
I still wouldn’t hesitate to trade him even in a package deal. However, I have no reservations about him being in AAA start of ’09 if we have the OF covered.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 6:13 AM EDT up reply actions
depth, like starters is a regular role.
Was Phelps signing a bad move? I mean, in the context of ’08, was having Phelps in Memphis a bad thing? Of course not. For better or worse, he was our depth should we have Albert concerns. We almost did.
AAA is there for a reason.
As far as his value, scouts/teams will consider the fact that he came from AA to a ML team. Most will consider that being on the ML team was a direct result of the Rule 5 Draft. AAA the following year (at the start of the season) wouldn’t be considered a demotion. More like, regular reps.
When you look at trade value, it’s highest was at ST this year, but considering the years our OF had as a whole, he rated low on the ML depth chart. If anything, going forward, his age and development together hurts his value more than where he’s playing.
I’d trade Skip in a heartbeat. The LHP and his value at the peak is the main reasons why. I think we witnessed Skip’s upside, I don’t think we’ve discovered Barton’s just yet.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 6:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I am encouraged
that you see Skip’s performance in ‘08 as his upside and Barton’s very similar performance as below his upside. After all, in much more regular action Skip’s OBP is only .011 better than Barton and Barton’s ISO is .020 better than Skip’s. Other than Skip’s superior arm they are very similar in the OF.
I see absolutely no parallels between Phelps and Barton. Phelps is the quintessential depth guy who has proven he can hit big league pitching and we hope we never see on the big league roster as a regular player because it would mean Pujols, Duncan, and Mather are all hurt. Barton is a guy who has already proven he belongs on a MLB roster.
You can say whatever you want about what you think scouts and teams will consider, but Barton has shown value at the MLB level. If he is shipped off to AAA because the Cardinals publicly declare him not ready AND he gets off to a slow start at AAA his value will be diminished. If all you want at AAA from your OF is depth, then we will have Jay, Jones, Robinson et al.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
one more thing
and I hate to denigrate Skip, because I love his hustle etc; if he’d just play second base he’d be my favorite player on the team. but of his 8 home runs this year, 3 have been “lucky” and 2 have been “just enough”, according to hit tracker. He could easily have 3 home runs instead of 8, which would push Barton well ahead of him in OPS etc even if they all fell for doubles, which is unlikely.
"All I am saying is give Freese a chance!" -- nmstar
no
I’m not trying to compare or bring parallels. I am trying to bring some context to my depth argument. Barton in AAA next year and Phelps this year has an argument for depth.
Not ready and more reps is different things. I still contend they’ll consider the fact he was a Rule 5 Draftee and that we have a large amount of organizational depth in the outfield – when healthy.
Jay, Jones, Robinson don’t rate as ML ready at the start of ‘09 and most will say that they wouldn’t until Sept next year at the earliest. So we need someone there who could come up if there is depth issues. Barton could be that guy.
I’d love to turn the OF surplus into some org needs. But I do see the case that Barton being here fills one on its own.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions
and of course I see Barton's upside
being better than Skips. Skip’s quite lovable, but Barton can really be something special.
Agreed with Sleepy. If only Skip could play 2b.. sigh
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions
don't just look at BABIP
without considering his speed. Barton has 4 IF hits and 3 bunt hits, out of 39 hits on balls in play. With 4 sacrifices, and 8 bunts, that means he is hitting .750 on bunts when bunting for a hit.
Remove bunts and his BABIP falls to .311, which isn’t very lucky at all.
"All I am saying is give Freese a chance!" -- nmstar
Maybe, just maybe
they’re just fulfilling their contractual obligations of the Rule 5. Maybe he’s still hurt a little and putting him on the DL doesn’t make any sense considering the context of the season. Maybe it’s a good idea to protect the depth you burnt a roster spot the entire year for.
Maybe you’re protecting a trade chip, or a person you know can fill a 5th OF spot, maybe the “depth” of our outfield isn’t really determined going into ‘09. Maybe there’s interest from someone else after the season is over.
Maybe he’s fully aware his entire career isn’t going to be in baseball, but while he’s here he sure enjoys making around half a million a year to ride a bench and be apart of a team. Maybe he enjoys the organization that didn’t actually let him go under the Rule 5 to begin with.
Notice the trend? Lots of maybes isn’t there. It’s for a reason.
1.) Nothing is really known about depth going into ’09.
2.) Nothing is known about how Barton feels about his role in the org.
3.) He just might be an asset that happens to not play much while in 4th place during a Sept. run because he happens to be cost controlled, future protection for the organization.
There’s nothing wrong with having him in AAA to start the year next year if the team decides that’s what is best. It allows someone else in the majors and someone to call on should we need it.
You’re paid to be on a team and within an organization. Very well actually. Sometimes I wonder if some of us actually get that, instead of thinking if you’re not one of the 9 on the field, you’re getting shafted.
And who says they don’t think much of him? Seriously. “Yeah, I’ll take a guy who was in AA and put him on the 25 man roster because I don’t think too highly from him.” Maybe it’s just a guy who needs a little seasoning with the bat and arm strength and while doing it can be a back up plan, and provide depth.
Who would have thought?
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 25, 2008 3:13 AM EDT up reply actions
question
do you really think any player in the mlb is happy with riding the pine just because they are getting paid? especially a kid that hasn’t even had a shot?
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Fresh out of AA, on a ML team. Picked up in the Rule 5 draft and kept all season.
Under what definition do you declare “hasn’t even had a shot”? Because if almost 150AB and almost 60 games played in as a rookie is meant to be “not having a shot”, a lot of rookies must have been really disappointed.
He was on a major league roster all season as a 5th OF. A lot of players ride pine quite a bit in their careers. Rookies included.
I wasn’t saying that money trumps playing time, but you’re paid to be avail to play, not to start.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 25, 2008 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions
80 games* if you base it games batted in, mine is where he was in the field. Either way, I digress.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 25, 2008 3:40 AM EDT up reply actions
not a shot
includes losing PT to kennedy, lopez, and miles. there is no reason he shouldn’t be getting quality at-bats right now with ank, dunc, and mather out.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Possible that his oblique isn’t 100%? I don’t know, none of us do.
If it’s fine, then I’ll go down the more obvious train. Miles and Lopez are free agents who are essentially auditioning for the Spezio type role going into ’09. Kennedy is out there for playing time, so he can be seen and hopefully we can get rid of his ass.
Lopez is stroking a solid bat and isn’t a known quanity.
And since the start of Sept (where most of the position issues have started) Barton, Miles and Kennedy have all gotten similar numbers in PA while playing in the OF.
And while I agree that the position arrangements are borderline absurd – the idea that he’s not getting a shot because the team is looking at free agents and their ability to rover. Matter in fact, I’d say he’s fairly safe next year, since he’s not “auditioning” as well.
He has, of course, been a part of most games this month since being back from the oblique issue. Just not starting. So we’re both on the same page.
However, my original post was pointing out that I can’t see how he’s getting shafted by us and should go back to the team that let him go in the first place. He’s on and has been apart of the team, maybe not as much as I would have liked (and you can search back, I’ve argued for more and more of him on various occasions), but he hasn’t came out and complained about a thing, and as long as that’s the case, I don’t see why he’d start. Assumptions mean little, and the ’09 roster is far from set.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 25, 2008 4:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Yea.....
We never should have gave Ludwick a chance. rolleyes
Barton doesn’t have the experience of a 27 year old b/c of injuries.
The same Ludwick that was outplaying Juan Encarnacion
and couldn’t get playing time?
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 26, 2008 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions
in what way was it cute?
You have to resort to sarcasm because you have no counter-argument; you know he is right and just can’t back down gracefully from the position you have taken. You really couldn’t have set HC up any better; it would have been even better if he had used “preston wilson”, since Ludwick was ONLY given a chance to play every day because both PW hurt his knee AND encarnacion got hurt. That’s two inferior players who had to be completely out of MLB before TLR gave a guy who has MVP potential an opportunity to play every day.
Even with that, Luddy wasn’t even a full-time player at the start of THIS year, after luddy put up a great 2007 and had a great 2008 spring. That is just flat-out absurd. Mo brought Luddy to the org, not TLR, and TLR did an extremely poor job of on-field talent evaluation with Ludwick, and it cost us a handful of games in 2007 and probably one or two in 2008.
"All I am saying is give Freese a chance!" -- nmstar
+1
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
It was cute.....
Because it had jack **** to do with my post, aside from the name Ludwick. Funny that I get ripped for “not having a counter argument”, when actually, my “cute” post was saying the same exact thing to HL.
As for the numbers, you might want to double check those. Ludwick played about as much as JE. And Ludwick hit about .220 in May and June.
edmonds was hurt in 07
he didn’t play because he was hurt, not because TLR randomly decided to play adam kennedy (in ’07 it was speizio) in his place in the outfield.
Anyway, wtf WAS the point of your post, if it wasn’t that you were trying to say that the fact that TLR gave Luddy a shot as a 29yo, and it worked, excuses him from not really giving 26yo barton a shot? Because that’s what it looked like, and HC’s comment that TLR didn’t give luddy a shot until forced to practically at gunpoint by injuries to inferior players pretty much destroys that argument. Saying it is “cute” is not a response.
Luddy’s performance this year and in sum last year shows how his batting average in his first two months in MLB last year is irrelevant. Actually, that is EXACTLY the point I’ve been trying to make with Lopez. Statistics from 2 months is a sample size for performance that is WAY too small to know much if anything about a player. A guy in TLR’s position should know this. he should also be able to look at a guy like Luddy in ST (luddy had an OPS over 1.000 in spring ’07, IIRC) and say “wow, this guy is pretty good” without having to see him dribble one additional ball a week past the SS in May to prove it.
If you look at threads on here from that time period, myself and others were begging to see Luddy in MLB even in Apr 07, and if a couple of guys on the internet can see it, the guy in the dugout paid $5M/year to see this stuff really should be able to see it. This deep frustration with TLR goes back a long, long way, even into ’04 and ’05. So many of his decisions are simply indefensible, except if accepted on blind faith, and easily explained as the behavior of a once-great manager who has lost his edge and is now relying on bromides to get him through the day.
And there are marginal players like barton and barden and ryan (and j-rod, poor guy) who have worked their asses off for years, and whose careers are on the line, and who play only according to his illogical whims, which he is never asked to defend. The cost of playing expensive veterans like Izturis and Encarnacion over these guys accumulates and causes us to be unable to sign guys who could really make a difference. This is incredibly frustrating.
"All I am saying is give Freese a chance!" -- nmstar
You are on a roll
Once again, thanks for laying it out. I would add that TLR’s general snarkiness and fuzzy decision making have gotten markedly worse since the World Series victory. He obviously thinks he has earned it and, in a certain since, that is true. But he needs to retain the humility that should go with the fact that he had a longer tenure before winning a world championship than any other Cardinal manager in spite of the largess bestowed upon him by ownership.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
I have to agree with you on that
Perplexing isn’t it? The fuzzy decision making and snarkiness has has seemingly went up tenfold.
On a lighter note, how do you get largess right but not sense?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
the reds really
and once that top ten pitcher peeks they will trade him away for more prospects at the all-star break same as they always do. they had hamilton dunn and griffey last year and they managed to get rid of them without getting anyone good.
They got Edison Volquez
who is tied for 2nd in the NL in strikeouts at the Age of 24. And by moving Dunn and Griffey, it gave Jay Bruce full playing time and allowed them to call up Chris Dickerson, who is a great defensive OF’er that suddenly has found a ton of power.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 23, 2008 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
Now if they could just dump Dusty before he ruins all their young pitching arms they’d be ready to take the driver’s seat in the division in a couple of years.
Griffey had no value when they traded him and we can see why with him playing in Chicago — he really hasn’t helped that team at all since the trade. Dunn wasn’t going to re-sign, so they’re in a bad situation with that one as well, and got a couple decent players out of that deal with Arizona.
They did the best they could, and they’re rolling the dice that their young talent is going to be the foundation of their team in the next 3-4 years. If that happens they’re a couple good FA signings away from having a really good team at a median level pricetag — you can’t ask for much more than that can you?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Also
They got Josh Hamilton for basically nothing — the Cubs took him with the first pick in the rule 5 a few years ago and traded him to Cincy for a mid-level prospect. Just think if they Cubs had held on to him — they wouldn’t have a 38 year old JEd out there in CF, and they’d have an impact LH bat that would absolutely rake at Wrigley Field in their lineup. Hendry missed on that one big time….
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Perez role
My read on the article is TLR is floating the idea to sign an established closer and use Perez as the 8th inning man. That would mean YP replaces Franklin with a proven closer (Fuentes) replacing Izzy. I’d take that bullpen over 2008’s.
And somehow Mo’s first comment was missed in the main body quote:
“I think depending on his health and depending on how he is approaching next season, I certainly think we owe Izzy the courtesy of being open-minded to doing something,” Mozeliak said.
“Open minded to doing something” is a far cry from putting Izzy in the closer role for 2009.
exactly
What else would Mo say? “Come to ST and let’s see how he heals”?, “Don’t believe that he has the passion for the game any longer”?, “He’s not in our plans and we don’t want to see him here”?, “We’re moving on without him”?
We’re not the Packers. Regardless of ‘06 and ’08 Izzy should deserve some respect. That was the best answer, and frankly should be the answer. He came back from ’06 healthy and wanted to disprove and show what he can do and did a damn good job of it in ’07. Now I’m not saying that a healthy Izzy would do the same in ‘09, but it’s worth looking into.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 25, 2008 2:57 AM EDT up reply actions
I really hope they don't screw Perez up
go rays
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Sep 24, 2008 1:23 PM EDT reply actions
I wouldn't worry too much
every time there’s a wind about fixing an issue with a pitcher we’re doomed and everything is going to be pitched low.
The facts are ever since he went into the role in Miami he’s always had a wiggly arm slot. It’s been known for a while that his fitness regime has been a question mark. He may lose some movement on the fastball, but it should improve his slider. His movement could still be there with an higher arm slot anyways, I’d say video would prove or disprove any of that.
But he needs a constant release point and arm slot – no question. Can debate all day and night on which slot to use, but to think that Perez is the next “Reyes” is silly. Big Z, Papelbon, Beckett all suffered when going to a lower arm slot (a few more, but i can’t recall off hand). But I wouldn’t worry about them messing him up. At the end of the day Duncan should be weighed on a case by case basis when working with pitchers. To group all of them together and claim “ruined” by tweaking a few things is a little over the top.
i don’t even see it as a “Duncan overhaul” Get a constant release point/higher slot and get fit. I’d trade a couple of inches of movement for a lower walk rate anyday. besides, that’s what his plus-plus slider is for – to move.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 25, 2008 2:52 AM EDT up reply actions
What would you call it then?
1) Lose weight
2) Get your arm higher
3) Pitch Lower in the Zone
4) Learn the curveball
What, exactly, isn’t being overhauled? That he isn’t throwing left-handed?
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 25, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
come on Hardcore! you just love to over react at times..............
1. He needs to lose about 10-12 pounds…..
You can not argue that fact. You can see some love handles on the big guy. Yes I know he is not going to come back looking like Wainer and with his body type he never will. However the least he can do is get in better shape. Look at Albert, he works his ass off and still has a bit extra in places due to his body type. That’s all they are asking of Perez. Also it will only help him to not break down late in the year.
2. Get your arm higher………
I thought in Cinci his arm looked a bit lower than normal. Maybe he is tired due to his high work load in 2008. Zambranon always goes through this too. He starts droping his arm and his control goes away, loses some velocity and starts getting hit hard. Big Z and Perez both throw with the 3/4 style arm slot. Perez probably does need to be reminded to keep the arm him.
2008 25 inning pitched at Memphis
2008 39 inning pitched at STL
Besides 2006 this is a Career high for innings pitched. Also remember in 2005 he threw 52 innings at Miami in College and then only threw 29 minor league innings. So it’s not like he had a work load like this year. Also in 2008 he has been facing much better competition than he ever has before causing more pressure/having to work harder.
He has a history of lots of with a career BB/9 of 6, anything above 3 is not good. Maybe they saw some film and noticed his arm slot dropped so they want him to keep it up and consistent.
3. I don’t think they are asking him to pitch low in the zone except maybe early in the count to get a head. Get strike one low and then move up the ladder. Heck Motte moves up the ladder so it’s not like they will not let Perez
4. I don’t know why he needs that right now. They wanted him to try it, and it did not work. He scrapped that a long time ago. The last time he went to the minors the threw sliders.
Come one you are trying to stir things up for no reason.
What?
Everything I pointed out was used in direct quotes by Dave Duncan. Nothing I said was made up.
Chris Perez even said in a pre-game interview that they want him to learn to ‘pitch to contact’.
The conversion is in full effect.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 26, 2008 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, Pitch to contact meaning attack the strike zone...
Don’t be affraid of getting hit.
Motte is pitching to contact….. Pitching to contact does not mean pitch down in the zone all the time. It is a very vanilla lose term used to basically say “throw strikes, Babe Ruth is dead” Famous quote can’t remember who said it.
I read an article in USA today earlier this year and Roy Halladay and a few of the top pitchers on the Blue Jays were talking about how they pitch to contact…
Motte is pitching to contact. What does he have 1 walk?
I did not say you were making things up… I just said I thought you took some quotes a bit too far.
Is it really taking them too far
when we see words that match actions?
This isn’t a 1 year isolated thing. The beauty of a 11 year relationship is that you learn the tendencies of the other party and understand the ploys and tactics they use to get their message across.
With Tony/Dave, it’s “Do it our way or else we will simply stop talking to you.”
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 26, 2008 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
"do it our way"...
… isn’t that kinda what all coaches do?
look, “pitch-to-contact” isn’t the same as “emulate Jeff Suppan”. it is, as IC said, a philosophy that encourages limiting walks and operating within the strike zone, but not in the middle of the plate. that doesn’t mean that strikeouts are bad, or that the goal for the pitcher is for every batter to put the ball in play. it means that when you are facing MLB hitters and you can’t locate pitches, they’ll sit back, take walks, and pound the meatballs down the middle. Perez has a K/9 of 9, and yet he’s had some trouble. why? because he’s also got a BB/9 of 5, and in the past month guys are slugging .517 against him. they’re taking walks, and then crushing the ball when he misses in the middle of the plate, or when he’s behind in the count and has to pump a fastball right down the middle.
Duncan’s pitchers are often criticized for “nibbling at the corners”. why? because Duncan’s philosophy is about control. it’s not about throwing knee-high 2-seamers at 89 mph. it’s about locating your best pitches in the places where you have the advantage. it’s why you always hear Cardinal pitchers talking about “executing” their pitches, and “keeping hitters off-balance”. the Duncan philosophy says “if you put your pitches where they can’t get good swings, you’ll beat them”. for pitchers without strikeout stuff (e.g. Suppan), that might mean inducing groundballs. for pitchers with strikeout stuff (e.g. Carp, Waino), that might mean setting up hitters with well-located fastballs/cutters early in the count, then killing them with a curveball. in a lot of ways, Duncan’s philosophy is similar to Mazzone’s: never throw anything over the middle of the plate, and make them swing at your pitch. Mazzone emphasized pounding the outside corner while Duncan prefers to tailor strategy to specific batters, but the logic is the same.
Motte has done fine with Duncan so far. Perez hasn’t. Motte has control of his pitches. Perez doesn’t. so maybe, just maybe, Perez’s problems are that he can’t locate and not that Duncan is messing him up.
pitching to contact
if you pitch to contact in the zone the only place that will work consistently is down in the zone. if you pitch to contact high in the zone its going to get crushed. an effective pitch high in the zone needs to rise out of the zone.
so imo, “pitch to contact” means bottom half.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
so much confusion could have been prevented
if duncan had just called his philosophy “pitch to bad contact”.
"All I am saying is give Freese a chance!" -- nmstar
“pitch to contact” is a lot like the Bush Doctrine. Everyone has a view point and no one knows for sure. Can you point to where Duncan has defined it directly in quotes? I’m just curious.
And when referencing Perez like speed and pitching up in the zone getting crushed isn’t exactly true, it’s actually far from it and quite effective. Some notable closers rely higher in the zone. Yes, in the zone, not above it.
I have my own interp. I disagree it’s about low in the zone, more like favorable count vs the batter, lower pitch counts and not to waste pitches – meaning, let the batter beat himself, not the pitcher to beat the batter. Again, to each his own.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:26 AM EDT up reply actions
that is just not true
whether or not you can pitch up in the zone effectively is determined by what sort of stuff you have. I haven’t verified this, but my recollection is most of the hits Perez has given up were on low fastballs. He has been much more successful with his fastball up in the zone.
If the fastball is fairly straight, but has high velocity it is more effective up. The hitter only has to drop the head of the bat on the low fastball and golf it, but a high fastball with plus velocity is very hard to get on top of. I don’t remember the product he was hawking, but Ryan Howard does a commercial that says something like, “I learned in college that you have to swing down on the ball to get it to go up.” One of the reasons Howard absolutely kills Cardinal pitching is we insist on pitching him low in the zone rather than up, where he is vulnerable. Mark McGwire was also a notorious low ball hitter.
If your fastball is not a plus pitch and has no movement it really should rarely be thrown in the strike zone and you better have some pretty good off-speed stuff you can command. For most of the retread types we have recycled, pitching to contact does mean throwing a two-seamer with downward movement low in the zone, but not for everybody.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
This isn’t a 1 year isolated thing. The beauty of a 11 year relationship is that you learn the tendencies of the other party and understand the ploys and tactics they use to get their message across.
With Tony/Dave, it’s "Do it our way or else we will simply stop talking to you."
That "do it our way’ quote was a one time thing unless you have any other player where it’s been the issue. And, most of all, you are relying on a player saying as much. Two sides to every story?
Why is the Reyes issue glorified so much? Really?
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:48 AM EDT up reply actions
The Reyes issue
gets so much mention because it is the classic example of one of Dave Duncan’s shortcomings. You have a prospect who was effective at every level in amateur and pro ball whose repertoire is plus fastball up with a plus changeup. When he gets to the bigs the pitching coach announces his approach won’t work at the big league level without even giving him an opportunity to try, changes his approach and changes his arm slot. Tells him to abandon the plus 4-seamer to throw a 2-seamer low in the zone.
It is brought up, appropriately, here because it sure looks like they are doing the same thing with Perez. Now if you want the kid to struggle for a couple of years and be traded for a 24 year-old A ball pitcher, then to each his own. I would rather give the kid a chance to pitch his own way and only make adjustments when he fails.
As far as it being a one time thing, there haven’t been a whole lot of plus fastball prospects through the Cardinals system in a while. Can you point to anyone who came up through the system with that sort of profile, wasn’t tampered with, and failed?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
It is brought up, appropriately, here because it sure looks like they are doing the same thing with Perez. Now if you want the kid to struggle for a couple of years and be traded for a 24 year-old A ball pitcher, then to each his own. I would rather give the kid a chance to pitch his own way and only make adjustments when he fails.
I’ve already typed about how the correlation between Reyes and Perez isn’t accurate. I’m not, and haven’t been debating what happened to Reyes, but the fact that it doesn’t relate to what Perez needs to do.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't see where you made that point
and I hope it isn’t accurate that Perez is getting the Reyes treatment. From where I sit it sure looks as if we are headed in that direction.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
scroll up
arm slot does not equal low in the zone, being fit is a valid concern.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I saw that
I just don’t think it makes your point that “the correlation between Reyes and Perez isn’t accurate”.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Anthony Reyes
Scott Rolen
JD Drew
even Jim Edmonds wasn’t on speaking terms with them for a time.
You’ve gotta be a warrior for them or else you’re a coward.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 27, 2008 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
You’ve gotta be a warrior for them or else you’re a coward.
Says who? Citing two drama filled vets on the decline w/ injury issues and Drew isn’t exactly making a case either.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the fact that they continuily play
horribly injured players for months instead of giving them the rest and recovery they need is also part of the case.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 28, 2008 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
documented "want for a curve is where?
and note, I do recall them mentioning him trying to use it when his slider was all but gone first try up, but nothing since. So #4 depends on it actually being said.
3 is pretty much an assumption based on the arm slot, which if you’ll note some of the games where he has had control issues, he’s actually missed up or it’s gotten an overbearing (and some may say uncontrollable) amount of movement. Raising the arm slot should help both and if it’s in a constant slot, it’ll help his wildness as well.
So we’re back to 1 and 2. and I still wouldn’t call it an overhaul. He’s not building bulk, he’s stacking up negative weight, and I’ve addressed #2.
Since we’re not the Bengals there’s no reason to change Perez’s name to Reyes II. In Chris’ case, it makes reasonable sense and isn’t a Duncan only thing. Lots of pitchers have had issues in this domain, as IC mentions, one of the most notable is Big Z.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 25, 2008 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions
strauss
made it seem in his chat this wednesday that the idea of bringing izzy back for the closer role is definitely on the table.
The Cardinals may “owe” it to themselves if they can acquire a potential closer or 9th inning insurance for an incentive-laden one-year deal. Moves can’t be viewed in isolation… especially this winter.
all this speculation seems to be coming from strauss’ direction.
the more i think about though, the more it seems like its exactly the kind of move the cards would make.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
i'd actually be fine with it
as long as 3 things are true. First off, he must sign a incentive-laden minor league contract with a cheap ($5M?) vesting option. Second, he must be willing to prove himself in memphis. No ifs, and’s or buts; unless he is lights-out in the spring, make him throw 25 innings of sub-2.0 ERA ball at AAA before he comes up. Third, he must be willing to take a non-closer role if we either sign or discover a closer in our organization. if he could be the next russ springer, bullpen ace, that would be great.
As far as “owing it to themselves”, well, it could be said that Izzy cost this team the 2008 baseball season, while being paid $8M, so they certainly don’t owe anything to HIM. It might be different if he was on the mound in game 5 in ‘06, but he wasn’t. But there aren’t many pitchers as good as Izzy when he is “right”, so he’s worth another look – but if he wants to be the franchise saves leader, let him take a deal that helps (or at least doesn’t hurt) the franchise, and “earn” his way into the position.
"All I am saying is give Freese a chance!" -- nmstar
i don't think Izzy will take a minor-league deal...
… and i hope the Cards don’t offer him a ML deal, unless they basically give him Springer’s money and he demonstrates perfect health sometime in the off-season. maybe we’ll get a Percival-type situation again. but my guess is that Izzy’s done wearing the BoB.
I agree with both of you
and I hope the ballclub, whoever that is, does too.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
agreed
let him rehab out and see what he wants to do. if it’s st louis only, put him ST in a juan like role and see how he holds up and looks. if it looks good and he’s willing to take a “respectable” contract (not low enough to be an insult, but not high enough to reflect the “cost” of closers) then bring him in.
and my qualification would be like your number 3. No defined closer role, no “vet” status, earn your keep. I don’t know, and by the past couple of years I’d say it’s not unreasonable to assume that it wouldn’t be easy with the vet status part as Tony is clearly partial to them. But it can’t hurt to have bullpen depth, especially if K-Mac gets a starters role look.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:45 AM EDT up reply actions
new fun quote
Tony had this to say after tonights game about perez and motte:
They’ve got to understand they don’t have a foot in the door (of the majors). They’ve got a couple toes.
If (the relievers) think they’re coming to spring training and can take something for granted, they’ve got another thing coming
I understand these quotes to a certain extent but this is getting old. Does anyone really want several more years of this?
Isn’t it enough having to worry if the rookie will play well? We also have to worry that there is a good chance said rookie will be in the managerial doghouse?
Reyes, Ryan, Barton, Rasmus, Thompson, Stav, Barden…
Our list of rookies that have/had issues with TLR grows long indeed.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
I don’t mean to be replying to just you, but how does that equate “dog house”. They both need to have productive off seasons. Perez is effective only when he’s throwing well, Motte’s Sept shouldn’t gift him anything. (If only we had the same approach to Joel Pinero after last season :)).
Reyes – an over glorified drama.
Ryan – last year the mention was reasonable, this year his bat earned some dog housin’.
Barton – for the most part against a strong core of OF while being the 5th OF. Result of “over loving” of Skips April (Skip’s May should have given Barton some more playing time), and definite over playing of Duncan. Doubt it was directly against Barton, just a side effect.
Rasmus – saying a guy who hasn’t earned it doesn’t equate to dog house. How many other linkable occasions has Tony shown any issues with Rasmus? I don’t recall any.
Thompson – goods faded in the minors after shoulder issues. He’s the org’s swingman. need vs doghouse.. need wins.
Stav sucks, generally. he’s a very weak hitting OF that can’t play OF.
Barden isn’t much better.
imo, the “dog house” tag is way overplayed without any real direct correlation. every time someone rides pine, it’s put into play. context helps.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:40 AM EDT up reply actions
doghouse
i didn’t say perez and motte were in the doghouse. i’m saying that next year they have a good shot at being there depending on their attitude and performance.
i understand all the reasons you gave defending the actions with those players. in some cases i agree with you. however, my point is that all of them
need
defending.
imo, there is an organizational dysfunction dealing with young players at the major league level. many of the players seem to have their confidence dashed instead of built up. you just don’t see that in other organizations that are successful with young players. twins and gardenhire for example.
i don’t know. that’s just the way i see it.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
i don't know why that quoted. wasn't supposed to be.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Well yeah....
It’s hard to compare the Twins to the Cards. Different philosophies, I am sure if the Cards had the same philosophy as the Twins TLR would have changed or quit…. Gardenhire is a great manager I posted about liking the Cards to make a run at him.
Gardenhire plays young guys as he has no real choice. They don’t really don’t hang on to old guys. Generally he has new young players and has to play them.
Just like the Cubs are not very good with young guys. Ask Felix Pie how he like Lou Pinella, just not the Cubs organizational philosopy.
I think teams are coming around to realizing you have to rely on younger guy more this day and age.
exactly
and if you go through the entire MLB, I’m sure you’ll find a lot of young/rookie player apologists. You can only manage with what you have. Hell, I’m not even saying Tony is a great thing for younger players, I’ve been on record for saying the opposite.
Just tired of the dog house phrase thrown around when someone is on the bench. You can only start 8 positional players and if pine is considered dog house, there’s a whole bunch of players who need a bone.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
many of the players seem to have their confidence dashed instead of built up.
I bet that is the case on alot of teams. Everybody forgets all the young guys that have been sucessful, or been given a heavy workload. Just this year you can point to K-Mac. I know Motte hasn’t been up long, but he’s been better than Perez, and he’s been given shots to pitch in close games. There are examples from past years too.
by SoonerfanTU on Sep 27, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
they need defending
not from the manager, but from the fans who throw out the dog house comment based on speculation and usually without context. That’s the sad part about it, no one says dog house but the fans.
We got out of a lot of drama in the last off season, and to me it feels like we just keep encouraging more. It’s disheartening.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
its not hard
to find drama in this organization. it doesn’t take fans to make the stuff up.
strauss eluded to the fact that rasmus and barton are in the doghouse. it’s not a difficult jump to think the same thing for the other players.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
I’m not saying the Cardinals are drama free, far from it. No team is drama free
strauss eluded to
says a lot right there.
Beat writers as a foundation is shaky ground.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 28, 2008 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder if Lopez
who has a large body of craptastic work to draw conclusion from, will need to earn it? I imagine his 60-day miracle will be viewed as a legitimate turn around instead of some sort of mirage. Of course, if he was a prospect with a long track record of success at the MiLB level, then he would only have a toe or two in the door.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
60 days is an awful long miracle.....
Dude has been above average since after the AS Break.
by SoonerfanTU on Sep 27, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I pointed out to you why he has been extremely lucky
awful LD rate combined with unsustainable BABIP, to go along with costing the team games with his glove.
Miraculous sounds just about right.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 27, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
60 days is an awful long miracle
but why do those 60 days hold more value than his entire career?
These last 60 days could very well be the product of a salary drive.
I still say I wouldn’t mind Lopez getting a shot at 2nd next year with an incentive laden contract, as long as we get a real SS and another SP. I say this even though I am less than impressed with his D.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
he hasn't earned it
at all, not based on any of his body of work.
however, he may fill an org need should we shore up something else, and that has to be considered.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
actions speak louder than words with Motte.....
He has pitched in every single situation you can think of Dunc/TLR/Mason love the guy…. By all accounts so do the other guys on the team.
He seems like an extremely motivated guy. I expect him to come back more hungry in ST next year. He has a spot, unless he sits around all off season and does nothing.
Relax about it.
He has a spot, unless he sits around all off season and does nothing.
which is what the quote was encouraging, don’t do nothing.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
What bothers me about that quote is that it seems to ONLY apply to
Motte and Perez. What about Franklin, McClellan, Springer, Kinney, Villone, or any number of relievers here already or acquired before the 2009 season? Are they not expected to have to “earn” their spot?
No, I don’t want several more years of this. I don’t even want one more year of this. I want LaRussa to adhere to that good old mom rule: if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all. You cannot, for the good of the organization, imply that one of your assets is not quite bright and shiny enough. It HURTS the value of the asset, and the Cardinals are too stupid to realize it. Yes, I said too stupid, because it keeps happening. Too stupid, or they just don’t give a damn. Oops, I just broke the mom rule myself……
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
Well the reporter probably only asked about Motte & Perez...........
I hear your mom montra, If you can’t say something nice don’t really say anything revealing…
Honestly there is nothing bad abou the quote, it’s almost like the TLR drama is so overblown he can’t even say anything in the media with out someone posting it here at VEB… Seems pretty cliche, “you know so and so needs to keep working hard to earn full pt” I mean what a sports cliche, I don’t know how many coaches say the same crap.
I honestly don’t like the idea of TLR managing in 2009, seems set up to be a lame duck type year. I would almost like the org to move on and plan for the next 12 years.
I know reporters don't print the actual question they ask, just the response.
Maybe that’s who he asked about, maybe not. I read a lot of baseball sites, and there are no other ML managers who take a swipe at thier players like LaRussa does. Maybe Guillen. That’s about it I think it’s safe to assume the other ML teams just won’t tolerate it. I don’t care if it sounds cliche-the clubs talk like that precisely because they KNOW it’s bad for the organization to say anything else.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
"swipe"
TLR takes a lot of pride in the game, and in his players as well. remember when the Cards won the division through a Houston loss and he wouldn’t let the team celebrate until the next day when the team won? TLR is always about motivating his players. often, he does this by challenging them to see how they’ll respond. that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t like them.
he’s always talking about “earning it” in all sorts of contexts. he talks about it with marginal vets as well. one of the reasons that Edmonds demanded a trade was because TLR was talking about how he would have to fight for a starting spot this year. we all remember how TLR pinch-hit Robinson for McGwire and no one questions his affection for Big Mac. he benched Ozzie for a rookie. he gave Looper’s set-up job to Wainwright, then gave Wainwright the closer’s job instead of Loop when Izzy went down in ’06.
as for the other players you mentioned: Villone won’t be back, so there’s nothing for him to earn; i imagine he’ll say the same thing in ST w/r/t McClellan being in the rotation; Kinney does need to earn it; Springer, if he comes back, will be on a guaranteed major-league deal. he’ll be on the roster because he has to be on the roster.
TLR doesn’t want guys to rest on their laurels. he wants them to constantly be trying to improve. it’s why when you hear him talk about Pujols, he’s usually not talking about good he is; he’s talking about how hard he works to get better, even though he could skate by on what he’s already accomplished. i don’t see why that attitude is a wrong one. what’s he supposed to say, those guys don’t have to try anymore because they’ve made it?
Kindred great post...I think you and I are on the same page lately.
Jill-
Have you read 3 Nights in August? Well Larussa says the hardest thing about his job is trying to motivate guys who really don’t have a reason to try harder, especially once they get big money.
Larussa talks about how Jose Canseco was the most talented player he has ever coached, but he could not get Jose to try harder. Jose was amazing (I was very young when he was playing), but Jose just went through the motions. He flat out told TLR, “People pay to watch me take big hacks, not hit the ball the other way. I am an entertainer”
Jill that is why TLR does things. My god you act like he just blasted the guys in the media. Where did he say anything that will make them cry in their locker? Go to the main post today and someone was actually nice enough to post the whole answer and you will be surprised.
must admit
i didn’t see a swipe. maybe blunt, but it answered a direct question. maybe it didn’t need to be said, but then again that conversation could have already been had.
I’d be pretty upset as a fan if a couple of rookies who got some playing time in ’08 went and did nothing all offseason expecting a job next year.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
This isn't life.....
It is baseball. Every manager this year has said, or implied something negative about several players on their teams, most likely. That is life. I’m against running someone down, as that doesn’t accomplish anything, but simply saying that a few guys really need to stay focussed over the winter, well, I don’t see anything wrong with that. Perez seems like the kind of guy that might need a little help getting motivated from time to time. I don’t sense that about Motte.
by SoonerfanTU on Sep 27, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Managers bad mouth their players for loafing it
or not showing up to the ball park on time. Not for struggling because they are a rookie.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 27, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
That quote, if taken in full context (and add in the rest of the quotes and question) doesn’t bad mouth them for struggling – doesn’t even mention it. Just says for them to not take the roster spot for granted. As fans, we should be agreeing. Once a rookie breaks through the ceiling, the next year shouldn’t be looked at as if you’ve earned the floor/level you’re on. Continued offseason work and prep keeps you there.
That’s a good thing.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 27, 2008 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
the point is he assumes
they will if he doesn’t say something. why not say it to them personally if he has to? why say it in the media? it gives the impression that they are slackers that are just here for a paycheck.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
FutureMan, you are so smart.
You said what I’ve been trying to say in about 1/10 of the words.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
who says he didn't?
Who says that Tony never said anything to his players. Fans get pissed off when Tony/FO doesn’t answer questions. The paper gets pissed off when the team doesn’t answer questions. He answered a direct question about two specific players – context means a lot.
What didn’t happen was…
Press : “So Tony, what do you think about next year’s bullpen”
Tony : “Who knows, 2009 is a whiles away. But I do have to say that Perez and Motte best not be thinking they have a spot next year. I’ll slap their ass back in AAA if they do”
Maybe, just maybe he actually has communicated something (neither of us know, but you’re stretching for an assumption) and maybe offseason work is something to be expected and that he’s encouraging them to be ready in ST.
I just don’t see how you got slacker as that. Honestly, I’m surprised that you’re not happy that happy that next years coach isn’t gifting them in. To each his own.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 28, 2008 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions
i just have to say; this is an epic thread
even though the conversation gets snarky and personal sometimes, i have enjoyed the opposing perspectives.
You ain't kidding
I forgot it was even here, then I look down and it has 30 new comments every other day.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 28, 2008 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions
TLR...
… from Strauss’ article (lotta good stuff in there): “I think you’ve got to be impressed with Franklin and three young guys: Motte, McClellan and Perez.”
but… that’s impossible. he hates those guys, doesn’t he? dog house and stuff? turning them all into Anthony Reyes? no?
"He’s promising, but he’s not ready yet. If you were able to bring him in with enough protection, you could probably develop him (as closer) here. It doesn’t mean he isn’t developed at Triple-A next year. Maybe he is; maybe not, depending on how deep you are. But he’s not ready to be the closer. Motte is not ready yet, either. But both have a lot of ability."
perhaps you think those guys are ready, and perhaps they are. but seriously: would anyone here be comfortable starting next season with a bullpen of Perez, Motte, Franklin, Thompson, LOOGY1, LOOGY2, & Worrell (or somebody)? i wouldn’t be.
but TLR is realistic. he knows K-Rod isn’t coming.
anyway, it’s a good article, and it gives greater depth to what TLR really thinks about the bullpen kids: he likes them, but he wants a bit of protection also. that’s a pretty rational perspective to have after this season’s bullpen woes.
the only question i have then
is why hasn’t he & Dave said that all along? why diss the kids in the past, but now suddenly they aren’t so bad? i’m sorry, but i still have a serious problem with what they both have said, and how they have treated the kids in the past. in my book, one good quote doesn’t erase all their bad words & actions.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
where's the diss?
From the past, regarding these two players where is the diss? If you’re pointing to the idea that they were saying his slider looked like shit the first time too, then there’s a lot of people here and otherwise saying the same thing. I’ll admit that I’m just as pissed about the reliance on shitty vets, but I don’t see him bashing Perez or Motte at all, and I’m curious if you can point to where he did. In context.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 28, 2008 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions
your kidding right?
“but i don’t see him bashing Perez or Motte at all”
please tell me you are joking. there’s evidence of what Tonys said all over this thread & the last two months of the season all over this blog. i don’t know how anyone could have missed it.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
well I guess I have
care to point it out? Where is the bash?
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 28, 2008 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I still think you have to judge his actions
Whether we like it or not, Perez and Motte are at least as ready to close games as Franklin is right now. Denying them opportunity to work on improving their ability in what were essentially meaningless games in the past week or so says more than anything in that quote.
FWIW, I am not aware of anyone on this board insinuating that anyone besides Perez is getting the Reyes treatment.
Just exactly why should anyone be impressed with Franklin – at least in the context of a closer? This is not a rookie who is learning on the job yet his FIP his higher than the rookies, his HR/9 his higher, his K/9 is lower and he has blown about the same percentage of saves as Perez. Maybe we should commission a poll of NL hitters to see who they would rather face. I am pretty sure it is not Motte. Perez, who knows? It would be a huge mistake for this club to spend big money on a closer for next year if payroll is going to remain stagnant as has been indicated.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Whether we like it or not, Perez and Motte are at least as ready to close games as Franklin is right now. Denying them opportunity to work on improving their ability in what were essentially meaningless games in the past week or so says more than anything in that quote.
You said it. They are meaningless games. It’s not like these boys are just sitting on the bench and doing nothing.
Just exactly why should anyone be impressed with Franklin – at least in the context of a closer?
Notice that all of the names mentioned was pretty much the known staff of ‘09. I did. You know Franklin is here next year, we’re stuck with him and so is Tony. To bash or exclude him from general positive “looking ahead” comments would do what everyone is assuming is happening to the two flame throwers – bash.
We all now Franklin has sucked. Part of me actually hopes that none of those guys are closer. I don’t know who we’d get and how much it would cost, but I would have the idea of having Motte, Perez, K-Mac all roving around the innings putting out fires as they occur. But that’s just me.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 28, 2008 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions
and if you read the article mentioned
it directly says that Franklin isn’t in consideration for closer.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 28, 2008 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm glad he (finally) came out and said these things
it could be a case of ‘damage control’ after what he said was read back to him.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 28, 2008 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
he pretty much said the same thing he said in that other quote from the other day. Neither are ready for closer full time, both may be in AAA depending on how deep we are and what they show in ’09.
So I’d doubt it.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Sep 28, 2008 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
