Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Explaining Jeremy Lin's Early, Surprising Success

It's all about Duncan

westbrook

matsuzaka

6-9, 4.32

15-12, 4.40

Boy, sometimes I still really like watching J.D. Drew swing the bat. What a beautiful swing! It's the 2nd to last postseason series and finally one is competitive. I love game 7's though they're easier to digest when the Cards aren't actually playing. I'm also easier to get along with around the house. And, how about this - the starting pitchers include a home-grown pitcher (pitch-to-contact pitcher, as well) vs. a high-priced free agent acquisition.

Entering next season, the 3 OF positions seem to be pretty muddled. Edmonds' injuries and lack of productivity in '07 make him a question mark for CF. Ankiel's limited major-league (and, indeed, minor-league) experience lead us to wonder whether he'll play 140 games or 80. And, Duncan is probably our most valuable trading chip. With a number of holes to fill, it may become necessary to find Duncan another home and import a new LF. Nothing seems certain.

What we have:

VORP WARP1 WPA RC/27 OPS+
Ankiel 10.9 1.9 0.22 6.30 120
Duncan 17.3 3.7 1.42 6.36 115
Edmonds 4.9 2.8 -0.76 4.43 88
Ludwick 10.9 3.0 0.69 5.92 110
Schumaker 10.1 1.1 0.48 5.87 111
Taguchi 5.5 2.2 -0.19 4.42 88

In a perfect testament to how last season went, the worst outfielder (though it's a photo finish w/ Taguchi) was (naturally) the highest paid and, barring a big free agent acquisition, will be again this year. All of these should be under the control of the Cardinals (assuming we offer Ludwick a contract). The Cards hold a $1.1 M option on Taguchi.

If there are no OF acquisitions this offseason, the Cards likely will open the season w/ Duncan in LF, Edmonds in CF, and Ankiel in RF. Aside from Edmonds' noticeable drop-off in production, all 3 are lefties. Interestingly, for the first time in some years, the Cards were actually MORE productive vs. lefties than righties last year (.751 OPS vs. .739). However, some of this is due to the fact that the least-likely to return was the Cards' best hitter (in the OF) against lefties (omitting Ankiel's ridiculously low 51 PA's). If Taguchi doesn't return, someone will have to take those PA's against lefties. The natural assumption is that Ludwick would play more against lefties, but he was hardly a lefty-masher - "producing" just a .684 OPS in 139 PA's. This was not an anomaly as his career OPS vs. lefties is .704. Many have argued for Duncan to get more PA's against lefties, with good reason as he has just 142 for his career, but he's been downright feckless in those 142 PA's - offering up a robust .632 OPS. It's not a huge sample, of course, but it should cause us to question whether he'll ever be even marginally effective against southpaws.

Many have pointed to the competition between Schumaker and Taguchi for the 5th OF role as being one between 2 players with the same skill set. Wouldn't it be nice to let the 37 year old move on down the road and see what the youngster offers? To some degree, the Cards did this in '07 and Schumaker impressed. He can play all 3 OF positions and produced a 111 OPS+ in limited PA's. The best thing Taguchi brings to the table is his ability to hit lefties, as he became the primary platoon partner for Edmonds b/c of his .760 OPS against lefties. In the last 3 seasons, Skip has a .723 OPS in 270 minor-league AB's which doesn't exactly elicit a ton of confidence in his ability to regularly spell Edmonds, Duncan or Ankiel. Plus, we know what a beautiful couple Tony and So make so it's difficult to envision a divorce, assuming Tony returns. Still, Skip is out of options and stands to earn the minimum whereas So's option would guarantee him $1.1 M. I would find it difficult to justify the spending the extra $700,000 or so.

What we lack: Even so, it's difficult to fathom that the team will begin the year w/ Ankiel, Duncan, Edmonds, Ludwick, and Schumaker in the OF. 4 lefties and 1 righty who doesn't particularly hit lefties well? - doesn't sound like Tony's sort of team and doesn't sound like the makings of an offense that stands to be very competitive against southpaws.

There seems to be a need, therefore, for at least 1 right-handed hitting OF who hits lefties well. The need for a starting pitcher and the lack of a great number of good trading chips may lead to Duncan being traded, as many have already discussed. Also, considering questions abound regarding Rolen's ability to return to being a productive, middle of the order hitter, there is some speculation that the team may look to add one of the (relatively) big free agent outfielders on the market this offseason.

The Duncan option: It may become necessary to trade Duncan (or possibly Ankiel) in order to receive some young starting pitching. Aside from Pujols, he's the probably the one middle of the order hitter the team can reasonably count on for '08. He also probably has more trade value of anyone not named Pujols or Wainwright who is currently on the 40 man roster.

Duncan is under the Cards' control for 4 more years - he isn't even arbitration-eligible yet. He earned just $400,000 last year while being worth almost $9 M according to MORP for his play last year - when he spent almost half the season injured. It would be the height of irresponsibility to trade a productive, middle of the order hitter for a "proven veteran" with just 1 year left on his contract - i.e. Renteria or Jon Garland. There's been talk of A.J. Burnett being on the market and there's every reason to believe the Cards would be interested if that were the case. But even though Burnett still has 3 years on his contract, he can opt out of it after '08. Should he be considered a player who, like Renteria or Garland, only has 1 year left on his contract? If he pitches well, he could hit another jackpot next offseason.

Clearly, if Duncan is to be shopped this offseason, the Cards should be on the lookout for a young pitcher(s) and/or shortstop who would be under the Cards control for at least 3 years. LB discussed this at length back in September, about the possibility of trading him to the Giants. As I said, it's important that any trade of this sort result in young pitchers the Cards have under their control rather than someone like Garland.

The FA options:

  • Barry Bonds
  • Milton Bradley -- discussed at length here
  • Kosuke Fukudome
  • Luis Gonzalez
  • Jose Guillen*
  • Torii Hunter
  • Andruw Jones
  • Bobby Kielty - could work as a 4th OF to hit vs. lefties
  • Aaron Rowand
  • Shannon Stewart -- Yuck!
  • Moises Alou*
  • Bob Abreu*
  • Adam Dunn*
* -- if team declines option - unlikely for any; who knows w/ Abreu?

There are few good options here. Fukudome might be, but the Cards tend to be too conservative an organization to give long-term contracts to players who are unproven (in the U.S.). The CF's are the best players on the list (non-Bonds version) but signing one of them to a 5+ year, $50 + million contract makes no sense given that the only top-notch prospect the Cards have is a CF and is probably less than a year from being ready. Bradley makes some sense, as LB addressed.

The difficulty of adding an everyday OF through free agency makes it more difficult to trade Duncan as well. If the Cards trade Duncan for pitching, they don't have a lot left to trade for OF help. So it seems that the Cards could only trade for an OF if that person is a 4th OF who has something to offer vs. lefties or if Reyes (or Reyes +) can be traded for a young OF who might be able to play every day but who might also produce the way Reyes has for most of the last couple of years.

LB has already raised the possibility of Reyes being traded for Michael Bourn, and maurerdj suggested a Reyes for Carlos Quentin swap. Either is a pretty good option. Bourn's a lefty so a righty would still need to be added as a 4th OF, but it would be better than adding Aaron Rowand.

Rowand is not a bad player, of course, but he does have only a career OPS+ of 106. He'll turn 32 in August and has played every season of his career in hitters' ballparks. His career OPS+ on the road is 97. It's likely he'll require at least a 4 year commitment, and possibly 5, which would mean the Cards would be on the hook for his contract - at $10-12 M per year - for until he's 36 or 37. PECOTA has him worth about $28 million for 2008-2011. Because of his style of play, he likely won't age well, either. Signing him may appear to make the Cards better on paper, but will only serve to block younger OF's while tying up payroll that will be needed to bolster the roster in the coming years. In short, he'll be outplayed over the length of his contract by younger players who will earn much less money over that period.

Bourn, on the other hand, would be under the Cards' control for 5 more years, as would Quentin, and they both earn the minimum. They would be blocking no one and would be entering the prime of their careers rather than being on the downside of their careers. These are the types of players the Cards need more of -- young players w/ lots of upside.

Trading Duncan will be a difficult proposition as there's no readily available replacement. Perhaps trading Ankiel makes more sense but, considering his defense and power, is his upside larger and trade value less? Has Duncan reached the peak of his trade value? If so, and the Cards decide to cut bait on him, they must maximize their return. Garland doesn't do that. Neither does Renteria. Burnett? Maybe.

The best option, if Duncan is traded, is to trade Reyes for some young OF or SS. Bourn, Quentin or perhaps, Lastings Milledge provide youth, financial flexibility, and a high upside that other, older players simply don't offer. Players like Rowand and Guillen, though productive now, are in their early 30's and will begin to decline sooner, rather than later. And they'll require 3-4 year commitments at $10-12 million per, at least. If the Cards really want to go for it next year w/o sacrificing long-term player development, they should sign Bonds to a 1 year deal for about $16 million. I doubt they will - Bonds isn't popular...anywhere outside of the Bay Area but he offers more next year than any other OF on the market and won't block any of our young OF's.

If Duncan stays, someone needs to be added who can spell the 3 lefties in the OF, and hit southpaws w/ some success - a 4th OF type. In that case, some of the best options (of players who might be available) are Reed Johnson, Jason Michaels, and Scott Hairston.

These players may be available through trade or might even be DFA'd. They're not household names, to be sure. But they do offer a history of good production vs. lefties, and an ability to play at least 2 of the 3 OF positions. Adding one of them to Duncan, Ankiel, Edmonds, and Ludwick would create platoon opportunities that should make the OF fairly productive. Adding one of these players would allow the '08 Cards to be reasonably productive in the OF w/o sacrificing the long-term player development this organization needs.

We'll truly be able to tell the direction the team is heading by what they do w/ Duncan's roster spot. If he's traded for someone like Garland so that Aaron Rowand can be signed - it's a significant step backward.

If he's traded for Lowry and Jonathan Sanchez, and then Reyes (and another) for Quentin or Bourn, we'll be witnessing the commitment Bill DeWitt recently referred to.

Comment 182 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

The giants are in need of OF
Is there any possibility of Duncan + ? = Cain ?

I am sure they prize Cain but at the same time they really have a surplus of pitching and Duncan is probaly close to a similar value.  30hr potential doesn't grow on trees either.

As to the ?, I would dangle Skip, Ludwick, Thompson, and/or Looper.  Their GM made a comment about needing proven middle relief.  

by DriverZn on Oct 21, 2007 2:05 AM EDT reply actions  

forgot to add
Cain 122 ERA+
Duncan 115 OPS+

Duncan was on a bit of a down year but both are young and under team control for several years.  Cain's numbers were likely slightly improved by his park while Duncan was slightly hurt by his.

If we can get this done with a low to mid grade add in, I would go for it.

by DriverZn on Oct 21, 2007 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

If they trade Cain, that would just be stupid.
They should keep Lincecum and Cain as they are both front of the rotation kind of pitchers, and they control them for several more years.  Unless you're talking Carl Crawford or Hanley Ramirez, I would hang up the phone if I were GM.

by jillsinmo on Oct 21, 2007 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

Duncan > Crawford
I'm very late to this thread, but imo Duncan > Crawford.  At the very least he is a close "=".  In fact, I think even our own oft-forgotten Famous Warrior, who seems to have been relegated to "2008 so taguchi role" in many minds, is as valuable as Crawford (and someone HoustonCardinal doesn't spend enough time discussing in this otherwise-excellent article).  

FWIW BP agrees, at least in terms of WARP3/PA:

   
          warp3     pa     warp3/627 PA
ludwick    3.9     339       7.21
duncan     4.6     432       6.68
crawford   6.3     627       6.30

Note that those are including the ~50 PA's it took Ludwick to remember how to hit a major league pitcher and the ~100 PA's that duncan played with his guts hanging out, yet they still project to be better than Crawford.  I do agree, none of these are worth Lincecum or Cain, but imho Crawford is massively overvalued and our talent is massively undervalued.  

by SleepyCA on Oct 21, 2007 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Fukudome, please!
Just so I can get the jersey.
Well, let's go to the old mill anyway -- get some cider!

by Alxfritz on Oct 21, 2007 2:22 AM EDT reply actions  

Honestly
what do you have against Dome to use that kind of language!
"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 21, 2007 3:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

would TorIi Hunter
really be that bad of a signing? dude is only 31. why not give him a 5 or 6 year deal?
are there any down sides to giving him $12-$15mil a year?
health isnt an issue, unlike most of the Cards current outfielders.
he's a great team mate. he's great with the fans. he's a vet so Tony will love him.

i know you are thinking, can he hit lefty's? well here's his career averages vs lefty's
.282  .339  .490  .829

he is arguably the best CF in the game. dont believe me? click the link & see for yourself.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hunteto01.shtml

i'm all about Torii wearing the Birds on the Bat.

make it happen Billy. make it happen.

I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Oct 21, 2007 3:33 AM EDT reply actions  

but if you sign hunter now
then in 2 or 3 years, hunter will be 34ish and in decline, while rasmus will likely be established and on the upswing --- the cards will be paying $15m a year to their 2d-best centerfielder.

hunter doesn't hit enough (career ops of .793) to get shifted to a corner. he's a very good player, but he doesn't address an area of need.

by lboros on Oct 21, 2007 7:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

i admit
i have on rose colored glasses when it come to hunter. but honestly i dont think his production & defense will drop that much in 3 seasons. he's shown improvement in every season he's been in the bigs. and i dont see any reasons to believe that in four seasons he wont be able to play center.

i will say this, i agree with your suggestion that the Cards take a look at Bradley. his crazyness aside, the dude can play. Tony would have his work cut out for him. but if he could handle Ricky Henderson, dont you think he can handle Bradley?

the one thing that scares me with putting all of our faith in rasmus & the other kids is, what if they are all a bust? what if they are nothing more than AAAA players? its happened a million times in baseball. sure fire stars in the minors are destened for coperstown, but they never pan out. what if rasmus & the others are busts? what do the Cards do then? i think picking up torii covers the Cards in case rasmus cant cut it as a major leaguer.

dont get me wrong. i do in fact hope rasmus is the second coming of grady sizemore. but what if he's not? what then? dont you think it's a smart move to have back up plan? i dont think any one's asked this before but i've been meaning to.

if the Cards do sign torii, & rasmus is a star, will it be hard that hard to move torii? do you think the Cards would have to eat lets say half of his salary unless a big market team is desperate for a middle aged center fielder? the fear of being stuck with another edmonds in 4 years is obviously a concern. and no one wants that, even me. i guess the question is, should we expect torii to have the same type of dramatic fall off that jimmy has?

I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Oct 21, 2007 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

centerfielders
do not generally age well

bernie williams fell off like jimmy

can someone who is great with the research back me up or refute this

i believe CF and C seem to age the worst

RESIGN JIMMY BALLGAME....HE SHOULD RETIRE A REDBIRD!

by benstl on Oct 21, 2007 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

well,
In '09 Rasmus will only be 22. He couldn't come up as a corner outfielder? He couldn't play right  a couple of years before taking over in center? I Like Hunter. I am not sure we want to committ all those dollars, but Rasmus' development would not be hampered by his presence.

by nybirdfan on Oct 21, 2007 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

rather than have two cfs on the team
i'd rather put rasmus in center and put the $12m a year toward somebody in the gary sheffield mold --- a pure masher who can only play a corner. better use of resources, imho.

by lboros on Oct 21, 2007 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Bonds, anyone?
it'll never happen, I know that. But, if the team really wants to compete in '08 w/o harming player development -- there's nobody better on the market that fits the criteria than Bonds.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed
I think Bonds would be an awesome addition to the team. He probably has the most value out of all the other outfielders. Just look at his production per at bat as well as his obp. Hunters obp is not that good and thats before he starts to decline. Of course, the problem with Bonds is the public dislike as well as the fact that his defense isn't so hot. But if his offense is anything of what it was last year, then I think that overrides those problems, and makes him a potential bargain.

by maffew @ Viva El Birdos on Oct 21, 2007 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

the team needs a righty hitter
to platoon with all the lefties, not vice versa.

by willievinceterry on Oct 21, 2007 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Bonds hits everyone
it doesn't matter which side of the plate he swings from.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hunter
Whatever, I don't care who the Cardinals sign as long as it's not Torii Hunter...they could sign Mike Cameron (who is the SAME player) for a lot less money and spend the rest on pitching

by maffew @ Viva El Birdos on Oct 21, 2007 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

i don't know...
i like cameron, but he's not the same hitter that hunter is -- not anymore. he's the same in that he's a black CF, but hunter is younger and a better hitter. and this team doesn't need a CF!!! ankiel, edmonds, rasmus, skip, and even ludwick (and so!) can all play it. they need to shed CFs and/or LH bats and add a RH corner-outfield type, like lboros said elsewhere on this thread.

by willievinceterry on Oct 21, 2007 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

but bonds won't play everyday
and he's a defensive liability. but he would need numerous days off, and it would make more sense to platoon him with a righty (and sit him against lefties) than to do the opposite. and everyone else except ludwick is LH now that juan is sidelined.

by willievinceterry on Oct 21, 2007 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Interested in Bonds
Yes he's old and expensive, but I am intrigued by adding Barry to this lineup for one year.  To maximize his potential, you bat him second in front of AP.  Barry has never, ever had protection that good, and that possibility might get him to come to the Cards and make a push towards 800 HR.  If the opposing pitchers just walk BB, well, then all the more ABs for Albert with men on base - another very good thing.

A possible lineup of

  1. Ankiel
  2. Bonds
  3. Pujols
  4. Rolen (lots or RBI chances - get healthy SR!)
  5. Edmonds (you too, Jimmy)
  6. Molina
  7. Kennedy
  8. Pitcher (welcome back TLR)
  9. Ryan
I think its worth a shot.

by Hoosier Cards on Oct 21, 2007 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

that is a s-l-o-w lineup
i just don't see what signing bonds accomplishes -- especially if people want to "go young." you'd be better off keeping duncan and trying to pry a #2 starter from another team using some other combination.

but the fact remains, this team has four LH-hitting outfielders returning (plus spiezio, a SH, and rasmus, a lefty), and only ludwick batting from the right side. without a decent RH outfield bat to add in, at least on a platoon basis, they are going to get eaten alive by LH pitching. adding yet another LH bat does not make sense.

i also have to wonder what duncan's dad still being here might have to do with him staying or going. i feel like skip, for one, has to be dealt, even though he won't bring much in return.

by willievinceterry on Oct 21, 2007 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Once again
Bonds would not get eaten alive against lefties.  He would be better than most righties against lefties.  What does he offer?  How's a 1.045 OPS and an OPS+ of 170?  How's an OBP of .444 (career) or .480 ('07) batting in front of Pujols?

I know he wouldn't play every day but neither does Duncan.  He's bad defensively.  So is Duncan.  He doesn't get the team any younger but would help the team be competitive next year in preparation for Rasmus and others in '09.  He wouldn't require a long-term contract and could almost certainly be signed for 1 year only.  

This is all moot, since it will never happen.  Nonetheless, the idea that Bonds wouldn't help this club is just silly.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

i didn't say he wouldn't help
but going out and signing a widely despised $12 million, 40-something platoon left-fielder on a team with a glut of LH outfielders just makes so little sense, i don't see the appeal, even hypothetically. you're going to sit bonds 40-50 games a year. who is going to platoon with him? ludwick? then who plays right field? skip? ankiel? then who plays center when edmonds is on the bench? who comes in to pinch hit late against lefties?

by willievinceterry on Oct 22, 2007 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

comprehension
i think you must be having a problem with this, but as houston said, bonds bashes lefties, he also bashes righties, so there would not be a platoon

as far as your other points most are very much dead-on; bonds is a widely despised 40-something, he will prolly miss 30-50 games, and we have a glut of lefty outfielders

but bonds, if he were on the bench, would be my first choice to pinch-hit, against ANY pitcher in baseball, i dont care about left or right when it is bonds, and neither does he

Pujols is the greatest Cardinal in my lifetime.

by bigcardsfan5 on Oct 22, 2007 2:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

i am pro mr bonds
love to see him in st. louis. he'd finally give albert some protection.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Oct 22, 2007 3:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

fair enough
who is the rh sheff type you would put in left or right? i cant think of any one off the top of my head thats a free agent or will be on the trading block that the Cards could get.

jason bay was talked about below, but personally i think he's over rated. and like hardcore said, he is not clutch.

I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Oct 22, 2007 3:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

nice job HC
some more FA options who will be out there --- and i'm not endorsing any of these, just saying they're in the pool ---

Mike Cameron
Corey Patterson
Kenny Lofton
Shawn Green
Geoff Jenkins *
Jose Cruz JR
Brad Wilkerson

by lboros on Oct 21, 2007 7:11 AM EDT reply actions  

I've been trumpeting
Wilkerson for a couple of years now. I like the way he plays the game, and would be a nice pick-up, IMO, and would cost less than someone like Hunter(isn't that what the owners are all about; serviceable talent for less money?). Besides, the chances of the Cardinals signing a big name FA bat are slim and none, and slim is halfway out the door.

by cardsrul on Oct 21, 2007 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

Down on the farm
Nobody is talking about it, but what do we have down in Memphis?  I see that Nick Stavinoha bats from the right side and has a OPS .200+ higher against left handers.  I know his batting average isn't that high, but everyone we bring up seems to have a higher batting average in the majors than they do in Memphis.

Some of you keep up with the minor leagues.  What is your impression.  Can this guy play?

by Anteus on Oct 21, 2007 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

I really intended to have a section
about what's on the way but decided the post was long enough, as is.  We know about Rasmus, of course.  Then there are others who might be a fit, particularly in platoon scenarios.  Mather's hitting pretty well in the Arizona Fall League.  Stavinoha may have topped out at AAA (.682 OPS this year).  Marti -- who knows?  Haerther -- could be a 4th OF type, but has been injured.  

There are OF's at AA and AAA who could be close -- within a year or 2.  It's likely that none are stars, but there are a few who could be productive at the major league level.  Mather's power is intriguing.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I decided against
putting everyone on the list. I really just went w/ those I thought most plausible or interesting. Green (option, I think) is another lefty. Patterson -- CF. Lofton -- both. Wilkerson -- another lefty. Cameron -- he should've been on the list. He's part of that big CF group that is interesting but will be overpaid. Jenkins, Wilkerson -- lefties. Cruz -- could be a fit, actually b/c of his skill vs. lefties.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Cruz Jr/Wilkerson/Stavinoha/Mather
1 of these four could be a 4th/5th outfielder.  Heck, Mather might even be able to play both corners of the outfield and be serviceable at both corners of the infield ala John Mabry...

As for those pointing out Stavinoha's subpar numbers in AAA, that is fine, but he has a MASSIVE platoon split.

His OPS against RHP was 850?  I am not saying this guy is a world beater but he isn't as bad as the 683 OPS most people are trotting out...

As for the premise of the post, while interesting - and makes tons of sense to me by the way - I just don't see LaRussa rubber stamping a move to trade Duncan...

I vote Jose Cruz Jr, and back it up on the farm...

by Lawless on Oct 21, 2007 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well done
AGAIN, houston.  Your VORPoster continues to rise.  Good reasoning on all fronts.  I just hope the FO is doing as good a job thinking through what to do with Duncan.  

by cardsgirl95 on Oct 21, 2007 8:57 AM EDT reply actions  

How about
a matchup with Tampa Bay? They have too many outfielders and are in desperate need of pitching and catching. Their catchers were at or near the bottom in offensive production. Could Bryan Anderson  and Flores get Baldelli? Do we want Baldelli? Anderson is the one highly rated prospect we don't need. Get something for him while his value is high.
Baldelli would definitely upgrade our defense and speed, and could lead off. The question of course is can he stay healthy. I don't know enough about his DL stays to say whether they're chronic or not.
     I don't think we want Gomes, he seems too one-dimensional. Crawford I'm sure, is now out of reach. I suggested a Reyes and Duncan trade for him in the past and was shouted down as giving up too much. I'd do Reyes and Anderson for Baldelli.
     I'm ready to duck, so fire away.

by vinniefromjersey on Oct 21, 2007 9:07 AM EDT reply actions  

If they really want to win now
with out touching the future.

Don't we have to sign Bonds?

Which would free up Duncan for a trade. Which leads me to ask.

Duncan/Reyes/X for Santana

So what would X have to be?

by Harknights on Oct 21, 2007 9:38 AM EDT reply actions  

X=
Rasmus to replace Hunter

by vinniefromjersey on Oct 21, 2007 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

Milton Bradley would be the best choice
for a short term solution.  He made 4 million this year-he would probably be agreeable to a one year deal for not too much more than that because he was on the DL again.

I know he has injury issues, and he's had anger problems to be sure, but he has also managed to go long stretches with Oakland and San Diego without incidents.  

Show Bradley some love and respect, and I think he'll play well for you in between DL stints.  
I see him as an impact player that's worth taking a flyer on-he has no holes in his game, and if he were to stay healthy all season (a big IF) he would post monster numbers.

by jillsinmo on Oct 21, 2007 10:33 AM EDT reply actions  

I was not that keen
on the signing of bradley when it was first proposed by iboros. Mostly because I did'nt see the need for another outfielder, but if the cards have one or two that is soght after in a trade. Then Bradley as a replacement would be head and sholders above Bonds. He'll give you much more offensively and defensely than Bonds at a fraction of the price. I do not for the life of me know why anybody would even want an old 44 year old prima-donna like Bonds on the Cardinals.

by ridgesee on Oct 21, 2007 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

not more offensively
but more speed and better defense, definitely. bonds' ops was still through the roof this past year . but i agree, bradley would be better.

by willievinceterry on Oct 21, 2007 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Barry has been one of the best offensive
players in the game for over a decade now.  But Bradley is certainly a good hitter too and he is a switch hitter, good defender, and good base runner.  He'd be a fraction of the cost of Mr. Bonds.  They do both come with baggage though.

by jillsinmo on Oct 21, 2007 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Paul Byrd = HGH
Florida anit-aging clinic sent him a supply.

You almost have to know that Carpenter and Morris are next.  Basically any pitcher that was recovering from arm surgery from 2003-2005 probably got the stuff.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 21, 2007 11:10 AM EDT reply actions  

Ugh
It really is starting to seem like these stories are put out on a time table.  
"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 21, 2007 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

now see....
heres where ill be accused of a double standard....
im fine with people taking HGH as long as it was at least theoretically prescribed legally to RECOVER from injury
im even less inclinded to get mad at pitchers, because theyre injuries generally take several months to over a year to heal

taking it to hit the ball 30 feet further or throw harder is where i seem to frown on the idea

RESIGN JIMMY BALLGAME....HE SHOULD RETIRE A REDBIRD!

by benstl on Oct 21, 2007 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

You know, I'm not necessarily going to
accuse you of a double standard, but I'm personally torn about this whole hGH thing.  Perhaps no law in place in MLB was broken, but on some level, to me at least, it feels like cheating.  I guess it's the idea that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something.  Or, put another way, if my own son came to me and told me he did this, I would be extremely disappointed in him.  

by jillsinmo on Oct 21, 2007 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

this was from 2002-2005
HGH was not against baseball rules at the time. Most importantly, HGH doesn't add strength. It's likely many took it believing it to have strength-producing effects that it doesn't have. Therefore, even if Carp and Morris are implicated somehow, it's not why Carp became good, nor did it violate baseball rules (if used pre-2006).

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

right
i have no problem with byrd whatsoever. what i have a problem with is whatever media scumbag deemed it appropriate to drop this story the DAY BEFORE GAME 7 of the alcs. THAT is horrible and reprehensible.

by willievinceterry on Oct 21, 2007 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Please!
as I said here, if the media was sitting on this just waiting to drop it at the best time, they'd have dropped it right before Game 4, when Byrd was set to pitch to try and increase the lead to 3-1.

When people are in the news, they get looked at differently than when they're not. That's what this is an example of -- not some media scumbag who's just out to hurt the Indians.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

it's bad timing either way
and he could pitch tonight anyhow.

by willievinceterry on Oct 21, 2007 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

A few thoughts:
  1. Trading away Reyes  along with a reliever to the D-Backs, who saw their split-personality bullpen ripped apart by the Rockies might get it done for Quentin if the the Cards are willing to put a good reliever or two in the trade. I think most on this board would strongly advocate for brining in someone like Quentin who would provide a talented young right handed bat to combine with Duncan as corner outfielders.
  2. While you say yuck to Shannon Stewart, it is important to remember four things about him:
a. He is approximately the same age as Arron Rowand.
b. Will cost significantly less than Rowand in both years and dollars.
c. Might be cheaper than brining back Eckstien and would fill the roll as right-handed outfielder and leadoff hitter.

Based on the above, an ideal outfield rotation for the 2008 Cards would be:

Duncan
Edmonds
Ankiel
Quentin
Stewart

Three lefties, two righties, one is a leadoff hitter.

Best of all, such a group would cost the Cards little for 2008, allowing the team to move forward with a cheaper middle infield of Hoff, Kennedy, and Ryan.

by JMedwick on Oct 21, 2007 11:13 AM EDT reply actions  

Stewart
I knew someone would argue for him.  Initially, I thought like you did.  Then I looked him up.  This is what I had prepared but deleted to shorten the overall length of the story:

"Stewart - made just a million last year and finished with an OPS+ of 101.  He finished w/ an OPS of .739, including .699 vs. lefties.  Restricted to LF.  By all accounts he's an atrocious defensive player.  Pass."

I'll admit the Cards could do worse.  I'd rather sign him for $1-2 M for 1 year than Rowand for 4 or 5 years.  But he doesn't help the team in CF or RF and is even worse than Duncan in LF.  If we could trade for Quentin, we could use him in LF or just play Duncan vs. lefties to see if he could ever do it.  It wouldn't be a horrible move but any of the 3 I mentioned toward the end of the post are better options.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Given the lack
of potential lead-off hitters on the current roster (maybe Kennedy, maybe Hoff, maybe Ryan if the last two months of 2007 weren't a fluke, but I doubt it), the Cards need to find some leadoff hitter for 2008. Would you rather spend 1 to 2 million on 1 season of Stewart or the 5 or 6 million over 1 or 2 seasons I bet it takes to resign Eckstien?

by JMedwick on Oct 21, 2007 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not at all happy
about the prospect of re-signing Eckstein but I could deal w/ it if the contract were for 1 year only.  Tony's not going to play Ryan so there is no readily available alternative at SS.  I'd really like to see them try to work a deal w/ Atlanta for Brett Lillibridge to play SS and, maybe, hit leadoff.  Even so, Eckstein's not much of a leadoff hitter.

All that said, and I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think a special effort should be made to find a "leadoff hitter."  We need to find the best players and hitters we can at each position, and let one of them bat first.  Who can get on most often in front of Pujols?  That person should hit leadoff.  I'm not opposed to anyone hitting leadoff, assuming his OBP is high enough -- and I mean anyone -- Edmonds, Duncan, Ankiel -- I don't really care.  

Like I said, I know I'm in the minority.  You can think me crazy if you like but I don't believe in playing an inferior player just b/c he might be a better "leadoff hitter."

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

let's hope we are "outbid" on rowand
i think he would be a horrible mistake. injury prone, coming off a career year, strikeout prone, and really just not that great of a hitter. and we have plenty of centerfielders already. i agree with lboros -- we need a platoon-able right-handed corner outfielder with an ops in the .800+ range, at least.

by willievinceterry on Oct 21, 2007 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Atlanta is not going to trade Lillibridge;
if they deal a SS it will be Renteria.  They have some pretty hefty payroll obligations to Smoltz, C. Jones, Hampton and Hudson.  They could live with Renteria if they had to, but they want to clear some payroll to sign Texiera.  Lillibrige is the back up option for Escobar/K. Johnson and possibly even C. Jones when he takes his annual trip to the DL.  I also don't see current management wanting a young, untested at ML level shortstop, because he will make those rookie mistakes.  That ain't going to sit too well....

by jillsinmo on Oct 21, 2007 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

I know it's a pipe dream
but Atlanta's going to want pitching.  Maybe a Reyes for Lillibridge swap could happen.  

I don't think it's realistic, esp. given that LaRussa's coming back, but a man can dream, can't he?

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

One problem:
"but they want to clear some payroll to sign Texiera." Edgar is off of their books next year, as is Tex.

However, they will need to make some space to sign Glavine. But Andruw will (at least should) be off their payroll this year to cover that.

Well, let's go to the old mill anyway -- get some cider!

by Alxfritz on Oct 21, 2007 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

The have every intention of keeping
Tex; that's why they gave up so much to get him.  They are going to try to sign him to a long term deal before 2008 is over.  They can keep Renteria, at least for this year, because Tex's new contract won't start until 2009.  They have in house replacement (potentially) for Renteria; they do not have that for Tex.  If it works out that it's best to clear Renteria off the books this year, they'll do it; if they have to keep him this year, it won't kill them to do that either.

by jillsinmo on Oct 21, 2007 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

exactly
Well, let's go to the old mill anyway -- get some cider!

by Alxfritz on Oct 21, 2007 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't see the big deal over a leadoff
hitter either, that'll work itself out.. and definitely trying to trade for an outfielder for that spot.

by ridgesee on Oct 21, 2007 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

And now for something completely different...
Am I the only guy who thinks Cleveland has the Game 7 starter least likely to succumb to the pressure?

Dice-K looked scared (at least to me) earlier in the ALCS... Westbrook might get lit up, but he ain't gonna be scared!

And for all the moaning and groaning (in multiple cities) about "curses" and l-o-n-g streaks without WS titles, how 'bout a little love for poor ole Cleveland? Their last championship in anything came in 1964 with the old NFL Browns! Since then, they've had their hearts ripped out by John Elway, Michael Jordan, and the freakin' Atlanta Braves (the Bravo's one WS win in their decade-and-a-half playoff run)! Go, Tribe!

As far as the Cardinals' OF for 2008... I got nuthin'; I don't know nuthin'; heck, I don't even suspect nuthin'! I agree that Chris Duncan is the Birds' most attractive trading chip; but I can't escape the nagging feeling that the Cardinals need him worse than any other team! I agree the Birds gotta get a legit #2 starter, and there ain't jack on the FA market... but after that, my brain just shuts down! (Skippy, if you're readin' this, learn how to switch-hit this winter! You've got a better shot at stayin' in The Show if ya do!)

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

by The Ol Goaler on Oct 21, 2007 11:50 AM EDT reply actions  

Indians are screwed
as larry pointed out a few weeks ago, teams historically struggle after a player is outed as a 'user'.  With the Paul Byrd story today, they are toast.
"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 21, 2007 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

Many in the media
Don't like it when the public claims stories are timed for maximum impact, such as earlier this year with the Ankiel story. While I don't think the Ankiel story was timed, I do think the release of this Paul Byrd article was/ is and as a result further undermines any notion of objective reporting.

by JMedwick on Oct 21, 2007 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

He had a prescription
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7358706

Not only was it prescribed, it's discussed in the BOOK HE WROTE.  Byrd says he never tried to hide it, as it was prescribed and wasn't banned by the MLB.  He paid for it with a credit card for cryin' out loud.  

"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 21, 2007 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

this is the kind of forthrightness
that would have served ankiel well. explain what you did and why. if you have nothing to hide, there's no scandal.

by lboros on Oct 21, 2007 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

exactly ....
so perhaps he DID have something to hide...?

by Timbo02 on Oct 21, 2007 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

It seems like a lot of Card fans
on this blog insist on finding Ankiel guilty of something terrible. This was in 2004, he was coming off an injury. Had a prescription. HGH wasn't banned at the time. And he did meet with reporters a couple of days after the story broke, and answered all senseable questions. What was he supposed to do, take the first flight to NY after the story broke and prostate himself before the fair and balance NY press and beg forgiveness. If you go back in the nineties, HGH was advertized a lot on radio  and newspaper adds. Doctors prescribed them to a lot of middled age people. I know people who took them and thought they were helpfull. I personally know a doctor in my home town that took them along with his wife and prescribed them to a number of patients (mostly middle aged) Didn't try to hide it, so he evidently thought they were helpful or he himself wouldn't have been taking them. I don't know exactly when the medical community decided that they could be harmful, or useless or whatever, but evidently as late as 2004, some doctors still believed in them. Personally, I'm not going to pay any attention to anything the committee releases about about players that have taken HGH. Because they were recommended and considered to be helpful by a number of doctors for a long time.

by ridgesee on Oct 21, 2007 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also, It seems that
maybe a lot of people convicting Ankiel, would sure love to have good ole Barry (steriod shot in the butt) Bonds on the team. Makes you wonder how some people's mind works don't it?

by ridgesee on Oct 21, 2007 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Are these the same people
you're anonymously referring to?  Because I haven't read anyone who condemned Ankiel and excused Bonds.  

It should also be pointed out, that the only criticism of Ankiel in this thread was criticism of how he handled the whole story -- not criticism of his use of HGH.

by chuckb on Oct 22, 2007 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

If this was true
wouldn't the story have been run the day that Byrd pitched -- game 4?  Why wait until game 7 when it would have such a huge impact -- Byrd pitching to go up 3-1 in the series?

IMO, the reason these stories often seem timed is b/c events happen that lead reporters to investigate people/incidents that they wouldn't otherwise investigate.  If the Indians weren't in the LCS, who is Paul Byrd and who the hell cares?  So reporters follow leads on people who are already newsworthy.  

At the time, Ankiel was very newsworthy so someone is more apt to leak some info and a reporter is more apt to follow a lead on someone who is in the news.  It gives the impression that reporters sit on these stories if only to spring them at the most opportune moment.  I think the truth is that people who are presently newsworthy (Byrd, now) are more interesting to reporters than they were otherwise.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Possibly
It's starting to seem that all a writer has to do to get a steroid story on a baseball player is to go after it.  Ankiel was newsworthy, someone started poking around and found one.  Indians in the playoffs, snoop around until you find a guy with a steroid story.

At this point, if all a guy was doing was HGH and he was doing it before it was a MLB banned substance, I really don't care.  I hate to say it, but almost EVERYBODY was on this stuff or something else--HGH seems like the lesser of evils in a lot of cases.

"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 21, 2007 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

You left out the Marlins
and our old friend, Edgar Renteria!

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

i'm with you
i'm pulling for the indians, think that the dice-k mystique is a media creation of (at best) a league average pitcher.  he doesn't just look scared, he looks petrified.

that having been said, a disproportionate number of home teams who won game 6 (and needed to) went on to win game 7, so i'm not hopeful.

by sdesserman on Oct 21, 2007 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Another outfield option
I don't know what we have that they would be interested in, but if Rocco Baldelli comes back healthy next year, the D-Backs have a glut of young outfielders with Upton, Crawford, Young, Gomes, Dukes and Baldelli.  I think that either Dukes or Baldelli is going to end up being the odd man out and could probably be had for a reasonable bounty.  He would make a great fourth outfielder (or even 3d outfielder).  He can play CF for Edmonds, and maybe pick up sometime on the corners as well.  He's certainly not a masher, like lboros wants, but I'm not sure that guy is available, and certainly not cheaply.  

I personally would like to keep Duncan and Reyes.  I know that is not the consensus.  Duncan has a solid OBP and good power.  His defense is suspect, but I don't want to rely on Rolen and Edmonds for production again - we've been burned too many times.  Why trade an asset like Duncan for a league average pitcher?  

I think we could use Reyes in a Cal Eldred type role to give him a little more time to figure it out.  I know he's frustrating, but if you just use him in mop up duty, maybe we could increase his value before we trade him.  He's cheap and talented.  Don't sell when he's high.  If we could get someone very legitimate for a package that includes him - like AJ Burnett - then I would pull the trigger.  I would be disappointed if we traded him for Bourn.  I like the Quentin acquisition better, but I don't know that Quentin will be as good as Duncan, although he was a much better prospect.  

by Toddius396 on Oct 21, 2007 4:32 PM EDT reply actions  

Don't sell
when his value is so low, is what I meant to say.

by Toddius396 on Oct 21, 2007 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

They really have no choice but to sell
when his value is low. That is current managements fault-he pitched poorly, that's for sure.  But they were very vocal in their criticism of him, made it clear in the press that they didn't want him on the team, told the press and Reyes and the fans that they didn't think he was any good.  Now really, if you were a GM that was interested, when you consider  all of the comments, and the bad pitching line from 2007, wouldn't you just pick up the phone and say you'll him take for well, we'll just take him off of your hands....for nothing.  You'd be foolish to offer anything of consequence.  That part of it isn't Reyes fault-he kept his mouth shut when they took shots at him. They might be better off just non-tendering him at this point.

I did learn two fun facts about ARey while looking at some MLB/MiLB stats-he is the only player picked in the 15th round of the 2003 draft to make it to the ML as of the end of the 2007 season.  Maybe a little perspective is in order sometimes when you look at players progress or lack thereof.

The other fact is that he has been a professional ball player for 4 seasons now, and he has never been charged with a fielding error-not one-since he's been a pro, majors or minors.

I'm also one of the random few who visit VEB that still has faith he can turn it around, and I will always question managements decision to try and turn him into a ground ball pitcher.  If they didn't like the way he pitched, they should have traded him back in AA-for someone else's AA pitcher that was more to their liking.

by jillsinmo on Oct 21, 2007 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'd rather take Crawford or nothing
at all.  He's going to bolt eventually, either trade for him right before FA or wait for him to become one.
"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 21, 2007 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

I like the idea
Bays is under contract for below market price.

We would be buying low.

His right handed bat would compliment the lefty outfield.

by Harknights on Oct 21, 2007 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

If there were such a thing as 'clutch'
Jason Bay may be the least clutch player in all of baseball.

He was very bad this year and I fear he isn't really going to rebound from it.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 21, 2007 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Career numbers
2 outs, RISP -  .271/.410/.509
Late & Close -  .211/.327/.393
Tie Game - .281/.380/.517
Within 1 R  - .280/.375/.503

Um ok???            

by Harknights on Oct 21, 2007 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Jason Bay 2005-2007
2 outs, RISP -  .258
Late & Close -  .205
"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 21, 2007 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

By Year
2005

2 outs, RISP  - .267/.413/.533
Late & Close - .273/.387/.545
Tie Game  -  .319/.413/.548

2006

2 outs, RISP  - .246/.441/.449  
Late & Close - .152/.331/.239  
Tie Game  -  .263/.374/.526

2007

2 outs, RISP  - .263/.341/.447  
Late & Close - .193/.277/.337  
Tie Game  -  .226/.307/.451

If anything this just shows that Clutch is a myth. Unless you only buy into the Late & Close for the last 2 years (but that would mean his 2 out RBI's down by  2 are worthless.)

I think he has a better chance of returning to an All-Star level than Pinerio does.    
       

by Harknights on Oct 21, 2007 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

What does Jason Bay have to do with
Joel Pineiro?

He will take an OF spot from Ankiel or Duncan.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 22, 2007 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

I still think it would cost a lot
in terms of prospects. I considered him for my post but I just don't think we would have enough to trade w/o trading Rasmus. If Bay's put on the market, there will be 10 teams w/ more good prospects willing to trade for him.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Aaron Rowand
For those of us worried about the Cardinals handcuffing themselves by offering Aaron Rowand a contract deep in years and dollars, the Yankees will probably outbid us.  I'm inclined to think that that's a very good thing.  They want Rowand because Melky Cabrera will be dangled with Chien-Ming Wang and Ian Kennedy for Johan Santana.  If I were the Twins and was going to agree to that, I'd make the Yanks eat their salaries for the next decade, just because.
"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 21, 2007 8:11 PM EDT reply actions  

For the record
If I were the Twins I'd laugh myself stupid at that deal and tell the Yanks to call back when they're willing to deal at least two of Cano/Chamberlain/Hughes and another high ceiling prospect.
"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 21, 2007 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't know
Santana will get a lot, but any team that trades for him is just getting 1 year of Santana.  The Yanks could probably re-sign him but only if he likes playing in NY.

The Twins would be getting 4-5 years of Cabrera, 3-4 years of Wang, and 6 years of Kennedy -- that's not a bad haul.  If they insist on the package you suggest, they may end up w/ a 1st round pick and a supplemental.  Which is better?

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Eh
It's more of a need thing.  Even without Santana, the Twins don't need pitching, they need hitters.
"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 21, 2007 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Taking my own advice
Maybe Cano/Cabrera and one of the pitchers.
"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 21, 2007 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

true enough
but you can never have too much pitching. Turn around and trade Wang for a good hitter -- Duncan? I'm not crazy about Wang but he's young, cheap, and under the team's control for at least 3 more years. Maybe Duncan's not even enough.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

George Mitchell is on the board
with the Boston Red Sox.  Can't believe I forgot that tasty little nugget.

Just makes the whole Byrd thing look even more dirty.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 21, 2007 8:27 PM EDT reply actions  

w/o dealing with the game 7 thing
I think it has stunk to high heaven that an executive from 1 of the teams is running this whole HGH/steroid witchhunt. I used to have a lot of respect for George Mitchell before this. I never agreed w/ the whole witchhunt thing to begin with but, if he was going to do that, he should have resigned from the Sox and sold his stock.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Returning to form
Let's go Tribe!
"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 21, 2007 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Jake westbrook
has to be the cardinals version of a dream girl..leading the majors in ground ball outs? or just dps?
07 Cards more drama than a daytime soap..with replacement actors

by punchinjudy on Oct 21, 2007 9:05 PM EDT reply actions  

Home Grown Starter?
Jake Westbrook was signed by the Rockies, traded to the Expos and then sent on to the Yankees before they dealt him to Cleveland.

by DizzyDean17 on Oct 21, 2007 10:26 PM EDT reply actions  

They?
I was simply referring to houstoncardinal's comment in his post about tonight's game in which he mentioned something like a home grown talent vs. a big time free agent acquisition.

I agree, though, about how many "facts" are incorrectly stated by announcers.

by DizzyDean17 on Oct 21, 2007 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

I was assuming you were talking about
McCarver....he really does get a lot of facts wrong.  I guess I do too....need to read more carefully.

by jillsinmo on Oct 21, 2007 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

True enough
but he's spent all but 6 2/3 major league innings w/ the Indians. I was really trying to contrast the starter who was with the organization as a young pitcher vs. the high-priced free agent acquisition. Westbrook is exactly the kind of starter the Cards need more of -- they spend their first 6 years in the Cards' rotation as effective, cheap starters b/c they can't afford the Dice-K's.

by chuckb on Oct 21, 2007 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

That was madness
Cleveland deserves to lose this game.  Two baserunning gaffes involving a player as fast as Lofton is pretty inexcusable.

by Valatan on Oct 21, 2007 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Damn you
Joel Skinner!
Well, let's go to the old mill anyway -- get some cider!

by Alxfritz on Oct 21, 2007 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

That will cost them
who did Joel Skinner think was running the bases? Prince Fielder!?!?

Cleveland is choking this series away.

by KYCards on Oct 21, 2007 11:01 PM EDT reply actions  

Where is Yadier Molina
when you need him?
"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 21, 2007 11:10 PM EDT reply actions  

someone on here compared this to 04
so was kenny lofton(jeff suppan)? course that was in the WS not NLCS..but still
07 Cards more drama than a daytime soap..with replacement actors

by punchinjudy on Oct 21, 2007 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Cleveland is...
TOAST

Now since the Red Sox have some momentum, let's see how much longer the Rockies can keep theirs.

by saladdays on Oct 21, 2007 11:32 PM EDT reply actions  

Pedroia's homerun...
reminded me of Molina's in Game 7 of last years NLCS. Slightly less dramatic, but just as unexpected.
Miller sucks.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Oct 21, 2007 11:40 PM EDT reply actions  

the guys hit the ball hard all series
finally gets a good hit
07 Cards more drama than a daytime soap..with replacement actors

by punchinjudy on Oct 21, 2007 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

i guess i don't have to worry
about who to root for in the world series, purple jersies and all.

by SleepyCA on Oct 21, 2007 11:44 PM EDT reply actions  

Youkilis hits the coke sign
and it's 11-2.

And the Boston crowd chants nananana....

by Petkovsek on Oct 21, 2007 11:49 PM EDT reply actions  

I wonder if Colorado
will have to stay in a hotel 40 miles out of Boston and get stuck eating Hamburgers and Pizza after Game 1 like the Cards did in 2004.

I bet Tony is still pissed about that.

I had to turn the game off, the whole Red Sox origanization makes me ill.

by KYCards on Oct 21, 2007 11:51 PM EDT reply actions  

What are the details behind that?
I don't remember this bit of information.

by saladdays on Oct 22, 2007 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

The Red Sox
claimed that all of the hotels in Boston were sold out for some convention in town and it forced the Cardinals to have to stay in a hotel 40 MILES away from Fenway Park for games 1 and 2 of the World Series. The Cards had to take a long bus trip just to get to and from the stadium and was caught in traffic for quite awhile as well causing them to miss a big part of their pre-game workouts.

Then when they finally got back to their hotel in some small town an hour away from the stadium the players and their family were left with having to eat cheap hotel hamburgers and pizza.

Tony was HOT about this and he had a point.
It was the Red Sox's responsibility to book the Cardinals hotel rooms for the World Series.  And they made them stay at some out of nowhere hotel.  

That's BUSH LEAGUE! But that's the Red Sox for ya.

by KYCards on Oct 22, 2007 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

If they do...
Boston's front office won't have the veil of curses and Ben Affleck to hid behind.

That was low.

by liam on Oct 22, 2007 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

I hate Boston
  1. I can't believe Eric Wedge left Betancourt in for as long as he did.  He obviously didn't have it tonight . . . and yet never got pulled.
  2. Casey Blake really effed the Indians with his DP and botched fielding.
  3. Tim McCarver should not allowed to talk about baseball.  Ever.

by azruavatar on Oct 21, 2007 11:52 PM EDT reply actions  

don't forget
the Tribe's 3rd base coach, putting up the stop sign on Lofton.

by erik on Oct 22, 2007 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Am I the only one who thinks
that if Lofton scores on Gutierrez's hit down the line, Blake probably fields that ball.  I think that failing to tie the game really took the wind out of their sails.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that if Lofton scores, things would have gone a lot different down the stretch.

And McCarver -- yeah, f-awful!  Just don't speak, Tim!

by chuckb on Oct 22, 2007 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah I think if Lofton would have scored
it would have been a different game.  The Indians would have felt they had new life and a little momentum going.

But the Indians choked this series plain and simple. Hafner, Peralta, Blake, their two pitching aces, Skinner and even Eric Wedge all choked. I can't stand the Res Sox, but Cleveland deserves to go home for the winter.

by KYCards on Oct 22, 2007 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

and the Fox network is relieved....
that they will not have a Cleveland vs Colorado World Series.
Miller sucks.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Oct 21, 2007 11:55 PM EDT reply actions  

wow nice catch kid!
When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?

by RosevilleRedbird on Oct 21, 2007 11:56 PM EDT reply actions  

Ok so which Rockies player
will be "scooped" by the media & Red Sox board member George Mitchell that he bought HGH or took steriods in 2003 either prior to game 1 or if the Rockies take a 3-1 series lead??

Seriously I wouldn't be suprised for this to happen.

by KYCards on Oct 22, 2007 12:00 AM EDT reply actions  

we need a poll
the awesome thing about the media is that they don't actually have to have proof that someone bought/used something illegal, immoral or fattening- all they have to do is lie, and then quote an anonymous source.  For something like the World Series (or the 2007 NL central stretch run), that is awesome power to have.

by SleepyCA on Oct 22, 2007 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

He did buy it
They had proof and he admitted it. He acknowledged his name being on the credit card receipt. And the same was true about Ankiel. How egregious this was is subject to debate. But there was no lying by anyone.

by chuckb on Oct 22, 2007 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

my comment wasn't about Ankiel
or Byrd, but about the potential for future abuse.  The current system puts way too much trust in journalists (and their "anonymous sources") telling the truth, and doesn't do nearly enough to protect the (potentially innocent) accused.  In fact the accused have zero recourse except to say "uh, no, i can't even spell HGH", at which point they are not only guilty in the court of public opinion but also liars.

It's also very unfair to the players to have this kind of "outing" take place at the whim of some bored prosecutor's intern.  If there's a list, the entire list needs to be released or none of it, and it should be released by the professionals who compiled it, not by some guy with an agenda.

by SleepyCA on Oct 22, 2007 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

If the reporter is lying,
hte paper opens itself up to a libel suit.  If the reporter does not produce her/his sources, (s)he opens herself up to fines.  If the reporter is making stuff up, they also open themselves up to pretty hefty fining.  They open themselves up to having a ruined reputation and getting fired.  

Not to say that any of this is guaranteed to happen, but a falsely accused player does have recourse against an unscrupulous reporter.

Say what you will about the modern media, but they are certainly capable of protecting their bottom line.  Dan Rather had his career ruined over poor sourcing on a story that was essentially true.

by Valatan on Oct 22, 2007 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Dan Rather was not a normal story
there was a lot of politics involved in that whole thing, including business politics, so I don't think we can draw broader conclusions from how that played out.  

I think SleepyCA has a very legitimate point.

Newspapers (and other media outlets) are much more protected than people who are being written or spoken about.  Because you have to prove harmful intent (the harm cannot simply be a result of the story), it's very difficult to sue for libel, even if the information is incorrect and even if it injures the person's reputation.  

And journalist's always protect their sources.  What fining are you talking about for not disclosing sources?  How often do you think that happens?  How often are people actually punished for being factually incorrect?  I don't believe it's a frequent occurence, at least it's not for some of the papers I've dealt with in terms of public figures.

by nycardfan on Oct 22, 2007 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Of course the dan rather thing wasn't normal
but part of the abnormality was that everything happened so publicly there.  And yes, I realize that libel is harder to prove for a public figure, but those public figures are alos in a much better position to threaten the paper, and the paper is loathe to expose itself without any sourcing.  Even the Washington Times doesn't just make stories up.  Making the leap from 'sometimes stories get blown out of proportion' to 'reporters can say whatever the hell they want with no check on them whatsoever' is quite over the top.  

Who are all the falsely accused here?  To me, it seems like editors have many faults--not educating readers on background, for example, but on the whole, they are too conservative with respect to breaking stories, not too aggressive.  There was circumstantial evidence circling around most of the 'known' juicers long before anyone actually broke the stories.

by Valatan on Oct 22, 2007 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Libel is extremely difficult for anyone
to prove, not only for public figures.  When you don't have legal checks in place that people can use to protect themselves, plus you have a business environment that cultivates a fast distribution of entertaining "news" and a fierce competition for selling newspapers, all you have to rely on is the good will of journalists, editors, and anonymous sources to present you with reliable and unbiased accounts.  

I wouldn't depend on the good will of a banker if I were doing business with them.  Why should I have to do that with a newspaper, their staff, and their anonymous sources?  So to answer your question, anyone could be accused and anyone could have their reputations damaged without proper recourse.  Since baseball is awash in money and power, it doesn't seem that far away from politics to me.  

Your post itself shows some of the minor problems with news reporting when you lump recent HGH reports (which could be prior to 2005 and could be used for post-surgical healing) into "juicing" as though it's equivelent to steroid use and is illegal in all cases.

by nycardfan on Oct 22, 2007 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Youre inferring stuff from what I posted
I didn't lump anything together.  I referred to 'juicers,'  implying that I was primarily concerned with the steriods story.  

On almost all of the cases that anyone cares about, there is almost no dispute about the sources, anonymous or not.  And the reason is that editors aren't going to run a story based on nothing--the cost/benefit runs way too aggressively to the cost side.

And if you want to cite the political press, it gets far worse--they are absurdly conservative with breaking stories.  It took them three years to break Iran-Contra.  They never really explained it.  The downing street memo has still not broken in the mainstream american press.  There are numerous examples of the mainstream press sitting on political stories for too long because they pushed the envelope too far.  

by Valatan on Oct 22, 2007 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry I lumped that together
if that's not what you meant.  I thought SleepyCA was speaking to the recent HGH stories.

Sitting on a story does not necessarily speak to an ethically healthy enviornment, especially when you are talking about things like Iran-Contra or stories about the first or second Iraq wars, etc.  That can simply speak to political pressures or ideological biasis.

There are plenty of examples during elections when stories are rushed out and are not checked properly or stories where sources show an agenda in terms of their timing and location.  I don't see why this can't happen in baseball as well.

My point is really about lack of protections for celebrities and regular citizens alike.  I think newspapers should have to be as responsible as any other business.  They should not have legal loopholes that allow them to act carelessly with people's reputations.  I guess I'm making a more general observation that can also apply to baseball.

by nycardfan on Oct 22, 2007 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

oops--I didn't mean to imply
that you were saying the Iran Contra reporting was handled appropriately.  I posted that when I was tired, walked away, and when I read it again, I realized it had come out wrong.  Take what I said about Iran Contra as not directed to you but as a general comment.  I'm obviously a little too tired tonight to keep up with the pace of debates.

by nycardfan on Oct 22, 2007 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

valatan
that is  naive as hell. when you reach celeberty status you are pretty much free game. You do have some recourse, but it gets complicated fast. Example: NY Times prints anything it wants without fear. Try pinning their legal team down.

by ridgesee on Oct 22, 2007 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

It might be a naïve point
but the truth lies somewhere between that and 'those damn reporters can say whatever craziness they want, with total impunity.'  And if you are going to talk about crazy papers saying whatever crazy thing they want without fear, the NY times is a poor example.

by Valatan on Oct 22, 2007 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Jason Blair?
We're skirting the politics no-fly zone, here.

by liam on Oct 23, 2007 2:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah
and I don't want to get into an argument with a "cool aid drinker"

by ridgesee on Oct 23, 2007 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

I've enjoyed your posts
but I don't really like calling people "cool-aid drinkers".  I think Val was trying to argue for a middle position.  You and I have more skeptical views of the press and the possibilities of acting irresponsibly.  Obviously, I don't mind arguing vigorously about that and trying to clarify in what ways people disagree.  But I'd rather stick with specific differences and stay away from the "cool-aid" conundrum.  I don't always live up to this, so my comments can be applied to myself as well.  Just some thoughts....

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

It was his
defense of Dan Rather that got to me. That became political. He said it was basicly true and not thread of that has bee proven.

by ridgesee on Oct 23, 2007 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

i see your point
since Val kind of tacked that on at the end, i don't want to read too much into that, but I do understand what you're saying.

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

We'll suffice it to say that I wasn't defending
Rather, just stating that he was fired due to sourcing.  I could write pages and pages about the story, and how the fracas relates to the media, but it has little to do with the scope and topic of this blog.

by Valatan on Oct 23, 2007 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

i would probably find that discussion interesting
because i'm still confused about all the complexities surrounding the Rather firing, but then we'd be sliding back into the political no-fly zone.  

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

I should have said I understand your point,
ridgesee, but I may not agree with you politically, and that's why Liam's counsel about being careful about mixing baseball and politics is good for all of us to remember (at least on VEB).  Baseball disagreements are difficult enough to contain!

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

I really don't like to insult people,
I like to hackle people sometimes about things that are not really that important. But the mention of the Rather thing. That was what I believe to be a concieved plot to bring down the President of the U.S. You probably don't. I don't care, but the matter should not have even been brought up on this thread. I answered you a little sharply and threw in the comment about the New York Times (CBS News media personel have publicly stated that Rather wanted to run with the story because the New York Times (hear me) N..e..W Y..O..R..K  Times was going to break the story the next day. The Times wasn't afraid. They, to this day probably wouldn't have felt the need to fire anybody. You came back and responded that I sure had used a poor iilustration in mentioning the New York Times, when I've seen Proof to my satisfaction that they were knee deep into into what you brought up. I won't even get into Iran affair that was mentioned. Thats when I got nasty and called you a......well you know what. I'm not going to comment on it any further. Sorry if anybody was insulted by my remarks.

by ridgesee on Oct 23, 2007 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

I respect your strong feelings on these issues
But you've actually conflated my posts and Val's posts, which are not worth untangling.  You're right, we would probably not see eye to eye if we pursued a discussion on these things, and this again brings to mind Liam's precaution.  

These exchanges have illuminated the slippery slope of even mentioning politics as an example.  I didn't think Val and I were discussing politics.  I thought we were discussing journalism and baseball, and were using political examples to make a point about reporting.  And I didn't read Val as making a political statement.  But I guess this is where the slippery slope can come in for different readers when politics is broached, even as an example.

Thanks for your honesty and general apology.  You didn't really take a shot at me.  But I appreciate them anyway.

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Cool aid drinker?
Who you talkin' about?

Valatan's a good guy and I know I'm cool as the backside of the pillow.

Political discussions are taboo here. Plenty of other places to run in circles.

by liam on Oct 23, 2007 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks guys
in summary, all I'm saying is that:
  1. Millionaire baseball players aren't completely defenseless against the big bad press, as the Wayne Hagin/Todd helton fracas indicates
  2. Reporters can't get away with printing any dam thing they want indefinitely.  Things will eventually catch up with them, and the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to catch up--just because you can't believe everything you read, and that all writing deserves critical anaylsis, doesn't justify a "don't believe anything the guys say, they can just lie anyway" attitude.  I was trying to argue against the latter, and perhaps came off too strongly.  
  3. Editors tend to be very conservative with what stories they break, particularly when they are controversial stories, like a steroid allegation--the problems with the reporting have more to do with poor emphasis and analysis rather than outright lying.  

by Valatan on Oct 23, 2007 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can find common ground
with some of your points, but remain wary about how the business pressures of the press influence stories.  I should clarify that I didn't mean that nothing should be believed or that most journalists act in an unprofessional way.  I was pointing out possible abuses rather than norms--if a journalist does harm someone's reputation through a poorly reseached or biased story, there are no good legal protections.  So we're really focusing on different questions.  Oh, and of course, I don't think you are a cool-aid drinker!

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

And if the article comes out
the day of the biggest game in your team's season, after the information the report is based on was available for months and likely held in reserve until it could do the most damage, and your team loses that game in part because the story made it hard for your teammates to concentrate on what is important, it tarnishes the game as much or more than as the drug use ever did.  

Baseball should be played on the field and a reporter should never be in a position to influence the outcome, as I believe they were in 2007 in the NL Central pennant race, in the AL East race in 2007, and in game 7 of the ALCS.  

by SleepyCA on Oct 24, 2007 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

matt holliday
huge neck, and he's young and already bald.

by erik on Oct 22, 2007 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

He shaved his head,
that's why, on the bald thing. And his workout/dietary habits are well known.
Rockies in October!

by Scarlet the Cardinal on Oct 22, 2007 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

I know you follow
the Rox much closer than the rest of us, Scarlet...

but I think he's suffering (for lack of a better term) from male pattern baldness as well...which could be a reason why he went with the clean shaven look.

"The only thing you know about pitching is that you can't hit it." Bob Gibson to Tim McCarver

by player2bnamedl8r on Oct 22, 2007 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

Oh, I know
But I'm gonna be hearing so much damned whining from the Sox fans about how Holliday is CLEARLY on steroids, I don't want it to start now.... ;)
Rockies in October!

by Scarlet the Cardinal on Oct 22, 2007 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

i don't care for boston
i can count the reasons...

manny, schilling, drew....but the good news is now the Cards can hire Antonetti sooner then later.

by erik on Oct 22, 2007 12:07 AM EDT reply actions  

i was thinking the same thing
not that i know much about antonetti (other than that cleveland has a lot of young talent). i wanted cleveland to win, but if they had, that part of the gm search could have taken -- what? two more weeks? at least.

by willievinceterry on Oct 22, 2007 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

i do have to say
the dropkick murphies "shipping up to boston" is a very cool song to play during a pennant clinch celebration.  i'm 119% it's better than whatever Cleveland's song would have been.  

And since the rox are going to win ithe WS in 3 games, it doesn't matter that boston won...

by SleepyCA on Oct 22, 2007 12:20 AM EDT reply actions  

Did Papelbon
do that extremely gay dance to that song?  

by KYCards on Oct 22, 2007 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

Wow, you must have a lot of confidence
in the Rox if you think they can win in THREE games...

by saladdays on Oct 22, 2007 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions  

Those odds aren't any better
Than the ones Detroit got last year
"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 22, 2007 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

Theme song to "The Drew Carey Show"
And then Trot Nixon does the Donkey Kong dance to it.

I have a sincere and completely unfounded hatred for Kevin Youkilis.  Anyone know why I might not like him?  (I'm serious.  I can't think of a single reason not to like the guy, but I just do.  Maybe it's the ridiculous goatee??)

Re-acquire Edgar Renteria

by Mr Redbird on Oct 22, 2007 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

I hate his
batting stance.  He looks like an ogre.

by spants on Oct 22, 2007 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

i think it is the goatee
he and helton will have to battle it out in the competition for most out-of-control goatee for a 1st baseman.

the funny thing is, the red sox have to sit one of ortiz and youkilis in games 3, 4, and 5. silly DH rule.

by willievinceterry on Oct 22, 2007 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

i mean
the DH rule is silly, not the way they alternate it in the WS, which is not silly in itself.

by willievinceterry on Oct 22, 2007 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

is it really?
i've never subjected myself to the drew carey show...  

now I'm sad.

by SleepyCA on Oct 22, 2007 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

He's the Greek God of Walks
That could have something to do with it...his chin beard is a tad overboard, though.
"The only thing you know about pitching is that you can't hit it." Bob Gibson to Tim McCarver

by player2bnamedl8r on Oct 22, 2007 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

OT: The 'jump'
didn't we used to use the 'Click for More' on the daily posts.  Don't worry HC, almost every daily post has it now too.  My wheel mouse is wearing out trying to scroll down the the comments link.
"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 22, 2007 12:36 AM EDT reply actions  

This ALCS reeked of the
1996 NLCS to me...3-1 lead choked away by blowouts.  I hope the 2007 Red Sox suffer the same fate as the 1996 Braves in the World Series.
Re-acquire Edgar Renteria

by Mr Redbird on Oct 22, 2007 1:32 AM EDT reply actions  

gawd i hate boston
go ROCKIES! sweep those arrogant bastards!

there better not be one freakin sox fan in the stands at Coors. we've all seen games at Coors when east coast teams visit & bring all their fans with them. heck even when the Cards show up there are more Cards fans than Rockies fans.
dont let those drunken, arrogant, chowder lovin bandwagon sox fans take over Coors Colorado.
dont let it happen.

shock the world rockies. no team & fan base deserves to get kicked in the balls more than the red sox.
especially with Mitchell on his wichhunt. what he's doing is beyond low.

sorry every one, i really hate boston.  

I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Oct 22, 2007 3:16 AM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

N1046613005_8392_small
Our 2010-2011 strays
649494__1__small
Hall of WAR: Part 2

Recent FanPosts

Hahaha_small
These were a few of my favorite things (fink reminisces about the 2011 regular season)
Dsc01844_small
Cardinals take the Governor's Joplin Challenge, will help build 35 homes for torando victims
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Relief Pitching Edition
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Starting Pitching Edition
Small
Two Trades That Set the Cards Back in the 70s
Nyc_small
Cardinals Offense vs. Reds Offense - 2012
Nyc_small
Cardinals Rotation vs. Reds Rotation - 2012
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals by Position - Center Fielders

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Jack_benny__1__small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bendermad_small azruavatar

Trigun_001_small the red baron

Images_small tom s.

Authors

1989_bgh_cropped_small bgh

Valverde_medium_small vivaelpujols