the state of the slate

by lboros on Feb 25, 2008 8:00 AM EST in News Comment 79 comments

i took my first serious look at the cardinals' schedule this morning. it's forgiving early on: 21 of their first 29 games come against teams that finished below .500 last year and project to be terrible again in 2008. the cards went 41-34 (.547) against sub-.500 teams in 2007; their april slate includes 13 games against san francisco and houston, 3 against washington, and 2 against pittsburgh. better yet, 12 of those 21 easy april games are in st louis. the cards went 22-15 (.595). against sub-.500 teams at home last season. they could very well be a few games over .500 --- 16-13 or something like that --- as of may 1.

then the opposition stiffens considerably. they open may with a 3-game home set vs the cubs, then go on an 8-game road trip to colorado and milwaukee; a 6-game trip to san diego and los angeles looms later in the month. and on june 20 they begin a brutal stretch that will last most of two months. from that day through august 10, they will play 40 of 46 games against teams that had winning records in 2007 --- and most of those teams have gotten better over the winter. (the cards went 37-50, .426 against winning teams last year, in case you were wondering.) that segment includes 6 games against two of the best american league teams (boston and detroit); 10 games against the best of the nl central (cubs and brewers); 17 games against the best of the nl east (mets, phillies, braves); and 7 games against the padres and dodgers. the only good nl teams they won't play in that stretch are the rockies and dbacks; they finish with the rockies may 8, and all their games with dbacks happen after september 1.

jim edmonds' only trip to st louis takes place july 17-20, by the way. so taguchi's team comes to town august 1-3. and dan haren will probably get a start during the dbacks' lone visit to st louis this year, a 4-game set in the last week of the season (sept 22-25).

monday-morning filler:

mlb.tv will be televising the cards' 2d game of the spring, this friday vs the mets. wainwright's scheduled to start; game time is at 12:10 p.m. central standard.
over the weekend at Not a Golfer, matthew leach took a stab at projecting the opening-day roster. juan gonzalez and aaron miles were on it; brendan ryan and brian barton weren't. leach emphasizes that that he's only projecting who will be on the roster, not who he thinks should be on it; also that it's ridiculously early and a lot could still change. but leach sees every workout and talks to the manager every day; he has a sense of who's in favor, who's being watched closely, &c &c. i take his forecast as a gauge of which players have the greatest benefit of the doubt heading into the grapefruit league schedule --- the roster that tony / dave would regard as a best-case scenario. take a look at that roster and see what you think. how many games does it win in '08? how much future-year potential does it possess?
the news that la russa lobbied for barry bonds doesn't give comfort. am i the only cynic who thinks the juan gonzalez signing is not unrelated to the bonds thing? kinda like: "you wanted an old, no-field, steroid-tainted ex-mvp? well, here he is!" only differences being, a) bonds can still hit, and b) bonds costs lotsa moolah. just so i'm not misunderstood --- i am not saying the cards should have signed barry bonds. my position is that the perfect number of old, no-field, steroid-tainted ex-mvps for this roster would be zero.
scott rolen speaks: to ken rosenthal and the philadelphia inquirer.
per a quick-n-dirty by the Hardball Times' chris jaffe, the cards got a little unlucky in the longball department last year --- hit way fewer than their fair share of juuuuust-made-it home runs. pujols in particular is due for a few cheapies, according to this article.
Future Redbirds had 11 questions for BP's kevin goldstein about his list of the top 11 st louis prospects.

0 recs | Comment 79 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

June 20th begins a difficult stretch

Well, let's just hope by then, our starting rotation gets an infusion by currently disabled pitchers. Maybe the timing and distribution of difficult games on the schedule is a blessing based on how healthy our team is by the time mid-June rolls around.

by jomfa on Feb 25, 2008 8:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Could schedule help in games vs. Cubs?

One odd advantage of the Cardinals' schedule is that 12 of the 15 games the Cardinals have vs. the Cubs are after the All-Star break. IF Chris Carpenter comes back by that time, he could have 4 starts vs. the Cubs. Then the Cards would probably have a better chance of winning their season series vs. the Cubs than without Carp.

This may be a long shot, but Pedro Martinez was great last September when he returned from his injury, so it isn't out of the realm of possibility that Carp could take on the role of #1 starter again after his return. Hope springs eternal in the spring....

Of course, all this could be a moot point with respect to the NL championship if it means that the Cardinals finish "only" 12 games behind the Cubs instead of 15 games behind....

by CardsWin on Feb 25, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bonds

While reading the article about TLR lobbying for Bonds, I was first angry, then thankful. Angry that the Cardinals would keep a manager so insane to make such a suggestion. Insane on many levels. Then I was thankful that JMo politely told TLR "No". Management has to ride hurd on the manager (for any team in any sport) in order to save him from himself. They all have a few screws loose I've decided.

My only regret with JMo's response is, as Larry stated, the Juan Gone thing. One can reasonably assume JMo tried to make nice with Tony and brought him a washed up vet treat after the scolding. It takes organizational discipline to stay with the chosen course of action: build from within. If Juan Gone makes the 25 man roster and steals a spot from a younger player, that is not building from within.

by jjray on Feb 25, 2008 8:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Funny I was angry

management said no.

Having one of the best hitters in baseball for one year would help the team win now and wouldn't hurt the future.

by Harknights on Feb 25, 2008 9:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Signing Bonds would be insane

>>Having one of the best hitters in baseball for one year would help the team win now and wouldn't hurt the future.<<

a) Barry Bonds is under federal indictment. Think about that. So much flows from this. First, there is the PR problem of having on your team not only a guy who abused PEDs but also a grand jury found sufficient evidence of criminal activity to return an indictment. There is no guaranty the trial would not occur during the season. You can ask for a continuance but no guaranty it will be granted. The guy has to be distracted preparing for a criminal trial of this magnitude.

b) Barry Bonds circa 2008 is no longer one of the best hitters in baseball over the course of an entire season. How effective will Bonds be off the juice be at age 43-44? If not in trial, he'll be on the DL for much of the season. He can longer play the field. If he played at all, he has to be in the American League.

c) This current Cardinal team isn't going to be playing deep into October. We don't have the pitching, Albert is playing with a frayed ligament in the elbow that will limit him and might not last the season.

All the outfield roster spots should be reserved for young players with upside.

by jjray on Feb 25, 2008 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bonds isn't the only one who could be

in legal problems now after this off-season. Doesn't make it right, but some of that edge is off Bonds being the only player the feds could be after. I've heard legal analysts say that the trial wouldn't take place during the year.

Also, last year Bonds still had like a .480 OBP. Why would you not like that?

by saladdays on Feb 25, 2008 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

a) There's a distinct possibility that this doesn't go to trial until after the 2008 season.

b) This is categorically wrong. He had a .480 OBP last season. The clever thing to do is quote all his intentional walks but even if he received only half or a quarter of those in 2008 his OBP would be north of .400. This is a classic case of focusing on what he can't do (play 160 games) while missing what he can do (be the best or second best hitter on the team for 100+ games). He can still play the field. He played the field last season. Another myth that gets perpetuated. He's not good in the field but we're trotting out Chris Duncan in LF and the difference between those two is minimal.

c) Bonds would be a 2-3 win upgrade over anyone currently in the outfield. The Cardinals have repeatedly said they want to field the best team possible. Barry Bonds in LF is part of the best team they can field. I don't think they're headed to October either but Bonds would go a long way toward making them contenders.

The most convincing rationale against him, imo, is that as a Type A Free Agent who was offered arbitration, IIRC, he would cost our Round 2 draft pick.

by azruavatar on Feb 25, 2008 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not disagreeing...

but if SF offered Barry arbitration...I can't imagine he didn't accept. He's looking at one year/$6-9 million. In arbitration he probably would have got at least $12-15 mil based on his $15.5 mil 2007 salary.

Thanks for the highlight moments 15 and 27!!!

by cardzfanbub on Feb 25, 2008 11:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can't remember and wasn't able to look

it up in a 60-second google effort. If he wasn't offered arb than I really don't understand the logic behind not pursuing him.

by azruavatar on Feb 25, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bonds

Bonds is not an elite hitter "over the course of a season". Look @ counting stats. His suck.
75(runs), 94 (hits), 14 (2B), 0 (3B), 28 (HR), 66 (RBIs). That's not elite. His production is no longer in the top 50 and it's going to be worse this season, I suspect substantially worse.

by jjray on Feb 25, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But I think you are missing the point

Of course counting stats aren't going to be there because he doesn't play all 160 games (not unlike our current outfielders -- a mix match lineup on any given day). The point is that WHEN he DOES play, he is still very effective, and would be arguably THE best Cardinal hitter. (definitely 2nd best) Last year, Bonds averaged one home run every 12.14 at bats and had a .480 OBP. On the other hand, Pujols hit one home run every 17.65 at bats with a .429 OBP.

So if you knew that Bonds' trial wouldn't happen until AFTER this season, why WOULDN'T you want him on your team? Its obvious he can still play.

by Ray Lankford on Feb 25, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Look @ counting stats

That made me laugh.

I don't think anyone would expect him to be a full time player.

I would take a .480 OBP for half a season. No question.

by Harknights on Feb 25, 2008 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe you missed this part

Ignore the fact that he can't play 160 games and realize that the numbers (read: rates) he would post during 100 games would be better than anyone short of Albert on the team. Even then he may still be nearly as good a hitter as Pujols. The counting stats are misleading because of the playing time issue, which I conceded. There's no one reasonably availabe via trade or on the free market that has anywhere near Bonds value.

by azruavatar on Feb 25, 2008 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

bond's value

>>Ignore the fact that he can't play 160 games and realize that the numbers (read: rates) he would post during 100 games would be better than anyone short of Albert on the team.<<

Can he play 100 games? With injuries and trials? Doubt it. Then factor in that he has to be removed for defensive reasons late in games because he covers as much ground as grandmother right now ... and she's dead. Then remember that playing Bonds means you have to sit Chris Duncan. Absolutely no way to play both Bonds and Duncan in the same outfield.

You can't ignore that he can play only 100 games because there are opportunity costs to putting Bonds on the 25 man roster. It very well may mean Barton doesn't make the team. And then there is the huge chunk of change it costs the team to get him for those 100 games.

We'll see what happens with Bonds in 2008 and then we can revisit this debate. I think Bonds will regress in a substantial way in 2008.

by jjray on Feb 25, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

However

everything you said about Bonds (except the trial stuff) would be true of Duncan. Yes Bonds would make more than Duncan but he is a better hitter.

It would be a nice problem to have. Who do we play today Duncan or Bonds?

Wouldn't it be nice to have Bonds pass on some plate control ideas with the younger hitters?

by Harknights on Feb 25, 2008 8:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hold on

signing bonds, a type-a free agent, does have a future cost that juangone does not. personally, don't see the point in signing juan, but barry is a different kettle of fish.

by sportsman on Feb 25, 2008 11:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

I wasn't angry that LaRussa suggested it or that the idea was rejected, it's a fair reflection of both reactions, some people would love Bond's protection, some people would be morally affronted by such a signing. I thought it was interesting that LaRussa explained exactly what he was thinking, i.e. looking for the strongest combination of players to win, presumably his job. And, I find the suggestion that Gonzalez was some sort of offering by the GM and ownership tenuous - as the story was told, Juan has appeared at the behest of Pujols, Molina and Oquendo (the guy half the world wants to be the Cards skipper).

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Feb 25, 2008 9:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ditto

it's no surprise that the possibility was brought up. and it should be no surprise that mgmt declined the pursuit of bonds.
each party stuck to their specfic role. tlr's approach was 'what can barry do on the field?' while mozeliak had to think about the front office problems and financial risks involved.

what mildly irritates me is the inability to fully commit to the youth movement, but it isn't surprising. tony has is an older mgr with a 2-yr contract. he doesn't have time to think long-term. moz is caught in the same bind that jocketty was... pressure and opportunity to spend money (new ball park and fan pressure to be competitive)... but the problem is where to spend the money. the free-agent market is rather unimpressive and the grass looks much greener next year.

I'd rather my sister be a prostitute than my brother a Cub fan.

by _pistol_ on Feb 25, 2008 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

NOBODY's signing Bonds...

Bud Selig wants him gone, and no club will risk the Commissioner's ire! That's in addition to the PR hit any club would take by signing BB; TLR was looking solely at the on-field contribution Bonds could make, and management took the broader (and more realistic) view.

As others noted, Gonzales was touted by Oquendo, Molina, and Pujols... I think it more likely that he takes Schumaker's or Ludwick's spot, unless Barton tanks this spring.

Tony's always going to try to squeeze as many wins out of whatever roster he's given; that makes him a Hall Of Fame manager.

I'm happier to hear positive quotes from Dave Duncan about Reyes than anything else this early in ST...

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

by The Ol Goaler on Feb 25, 2008 11:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why is no one going to get Bonds?

You forget the amount of tickets that will be sold for people to go see Bonds. I heard this morning how Tampa Bay is thinking about trying to get him. How much would that signing boost their club?

And frankly, I don't believe what you say about a team not wanting to sign him because of Selig.

by saladdays on Feb 25, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why should we care

about "the commissioner's ire?" He's a tool who is simply a puppet of the owners. I still don't understand why the Cards or some other teams pay attention to his "recommendations" about the slotting system for paying draft picks. Detroit has had great success the last couple of years ignoring Selig and it's clear to me that the Cards should this June as well. Are they risking his "ire?" Possibly. Should we care? I don't see why.

by chuckb on Feb 25, 2008 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If Bonds could be had for less than Alou

is currently being paid, it would be insane NOT to get him. Well, not insane. If the Cardinals are honestly trying to win baseball games this year, having a 2-3-4-5 of Ankiel, Pujols, Bonds, Glaus in any order would make the Cardinals lineup as dangerous as any team in the league. Think about that. 35+ HR potential from all 4 of them and they go L-R-L-R. No wonder LaRussa was pushing for it so hard.

And if they are going for the youth movement, he may block someone not currently on the roster but because of his need for days off, he won't really be blocking anyone as far as playing time. They will get their ABs in LF when he sits, which is every 3rd day or 2 out of every 5.

He can still hit. He's an asshole with a ton of baggage but he can still hit. We've already got 5 'caught' steroids/HGH users in camp, can we really sit on our high horse about Lamar?

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Feb 25, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can see both sides...

but I think, in St. Louis, and among "Cardinal Nation" (a term I hate), the "asshole with a ton of baggage" trumps the "he can still hit" part.

Got to remember that the average fan doesn't read VEB or gets titillated by acronyms such as VORP, OPS+, etc. They pay their money to go to the ballpark and watch the local nine. I don't think they'd pay money just to see Bonds - there is no empathy or sympathy anywhere for the guy, and while still a great hitter, he's a dick. When you add the risk of people not coming through the turnstiles because Bonds in on the team to his baggage and the financial risk of signing him - plus he's a huge injury risk, it just doesn't make sense.

"Dude, we're running out of stadium" - said on the way to our seats in Section 428.

by bukowski on Feb 25, 2008 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

cardinal nation

What a stupid term!

I agree the term "___ Nation" is stupid.

by ICbirdfan on Feb 25, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Barrys body will need bondo...

Maybe this is the season when the long term juice use catches up with his body and puts Barry in the tank for good. Thats just as likely as having another "big year" at his age.

The best reason to pick up Bonds would be so we could listen to the unending discussions and myriad comments about his pending trial before, during and after every at bat and before and after every game. That would make the long, hard season ahead special and cheery, now would'nt it.

Or maybe he and Jaun can battle it out for left field on the Eddie Perez Retirement Villa softball team after they tear a muscle.

If we can't be good, can we at least be lucky?

by cardschinmusic on Feb 26, 2008 5:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Barton

With what I have read about him it seams even if he isn't in the top 25 we should make room for him. It seams like he has the raw talent that carrying him one year could pay off down the road. If Juan Gone makes the squad I thought it would be Schumaker's expense. I have no problem with giving Juan a shot. He comes recommended by players not by TLR.

Ryan and Hoff will start the year as the MI in Memphis and I am ok with that. They can play every day, and be ready to be called.

I still am regretting the whole Scottie situation. I really feel that this year is going to be a come back year for him. I hope he stays healthy.

I supported Tony's return, but now I am seriously questioning it. Hopefully the Cards get off to a go start and build some Mo. I am still optimistic...slightly.

by nybirdfan on Feb 25, 2008 9:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If Juan makes the team

at Barton's expense, I'll be very upset. Juan adds absolutely nothing to this team. We need to be finding out who can help us in the future and if Barton doesn't make the team, he can't be sent to AAA.

Even if Juan can play (highly doubtful) it still doesn't make sense. The future is w/ the young guys and not people like Juan Gonzalez, for Christ's sake!

by chuckb on Feb 25, 2008 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Barton could provide years of low-cost excellence

I totally agree with you, houstoncardinal. Barton has the potential to provide several years of low-salary contributions as a much needed leadoff hitter, base stealer, good defender in the outfield, righthanded bat (much needed to balance lefthanders Duncan, Ankiel, Rasmus). Barton is one of the top 8 prospects in the Cardinal system and the top RH outfielder, for Pete's sake. I hope Mo shows the same steady course in keeping Barton, for his long term and short term value, that Mo showed in rejecting Barry Bonds.

by CardsWin on Feb 25, 2008 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

overrated?

i agree with concept that the team should be constructed with the future in mind. however, i am not so sure barton represents the kind of talent that must be kept at all costs. i dont have a problem sending him packing if he loses in an honest* competition.

*yes, i know TLR doesnt always have honest competitions

by dmb60614 on Feb 25, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

we have no idea what Barton's contributions might be, either now or down the road. But it's worth finding out. Gonzalez's contributions will be minimal at best. He is, at most, only marginally better than Barton now and doesn't help the team in the future at all and the marginal improvement he adds today gets us nowhere near being a contender.

I can't honestly believe that he has a chance in hell of making this team, particularly at the expense of someone w/ the upside of Barton and it's inexcusable if Mozeliak allows LaRussa to make that happen.

by chuckb on Feb 25, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

If what I have read about Barton is true then we need to keep him on the 25 man roster. Even if he is not one of the best 25 coming out of spring. Let him struggle on the bench. Then next spring he is ours, and if he still can't make the grade he can go to AAA. I am suggesting that we carry him on the 25 man roster because he will be worth it in the future.

If Jaun Gone has a spring that suprises us and he earns a spot on the squad. I hope that Barton stays with the club. This means that room will have to be made somewhere. Sorry Skip.

by nybirdfan on Feb 25, 2008 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

barton

the main question i have about barton is will he be healthy enough to start the season on the regular roster and not the DL?

i know that is a very serious surgery (if i am correct he had the microfracture procedure) and although the sports are very different, in basketball, this is a minimum of a year on the shelf, and i dont think he had the surgery until very late last season

i am not sure what the rules are about the DL with a rule 5 guy; can he be on the DL? i really dont know

Pujols is the greatest Cardinal in my lifetime.

by bigcardsfan5 on Feb 25, 2008 8:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Can't we send Barton to AAA

if we send Cleveland a warm body to turn the Rule 5 acquisition into a trade? Wonder is they could use Skippy?

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

by giveml on Feb 25, 2008 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just wondering...

"Gonzalez's contributions will be minimal at best. He is, at most, only marginally better than Barton now"

You're stating this as if it is a fact. What recent head-to-head comparison between Igor and Barton are you basing this statement on? You may be spot-on in a few weeks, but for right now Igor is a giant unknown.

by flynn on Feb 25, 2008 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

TLR

was the wrong choice if they're going in the "build from within" direction. The Bonds article is further proof of that. A 60-something manager is not going to be on board with a building process- he won't be here. Many of us here have expressed the fear of a two steps forward one step back situation- a model for mediocrity.

by vinniefromjersey on Feb 25, 2008 9:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

You could give him a 25 man roster of 18 year olds and he would immediately begin machinating on how they could win.

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Feb 25, 2008 9:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's what TLR would do:

The first thing TLR would do in that case in figuring out how to win would be to insist that Moz sign a bunch of over-the-hill veterans with lots of MLB experience who play the game the right way, then have all the 18-yr-olds sent back down for more seasoning.

I think a big part of the reason the team is taking a flyer on Gonzo is because it was Pujols's suggestion.

by salvomania on Feb 25, 2008 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cant say no to El' Hombre...

Yeh, Albert and Oquendo are tired of loaning him money and hope he can get together a little nest egg for the future with a final year in the bigs. Now watch him smack 40 and drive in 100 and nail down the CBPOTYA. Maybe, not.

If we can't be good, can we at least be lucky?

by cardschinmusic on Feb 26, 2008 5:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One interesting thing

related to Matt Leach's article and the Bonds thing:
One of the comments following Leach's projected roster reflected on the lack of African American players in the game in general and on the Cardinals in particular...the commenter insinuated that TLR had some kind of bias against black players, going back to the Ozzie Smith situation over 10 years ago...Leach really let the writer have it, and rightfully so, in my mind...it was a ridiculous accusation.

Two things...obviously, TLR's continued interest in Bonds, with all of his baggage, disproves that theory...secondly, when are people going to let go of this Ozzie Smith thing?...as a black man, I have a number of relatives who swear up and down that LaRussa is prejudiced based on the perceived treatment of Smith, and I have argued until I am blue in the face that there is no basis of truth to prove that,whatsoever...I followed all of his teams in Oakland and you don't have to have a great memory of his rosters to know how important black players like Dave Stewart and the Hendersons were to those teams...fact is that African American interest(from a playing standpoint)in the game in at it's lowest point in the 60 years since the color barrier was broken...I don't know enough about it to say whether MLB is doing all it can to rekindle black player interest in the game, but I certainly don't feel there is any conspiracy or anything like that.

All that said, it is a bit sad for me that the Cardinals, with it's rich tradition of outstanding African American players, is unlikely to have even one on it's opening day roster...I love the team, of course, and I am for anybody who wears the "birds on the bat" regardless of their race or ethnicity...but you always like to see one of your "own" do well and see them represented on your team...those of you who are Italian or Jewish or Hispanic or any ethnic identification, I hope you know how I feel...not trying to stir up anything, just an observation.

by tbell61 on Feb 25, 2008 11:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Add to that...

At one time the OF consisted of Jordan, Lankford and Gant.

Thanks for the highlight moments 15 and 27!!!

by cardzfanbub on Feb 25, 2008 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Barton

One more reason Barton needs to be given a chance to make this team. He is smart, athletic and also a minority that we should be promoting. He is a great example and role model for children of every race but especially the African Americans of this area.

by StLHugo on Feb 25, 2008 11:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Affirmative Action in Baseball?

Hmm...

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Feb 25, 2008 11:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not exactly

I disagree with affirmative action for the most part. Giving someone a job just because of their race is a horrible idea, but Barton is/should be equally qualified for the job, even if his qualifications are different then that of Juan G. But I think Barton is a great feel good story and this club needs one of those right now since everything about the Cards is feel bad going into the season.

by StLHugo on Feb 25, 2008 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

poppycock.

Juangone is also a minority. So affirmative action has no bearing here.
How is Juan G. NOT a feelgood story? Former MVP suffers career-ending injury. Through hard work and dedication, he regains most of his former skill and makes the majors. Crap, man, that is a great story. What's the angle on making Barton a feelgood story? The fact that he is black? He is a tremendously talented, young player that is rehabbing from a knee injury. Am I missing something about his childhood or something?

Now, with that said, I wish Barton would make the team. I think he is EXACTLY the type of young, talented (not to mention right-handed) player STL needs right now. He can help this team more than Gonzalez can. His skillset would play will with our current wronghanded outfielders.

Why do we need to worry about the lack of african-amerian players in the game? Well, MLB stands to lose a sizeable market if baseball interest among African-Americans continues to wane. Some potentially talented black children may never pick up the sport to discover that they can be great baseball players. That would truly be a sad affair.

That seems to be a marketing problem that MLB should fix.

But how should it be the fault of TLR, Duncan, or even Moz if they do not find enough black players to make the public happy. Their job is to make the team a good as possible with the players available to them. If some of those players are black, great. Does anyone think that Mo would have not traded Rolen if Glaus were black? If there were a black shortstop available better than our current pitiful options, doesn't everyone here believe that we would have signed him?

How can we blame the organizations for not having enough black players. The baseball is blind folks. If there were talented black players available, the team would have them.

Please do not try to blame the Cardinals for problems that are societal in nature. If interest in baseball is lower among African-Americans, then fewer African-Americans are going to play baseball, and as a result, fewer are going to make the major leagues.

I'm a man, a manly, manly, man. Unknown

by Eckstreem on Feb 25, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Aerospace Engineer

The fact that he wouldn't be drafted till he finished his Engineering degree. He is extremely bright as well as talented, he didn't choose sports over his education just to get rich quicker. That to me is a great feel good story, and one that regardless of race is not very common.

by StLHugo on Feb 25, 2008 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is Barton Black?

I really don't know.

I hadn't put much thought into it.

by Harknights on Feb 25, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

Here is a picture: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071206&content_id=2319634&vkey=hotstove2007&fe xt=.jsp

by StLHugo on Feb 25, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what color

was Royce Clayton?

Doesn't that kinda put that silly argument to rest?

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Feb 25, 2008 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Now thats a culture spread if ever...

McGee, Coleman.....and Brunansky??

If we can't be good, can we at least be lucky?

by cardschinmusic on Feb 26, 2008 6:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ozzie smith

was replaced by Royce Clayton, an African American man...

by SleepyCA on Feb 25, 2008 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Off Subject - Reyes

I have been seeing all the "Reyes Looking Good" posts on the Cards site and Post-Dispatch and notice something. If Reyes grew a goatie he would look just like Al Hrabosky or am I seeing things?

Continue all the great postings. Read everyday, just don't have time to post.

Andy S

by apaul1029 on Feb 25, 2008 11:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Things were really bad apparently

From the Rosenthal article:

"I knew the Cardinals were doing their due diligence trying to trade me," Rolen said. "I knew the situation [in Philadelphia] and thought it might be a fit. I would have been open to the possibility, but it never presented itself."

He would have gone back to the city that ran him out of town a few years ago to escape the situation in STL. That's kinda sad.

by azruavatar on Feb 25, 2008 11:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

correction

that's from the philly.com article

by azruavatar on Feb 25, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And when they boo'd him like Pat Burrell

and he was getting platooned against LHP, he'd have wanted out of there too.

Rolen's one of my favorite Cardinals all-time, but I'm soo glad that soap opera is over.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Feb 25, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

AMEN TO THAT!

I'm a man, a manly, manly, man. Unknown

by Eckstreem on Feb 25, 2008 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See ya Scotty Ro,...my man!

Amen amen!

If we can't be good, can we at least be lucky?

by cardschinmusic on Feb 26, 2008 6:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

From the "pursue Bonds" article:

Any intrigue surrounding the possibility evaporated when Mozeliak concurred with the owners that signing Bonds would run counter to the club's stated commitment this season to younger players.

As opposed to Aaron Miles, Juan Gonzales, Flores #2, Villone, etc. Signing them certainly demonstrated our commitment to youth.

by SleepyCA on Feb 25, 2008 11:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

D Goold @ Boomer

Goold says that Boomer's agent approached the Cardinals about a contract for him to pitch roughly 20 games this year. Cardinals rejected him, wanting to give Thompson, Reyes, Wellemeyer the shot.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Feb 25, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Youth movement be dammed

If we hadn't traded JEd signed both Bonds AND Juan Gone we could of had the oldest outfield in all of baseball. Maybe even in baseball history.

Ahh, what could have been.

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

by That's a Winner on Feb 25, 2008 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Front Office Foot In Mouth Act of 2008

Theres a new rule, every team GM is now allowed 4 contracts that run contrary to everything they've ever said about the teams philosophy on signings before it can be pointed out for critical analysis! Mo's just taking advantage.

If we can't be good, can we at least be lucky?

by cardschinmusic on Feb 26, 2008 6:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Juan Gone vs Barton

Looking at Leach's list, I think people are picking the wrong battle here.

Juan isn't taking Barton's place, Skippy is:

Outfielders
Rick Ankiel
Chris Duncan
Skip Schumaker
Ryan Ludwick
Juan Gonzalez

Why can't we simply cut Skippy, replace him with Barton and if Gonzalez rakes, he makes the team. When he breaks down, Rasmus gets called up.

I'd much rather have Gonzalez and Barton on this team than Gonzalez and Shumaker.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Feb 25, 2008 11:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I hope that is what happens

Schumaker isn't as good offensively as the numbers he put up last year, and he's #3 on the depth chart of lefties who can play CF. For that reason alone Barton needs to make the team, if he is healthy. Still, I can't help but think that as a "good defensive CF" (Davenport disagrees) who should hit for around a .750 OPS while earning 400K, Skip should have value to someone...

Along those same lines, it is frustrating to me that Gonz will take AB's from Ludwick. I think Ludwick will put up better offensive numbers over the course of the season, and he plays good defense; Duncan-ankiel-gonz scares me. Of course, gonz may be considered solely a ph/platoon partner for Duncan, in which case I like it.

by SleepyCA on Feb 25, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

why do we want Gonzalez at all? What does he add? We don't have a DH in the NL. Both Schumaker and Barton offer the ability to play CF, something we're not sure Ankiel offers, at least on a consistent basis. Gonzalez can't play CF. In fact, he never could really play RF or LF either. The bottom line is that Schumaker offers the defensive flexibility that you need in a bench player. Gonzalez doesn't. In fact, he hurts the roster's flexibility.

When your manager has 12 pitchers and only 13 spots for non-pitchers, your position players need to be able to play more than 1 position halfway competently. I'm not a big Skippy fan but he's more valuable, and younger, than Gonzo.

by chuckb on Feb 25, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

unless Jaun rakes this spring. Lets see what he can do. Maybe he can play first and smash the ball who knows.

by nybirdfan on Feb 25, 2008 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, h.c.

not crazy about Schumacher, but when your manager insists on playing with a short bench, everybody has to do more things than just hit (i.e.,field, run, hit with power, be available as an emergency pitcher).

by tbell61 on Feb 25, 2008 11:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Skip isn't particularly proficient

in any of those areas. Remember, we are talking about a guy who once dove for a baseball and almost had it hit him in the head.

That will forever be my lasting impression of good 'ole Skippy.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Feb 26, 2008 1:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if Tony wants a LH bat behind Albert

he should tell MO to go get home town kid Ryan Howard. no offense against Bonds, dude's one of my all time favorite players, but Howard's best days are still probably ahead of him & Barry's are not. while Barry's still a very good hitter, the thought of Howard protecting Albert for the foreseeable future is mind boggling.

i know, i know, dude strikes out 5000 times a year. he's going to demand $60million per year. he's a liability at 1st, while Albert is the best 1st baseman in the game, so where would you play him? also, the Phil's would demand our entire farm system for his services.

it's a nice dream & thought that more than likely won't happen. but so was the Bonds thing. at least with Howard, there wouldn't be a huge fan backlash like there is with Bonds. the Cards have had enough bad PR. it's high time they got some good publicity. and bringing a home town kid who hits 50+ jacks a year in to protect the second coming of The Man would be a great start.

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

by gdm426 on Feb 25, 2008 12:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

So far out of the realm of possibility...

It isn't even worth mentioning. Not only do we have 0% chance of trading for him, 0% chance of signing him long term so there'd be no point in trading for him, he couldn't even play the field with Pujols at 1st.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Feb 25, 2008 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My question with Bonds...

What do we do with Duncan? To me either he or Ankiel are out with an addition of Bonds, and Ankiel is a much better defender who can play right or center where Dunc and Bonds are limited to left. I'd be interested in the signing.

Thanks for the highlight moments 15 and 27!!!

by cardzfanbub on Feb 25, 2008 12:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I swear...

I don't understand this schedule at all!! Seems like every year, there is a team in the NL West that we don't see at all until very late in the season, this year, we don't see Arizona until September but we are through with the Rockies before mid-May...then, in interleague play, we go to Detroit for THE THIRD YEAR IN A ROW, and get thrilling home series' with Tampa and Kansas City...I thought they went by divisions...are we playing the AL East or the Central???

I realize these are small enough issues when this team faces a decent sized rebuilding job just to get back to contention, but I have to say that the Detroit things gets to me...even if you are mixing things up a little, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, why send the team to Detroit three years running?

by tbell61 on Feb 25, 2008 12:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Tigers series

The funny thing is the Tigers have completely thrashed the Cards during regualr season games. Major blow-outs.

It just makes the 2006 World Series all that more sweet.

by KYCards on Feb 25, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Tampa Bay Series

I for one am really looking forward to the Devil Rays (to hell with the new non-Devil name) coming to St Louis.

With family in Florida, I have had the chance to check out games in Tampa on three different trips. That team is loaded with some of the best young players in baseball, and they are a fun team to watch, if not a very good one.

As a baseball fan, I'm hoping we see Kazmir, Shields, and Garza when they swing through town, and that we can beat them with Wainer, and whatever other uninspired options we throw out there.

Additionally, how sweet will it be when the day comes that Boston or New York are looking up at the Rays in the standing.

by mwinf12 on Feb 25, 2008 12:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

OBP and Bonds

Who is getting on-base consistently for us this year (outside of AP)? Wouldn't Bonds constitue a major upgrade in this category and satisfy a gaping, problematic need? The majority here are vilifying the Cards for not taking a flier on a 1 year inning eater, but it's completely irrational to acquire a proven on-base commodity for a year? I am confused.

by mattysha on Feb 25, 2008 2:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I thought the point was to win game without toughing our future. One year of Bonds would hurt who?

Now having both Duncan(RF) and Bonds (LF) with Ankiel (CF) would be fun if only to see on Diamond Mind

Ankiel
Pr/Ex
Bonds Duncan
Pr/Pr Pr/Pr

That's Awsome!!!

It would be a great drinking game. Take a drink every time you hear "That's in the gap for extra bases." while on defense. You might get more drunk than playing drink when you hear "Past a diving Jeter."

by Harknights on Feb 25, 2008 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In reading that article about LaRussa's interest

in Bonds, it's even more bizarre that they added Juan Gonzalez. In the article, Mozeliak is quoted as saying that they wanted to give more playing time to Duncan, Ankiel, and Ludwick. With that in mind, Gonzalez therefore becomes a bench player -- a role player. So why exactly might he make the team? Because of his versatility? Yeah, right!

He's terrible defensively so he doesn't offer versatility there. He's old and injury prone -- not exactly making him conducive to a bench role. Can he run? No. Can he even hit for power anymore? Questionable at best. Barton and Schumaker each offer the team far more versatility b/c of their ability to play more than 1 defensive position, and play them well. Each could pinch-run if necessary. Each is younger and, presumably, less likely to become injured.

How is it even conceivable that Gonzalez deserves a roster spot over these guys. If he was likely to become a starter, it's fathomable. Given the organization's desire to see Duncan, Ankiel, and Ludwick get more playing time, Gonzalez offers the team next to nothing! I cannot believe that Mozeliak will truly allow this to happen!

by chuckb on Feb 25, 2008 11:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

maybe it means

Tony still has more control than he should have.

BUT there could be more to the story. Albert, YADDA, The Secret Weapon & the other dude (forgive me, its late & my memory is shot) told MO & the owners Juan Gone still had something left in the tank & that they should give him a chance. so i think that had a more to do with him being in camp than Tony wanting him.

remember, Juan is also willing to go to Memphis if he doesn't make the team. that also had to factor in him getting a shot.

i don't think it's bad, i don't think he'll take at bats & chances away from the kids. it's not as bad as you think H-Town. it's still the first week of spring training, who knows what could happen. it will all be OK. everything will work out.

i hope

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

by gdm426 on Feb 26, 2008 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The other dude

was Edwardo Perez. Juan was at his off season camp, thats where our latin brain trust laid eyes on his refound baseball skills.

Will said skills pay the bills? We will see.

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

by That's a Winner on Feb 26, 2008 8:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See, here is where you took the wrong turn

you believed what Mo said as anything more than lipservice.

He serves two masters: One who wants a cheap, talented farm system and another who doesn't want to have to babysit for the next 3 years. He says Bonds isn't wanted because of his age but he is 'really excited' to see JuanGone in camp.

He may have lost track of where up is at this point.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Feb 26, 2008 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Younger Cardinals?

I thought we wanted to get younger and more flexible. First I don't want an old man like Barry Bonds in a STL uniform (would TLR drag out #25) Second I don't want a one year man in Juan Gone, regardless how he does in sprin training. Third I am not in favor of signing these old tired arms. Fourth I wish Rolen was back and Tony was gone.

I am willing to write off a division championship in 08, if we can develop some of our young talent both on the mound and in the infield and outfield. Play Barton, Shoemaker, Ryan etc.

If John M. is true to his get younger and more flexible strategy--let's get on with it, even if TLR hates to play young agressive talent who may make mistakes but who also will learn from them by playing.

by MikeCard6 on Feb 26, 2008 4:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs