- This topic has 69 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
They spent on legacy contracts that failed miserably instead of moving forward, and to afford those contracts we extended no-one by trading nearly every arb player on the roster. Of course our roster is 0-3 players and that will be magnified after this season when the next FA class walks and Helsleys arb is off the roster too.
Our club is a +2 in run differential, yet 5 games under .500. An odd stat that indicates we are probably a little better than our record, or at least have played well enough to be around .500 or a game up. Even the mighty Dodgers are only a +8 in run differential.
I think our biggest problem might not be the roster, but the manager. Perhaps not, but I get the sense that Shildt would have this team in a better standing.
Maybe give this thing until around Mother’s Day, and if we are still plodding along make a change and bring in Schumaker. But I wonder if management is thinking about letting things go this year, and making a splash in the off season by bringing in Pujols as the new skipper.
Or maybe we repeat events of exactly 100 years ago, by hiring the best player in recent memory to manage mid-year this season (Pujols currently, and Rogers Hornsby 100 years ago), and next year he leads us to the World Championship!
Even the mighty Dodgers are only a +8 in run differential
One of their losses was 16-0 to the Cubs so that stat is a bit skewed.
I think our biggest problem might not be the roster, but the manager.
Both are a problem. Marmol is very average but Herzog, LaRussa, or Shildt wouldn’t win with this roster. This roster wasn’t built to win. It was built to save some money, play the younger guys, and if we get lucky hang around long enough to sell some tickets.
I don’t think the roster is built to save money – that was the intent, but it did not work out like management hoped as we were not able to move on from the likes of Arenado, Contreras, Gray, Mikolas, Matz, even Helsley.
Thus we are stuck with a mix of veterans and young guys. We might accidentally just have the right mix to make some noise.
Next year should be more frugal, and the opportunity to move on from Arenado might present itself, plus perhaps Contreras and Gray. But for now, while management was hoping to save money and they did to some degree, we are more in the middle where we could have enough veteran presence to possibly surprise some folks.
The payroll this year is about $35M less than last year so they are trying to save some money (No Goldy, Kitty, Edman, etc..). Of course revenue is down as well. I really don’t know what the budget will look like next year. There will be some more money coming off the books but I don’t know if the organization will feel like it is time to make some big moves or have another year of transition. Plus Bloom is a bit of an unknown in this area.
This year’s team reminds me of our teams of the early 90’s under Torre. A few decent players but not enough investment and commitment from the guys upstairs to have a winner. Torre then goes to NYC and shows what he can do with a real roster.
This years’s team reminds me of the teams led by Vern Rapp in the 70’s. Only this year’s team looks far worse regarding talent than did the ’77 edition which included names like Brock, Simmons and Hernandez. And I’m entirely confindent and comfortable declaring that when the whiz-kid is all done mismanaging the Cardinals, he’ll never again go anywhere else in the Big Leagues to show what he can do with a real roster.
bikemike said:
Our club is a +2 in run differential, yet 5 games under .500. An odd stat that indicates we are probably a little better than our record, or at least have played well enough to be around .500 or a game up.
I appreciate the optimism, but whether they are .500 (best case) or .400 (actual record), the result will be the same – no playoffs for the third straight year.
If we get a good start, our lineup needs to outscore our pen. At the rate the pen is going, that’s not even a short term fix. So how to make the pen better when the depth is already challenged? Take it away Mo.
Scoring runs in garbage time is not the same as scoring runs in tight games, including extra inning games.
Running up the score against the opponents’ 13th pitcher might pad the averages and rbi totals, but it doesn’t win games. You win extra inning games by getting the ghost runner home from second with nobody out more often than your opponents. We haven’t been near as good as our opponents at that.We have some pitchers who should probably be playing in AAA (or lower, lol). If an opposing batter homers off them, are they a stud, lol?
In regards to extras, it’s been my perception that when playing on the road you pretty much need to score twice in the visitor half to have a decent chance to secure a W. The rules are so inanely silly in the sense that one run is virtually guaranteed unless Rivera’s on the mound to lock it down. Whoever came up with the idea is responsible for destroying the very essence of an extra inning baseball game.
Baseball has done a lot of dumb things lately, but that extra inning tie-breaker idea is even dumber than that. I don’t recall any great outcry to change extra innings procedures, or did I sleep through all the demands and discussion on the subject?
Mlb doesn’t want those long extra inning games. Keeping pitchers healthy is already a serious issue.
Ghost runners vs a position player on the mound gifting a win? I’ll take the runners, and I feel its better for mlbs brand.
Imagine our pen in the 14th. That’s not better baseball. At least the ghost runners keep it competitive for a shorter term.
Sure. Why not go Pony League and play seven-inning games. That oughta help keep pitchers healthy. No, wait. These days pitchers rarely go beyond five or six innings anyway.
I remember there used to be something called long relief. I wonder whatever happened to those guys. Nowadays they seem to bring in a new reliever every inning, or two at most.The arm injury alibi is a weak one. If you genuinely want to eliminate injuries in sports, you’ll have to eliminate sports. Pretty soon they’ll institute rules designed to prevent these players from mussing their hair.
I don’t love the ghost runner either but it feels like a necessary evil. I watched the Cardinals play 20 innings against the Mets once. It wasn’t a fun experience – especially when we lost 2-1. And then you have no pitchers available the following day.
Like it or not, pitchers and hitters have changed. The stress on elbows and shoulders for pitchers trying to get today’s hitter out is a lot. Hitters are bigger, stronger, and faster so pitchers are being molded to counter that. But pitchers have hit their limit and are breaking. Sure, you could have a 3-5 inning middle reliever who throws an 88 mph sinker and is even pretty good at locating his pitches. But that guy gets hammered and doesn’t make it to mlb.
We saw this a couple years ago with Wainwright. He could still locate pitches. He could still snap off as good a curveball as any. But his top velocity was 87 or 88 or maybe 89. That talent would have still been good in the 60’s or 70’s or 80’s and probably been ok in the 90’s. But he was terrible in ‘23. Guys could sit on the soft stuff and always catchup to his hard stuff. The bats are just faster.
Everyone has their preference, just as mlb does. Owners prefer injecting offense into late innings, rather than watching the pitching degrade over extended innings. A quick conclusive game cuts down a lot of backfill transactions and adds to the quality of tomorrows game. A position player on the mound reeks of bush league. I dislike that scenario much more than the offense ghost runners bring.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.