Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What is hurting the Cardinals, IMHO, as far as selling a free agent on the club are: The downward trend in the team’s success coupled with the Cubs ascent, stronger core roster and better manager; the area is usually listed in those “worst places to live” surveys; perhaps a reputation for a poor clubhouse atmosphere, maybe having to do with manager-player relations.
The second one might not be much of a factor as MLB players will be able to live in the best area of the region, and thus insulated from any social unrest that is of concern to people relocating who have less resources.
Wow, so close. I think Richie “Dick” Allen received 11 last time he was up for election as well.
Miller must not have gotten any votes from the media members/historians, as he is a no-brainer Hall of Famer in a non-playing capacity. I would think the 7 players voted for him, and most likely none of the executives. A gross oversight.
Agree with those who say Miami did what they had to do with Stanton. The primary goal was to get that liability off the books. The organization needs to clean up their balance sheet and do what it can to remain solvent.
Besides, they got a pretty darn good player back in Starlin Castro. This is the business of baseball today. With players salaries so high, that is often a bigger component in driving a trade than talent. And besides, you never know on talent. Many times teams expected to be bad are pretty good, and vice versa.
But the point is, the Marlins did what they had to do. Stanton had a list of only four teams he was accept trades to, and they made a pretty good deal with one of them getting out from under that liability, and adding Castro, who will be a nice upgrade from Dee Gordon at second.
Well that’s too bad. But as the saying goes, sometimes the best trades are the ones you do not make. We’ll see if that is the case here.
Glad it’s over as well, and the club can move on. Stanton is looking only at clubs that look to be winners in the years until his opt-out. I can respect that. As one poster mentioned, that is why players put in the no-trade clause.
It will be interesting to see of the club can put together a plan B. But heck, maybe doing nothing will work out. It’s not inconceivable that Piscotty is much better than he was in ’17. Bader could be an ’18 version of DeJong. You just never know, but I would like to see some proven offensive talent added.
Was hoping he would go to the Mariners since we were not really in the running. Angels is okay though – anyone in the AL is fine. Makes sense to go to the AL anyway as DH would be a good way to utilize his bat. But then they would have to play an aging Pujols at first base.
I fear this could end with higher prices/fewer options for the consumer. I surely hope not, though.
Yeah, I can see that as a possibility. That is the way it often goes. In corporate-ville, there is so much M&A activity as firms can gain efficiencies by combining. But a negative outcome is that it can also reduce consumer choice. Not too mention jobs lost, usually middle class jobs. The execs make out like bandits in those situations, but employees often are shown the door due to over-lapping tasks.
Former Cardinals pitcher Anthony Reyes is among those fighting fires in California.
Super cool. I always liked Reyes, and thought the Cardinals should have let him pitch more than he did. That year we had Kip Wells, I was constantly harping about how Wells needed to go away and Reyes should start in regular turn, rather than be sort of a spot starter. Reyes always seemed to have tough luck. If he pitched good we did not hit, and if he did not pitch so good, he never seemed to get a break.
He did have that memorable game 1 in the 2006 World Series though. It was a huge win, as it got us to where we could use our rotation effectively after that tough NLCS, and gave us some confidence when most pundits were saying we would get swept right out of that series.
Why would a Dodger fan ever play for the Giants.
Because being a fan of a club, and being in the business of baseball are two different things. Sure it would be nice to play for the club you rooted for as a kid. But when you take a job in the industry, the “fan” part ends up taking a back seat to the business side of things.
As far as the plan B with the Marlins, I have always been a fan of Yelich. He has always seemed under-rated to me, playing in basically a wasteland as far as baseball is concerned, and in the shadow of Stanton.
Interesting. ESPN certainly needs to address their declining numbers. The entire industry that was built on cable customers is in decline, as traditional home entertainment consumption moves to internet providers.
What I do not quite understand is this comment from the article:
Source says Murdoch has not been high on the RSNs for several years. Same old media story: rights fees rising at a faster rate than affiliate revenue.
This same scenario will be happening with ESPN’s ownership. Thus it looks like they are attempting to reverse their current trend in the short run, but to do so are taking on another source of revenue with declining NOI.
Sounds like he’s the guy the club is designating as Lance Lynn’s replacement. A low risk, below-the-radar option.
Quite the soap opera. I love Alcantara, but am definitely willing to part with him in a deal for Stanton, depending on the other players involved. The Giants deal supposedly includes Joe Panik and their 2,3, and 4 prospects. According to the MLB.com article, it sounds like the Dodgers are Stanton’s first choice, which makes sense. They say he will decide between the Cards, Giants, or neither and wait to see if the Dodgers can put something together.
If it is up to Stanton, you would think the Giants would be his first choice based on geography. Then again, the Cardinals are probably in a better position to compete over the next three years, and maybe he comes here, then opts out. That actually might be the ideal scenario for us.
Another “sell low” deal, but Brian states it well in that Diaz, like Adams, most likely would not get a chance to regain the value he once had. He was a mess last year, and the Cardinals feel they have better options. The one thing that could really backfire here is if DeJong struggles in ’18, and Diaz gets back close to the 2016 version.
I like DeJong, but am hesitant at this point to consider him a lock to be a long-term starter. He has a little bit of “Randal Grichuk” in his swing, but is young and can improve that part of his game with playing time, so hopefully he is the real deal.
And along the lines of what to do about the steroid issue, a good point is made that if PEDs were not illegal at the time these guys used them, but became illegal later, then a good point can be made to cast a vote for a suspected ‘roid user as technically he did not cheat.
One can question a person’s moral fiber when making the choice to use steroids. Using steroids was making a deal with the devil in a way; sort of a Joe Hardy decision (for anyone familiar with the classic play “Damn Yankees”). But if doing so was legal, that really muddies the waters.
Bottom line, I think Olney is on target and the Hall needs to amend the rules so that voters can make their choices based on who they feel deserves a vote, while not limiting other candidates. The veteran’s committee, or whatever it is called these days can amend some of that. But the Hall can do some things itself to give a better framework for voters and potential Hall of Fame players.
Perhaps entirely doing away with the year limits and percentage requirements is the best way to go. Any player retired for five years or more is fair game in other words.
And greenies and amphetamines are PEDs. Its hypocritical to say one PED is okay but this other one is really bad.
You may think it is hypocritical, but society makes these sort of choices all the time. We draw the line at a point where we think society benefits the most, based on the impact of the relative choices. In most states, alcohol can be legally consumed at age 21, but not age 20. Legal limits are also set for driving under the influence of alcohol, or driving “sober”. Many pain killers are legal to purchase over the counter, others require a prescription. Many drugs are legal, many illegal.
In life, we are constantly presented decisions between relative alternatives. Hypocrisy is not applicable in choices between what is considered acceptable and unacceptable. Hypocrisy is when a person says one thing, and does another. And thus if Joe Morgan is saying the steroid users should not be in the Hall because they cheated, but Pete Rose, who also cheated but in a different way, should be in, that is hypocritical thinking.
The difference between steroids and “greenies” is huge. Greenies do not stimulate muscle growth or help in recovery from injuries. There is no statistical blip that can be traced to greenies. It is about like comparing having a couple of cups of coffee to taking heroin.
As for Pete Rose, there is no way he can be voted in. He was a Hall of Fame player, but rule 21 is clear and until the Hall changes its stance on known gambling within the ranks, he will be outside looking in. If Morgan has lobbied for Pete, then yes, that is hypocritical.
That is an impressive and passionate letter from Joe Morgan. It really makes me think. He mentioned the gray areas. The toughest part of voting I would think, is when dealing with a couple of guys I mentioned earlier, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Both guys were HOF caliber players before the steroids.
But I can see the point Morgan is making, in that those guys still should not be voted in as they tainted their careers, even though they were on track for the Hall before making the deal with the devil.
I used to think Mark McGwire should be voted in, but have changed some on him as he stated that steroids kept him on the field. He went through a couple of years where injuries hampered him. Without steroids he may not have played enough to continue his career at the level he had over his early seasons. He denied that steroids helped him hot more homers, but time as shown that home runs were skewed during that era, and it no doubt helped everyone who used them.
As for Walker, he should be in. At a recent SABR gathering someone pointed out that his 1997 season was in the top 10 all-time of any single season in history. It’s his “1948 Stan Musial” year. That could be point number 10 in Ringolsby’s list of reasons why he deserves enshrinement.
Chipper looks to be the one lock on the 2018 ballot. Several guys with the ‘roid stigma are worthy based on their careers, but a lot of voters put a penalty on the ‘roid effect, either from a moral standpoint or uncertainty as to what their numbers would have been without the “superman” effect.
Personally I think the hitters benefitted more than pitchers. Perhaps Roger Clemens would not have held up the last two or three years of his career, but I do not think steroids played as big a part in skewing pitcher’s numbers. The main impact it had was in home runs, which is the sexy stat everyone likes to look at with hitters.
Thus it can be a tough call. I tend to think Barry Bonds would be a Hall of Famer without the steroid use, whereas Sammy Sosa probably would not have been. If given a vote, I would have Barry on my ballot but not Sammy. I’d vote for Roger as well. But I am sure there is a lot of disagreement on that.
Another novelty to sell merchandise to fans. I never have liked caps that have the red top and blue bill – they look a bit awkward. The Red Sox wore that style for a few years in the ’70s and early ’80s, before returning back to the solid navy blue that looks much better.
I like caps with the blue top and red bill, like our Sunday home caps, and the Braves home caps. That combo works, but they other way does not. The Angels batting practice caps are much better than those all-red caps they wear. In fact, the best caps the Angels have ever had are their original ones, with the interlocking “LA” and the “halo” around the top. They should bring those back. Their current caps with the red “A” on a solid red cap looks odd – the “A” sort of gets lost.
I will say what I said from the start — this makes no sense if they keep carpenter. None.
Agree. The only reason to think about bringing Morrison aboard is if it is in conjunction with another deal. Sort of like when Whitey acquired Rollie Fingers and Bruce Sutter, then later moved Fingers in another transaction.
If we sign Morrison, then the club must have a committed deal that includes Carpenter going somewhere.
Definitely. In fact, had we kept Carlton and Reuss, not to mention Mike Torrez, and thereby most likely gone to the post season few times back then, that might have put Simmons in already.
Playing on mediocre clubs in the Midwest, he did not get much notoriety.
Some great reference points, Wiley. I dug out my Bill James book to see where he has Simba. My book is from the ’80s, so it’s before Rodriguez and Piazza came along. At that time James had Simmons at 10th all time. His top three are Berra, Bench and Mickey Cochrane, who I think probably still hold those spots, with the order depending on personal opinion.
Ted’s stumbling blocks are his defense, and the fact that he played in a catcher-rich era. Three of the top 10 catchers on James’ list played in the same era as Teddy, Bench, Gary Carter and Carlton Fisk. Then you have Thurman Munson, who is #7 on James’ peak value list. And there was the infamous comment short-term manager Vern Rapp made when he called Simmons “a loser”. Rapp offended just about everybody in his 1-year-plus-a-few-games managerial stint, however. After he said that, he refused to go on Jack Buck’s pregame radio show, and Buck used the air time to disclose the dissension that existed on the Cardinal club. Rapp was fired soon after that.
James makes an interesting point in his brief summary on Simmons, stating he would probably have had 3000 hits had he not been a catcher. James said “…the decision to make him a catcher can be questioned”. He certainly had the build of a catcher. Not sure where else he would have played – maybe first base. Put Ted at first base and on the Yankees in the ’70s, and he would no doubt be a Hall of Famer right now.
How does Stanton end up in SF?
They are one of the rumored teams to be interested in him. A deal there would likely involve a lot of cash, which the Marlins need. And the Giants would most likely need to absorb the entire contract.
But then again, Stanton wants to go to a contender, and the Giants were terrible last year. But they still have Posey, Crawford, Bumgarner and some other decent players.
Interesting on the Carpenter comment. He’s not good defensively anywhere, so first base is probably the best place to have him. But then he does not provide the run production you like to see from a first baseman. He sort of cramps our lineup because he does one thing good, get on base, but his game is not complete enough to where you can count on him to do a lot of other things. He’s bad defensively, not a particularly good base runner, and does not move runners over or in very well.
My sense is Stanton will end up in San Francisco, and possibly Los Angeles or Boston. I do not have any inside information or real analytical reasoning for thinking that, other than history seems to indicate that big name free agents tend go to those places rather than St. Louis.
And I think one of those organizations are probably Stanton’s top choices, and they will work harder to get a deal done with one of those clubs than with us.