forsberg_us wrote:

"st. louis press puts a nice spin it on it doesn't mean there can't be more to the story."

Strauss is your favorite, unbiased reporter until he writes something you don't like, then he's just another member of the media spinning for Cardinals.

First off, nobody is unbiased.  The whole notion of unbiased is a misconception.  I wouldn't have used the term for anything that requires human observation. 

Second, why should it be such a mind-bender for you that I find Strauss to be the best reporter for Cardinals news on the PD staff, and yet state that there might be more to the story than appears in his, or any other, article???

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

"st. louis press puts a nice spin it on it doesn't mean there can't be more to the story."

Strauss is your favorite, unbiased reporter until he writes something you don't like, then he's just another member of the media spinning for Cardinals.

First off, nobody is unbiased.  The whole notion of unbiased is a misconception.  I wouldn't have used the term for anything that requires human observation. 

Second, why should it be such a mind-bender for you that I find Strauss to be the best reporter for Cardinals news on the PD staff, and yet state that there might be more to the story than appears in his, or any other, article???

When Strauss says something you like, you treat it as undeniable truth. When he says something that doesn't support your need to bash the front office, there's probably more to the story.

Max wrote:

alz wrote:

For the money he pocketed? I can only say I would do the same. If I owned a profitable franchise, and could easily shelf 50 million dollars for myself by keeping the team quazi-competitive, and keep my fans, I totally would. It makes the best business sense for any owner to spend JUST ENOUGH money to keep his fanbase. You hope that means you can make money on the club, and in this case, it certainly does.

Alz, it seems to me like your takes have turned around 180 degrees since Pujols signed with the Angels.   

1) How competitive were we 2007-2010?
2) DeWitt made noises about needing to rein in payroll during that period, but what allowed the payroll to suddenly expand in 2011 other than that he was simply pocketing money while the team was mediocre?
3) Over and over, people on this board have made the argument that we deserve owners who pocket all the money as long as the fans spend the same amount of money whether the team is successful or not.   

Now you turn around and, while acknowledging all of that, you use those facts and observations in defense of DeWitt.

1) Geez.. We had one losing season during that time, 2007. In 2009 we made the postseason, but lost to the Dodgers. The other two years we won 86, but didn't make the playoffs. There are far worse teams during that run who really have reason to complain.
2) The knowledge that signing Pujols from free agency was probably a pipe-dream, so he wasn't committed to 16+ million on him.
3) I personally do not pay for tickets either way. I watch on television, and I get free tickets to the Enterprise box from work about 2-3 times a season, so they get very little of my money.

My takes on Dewitt are the same. He made a mistake that cost us Pujols, but Pujols then made the situation something that couldn't be remedied. I don't remember ever posting that Dewitt should not be entitled to make money on a business he owns and operates, just because it is a professional baseball team, but if that was indeed my view, then yes I suppose my view is different now. I have no problem with Dewitt, or McCourt for that matter using profits from a company he owns for his personal use. It's HIS company.

I have a difficult time rallying against a team's management when it's won 2 of the last 6 World Series. Sorry man.

Max there was a time not to long ago that your current opinion would have been accepted.  Fors and KC were amoung the most vocal against Dewitt.  I dont know why of all times you choose to call out ownership it is now.  It is another unwinnable position.  They havent refused to spend money and they are defending champs.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"we must tell him loud and clear when we do not support what he's doing."

I just dashed off this to the Cardinals' front office:

Dear Mr. DeWitt:
Stop winning pennants and World Series championships. We don't care about trophies. We want to be entertained.
Signed,
A dissatisfied fan

P.S. - You suck

Rec

Obviously DeWitt and Co. have done a very good job, and obviously we all wish that Pujols had stayed for a reasonable sum.  I think most of us think that $125/5 would have been acceptable, even if it's hard to imagine any ballplayer getting paid $25 million per year to play baseball.

That does not mean that DeWitt should be above criticism.  Where I part ways with almost everyone on this board is that I see the problem as having been DeWitt's ego, far more than one of money. DeWitt gambled against Pujols and lost the gamble, and then, rather than bargaining with humility he bargained with arrogance.  Pujols left for pride, not for money.  He earned that right.  We err greatly if we base everything on the past three months, rather than the past three years. 

Finally, we'll just have to see how how much the team's success was due to DeWitt and Mozeliak, who arrived seemingly as DeWitt's lap poodle, but who has showed some aptitude for his job, and how much was due to Jocketty, La Russa, Duncan, and Pujols.  We went to the World Series three times since 2004 with those four guys, and now we have none of them.  I think that the on field play of Pujols and Carp were probably big contributors to the success of the team in 2006 and 2011, and I see Carp as a product of LaRuncanocketty, having very little to do with either DeWitt or Mozeliak.  Obviously Pujols worked well with La Russa and not so well with DeMo front office. 

At the end of the day, there are several things we see differently, and have seen differently over the past 2 years, and time will tell.  But i want to remind you all that we got in a large debate over whether signing Holliday indicated DeWitt was "all in" as many of you claimed.  I resisted that opinion strenuously.   What we learned was that DeWitt bumped payroll sizably after he was supposedly "all in".  So I rather think that time has shown me to be correct on that score.  Just because some people on this board don't go back and admit when their previous takes--which sometimes have included ridiculing me-- are shown to be wrong, doesn't mean that we can't all see what is what in hindsight.

Last edited by Max (1/09/2012 7:22 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

"But i want to remind you all that we got in a large debate over whether signing Holliday indicated DeWitt was "all in" as many of you claimed.�  I resisted that opinion strenuously.�  � What we learned was that DeWitt bumped payroll sizably after he was supposedly "all in".�  So I rather think that time has shown me to be correct on that score."

No, actually you weren't, but if you makes you feel better to keep telling yourself that, have at it. You've been asked on numerous occasions where additional money should have been spent prior to 2010. You've never provided an answer, except to say "they could have spent more."

DeWitt didn't say anything about dry powder, Moz did.  DeWitt said payroll would contract after 2008, which it did, going from about $100 M to about $88 M.  In 2010 it moved up to about $93 M, and then in 2011, we suddenly learned that DeWitt could swing $105 M.  And let's see if in 2012 it doesn't move up again toward $110.  Either way, you are the one who is retroactively interpreting that they knew they could spend upwards of $105 M, but were keeping dry powder around, because that's not what DeWitt said. 

It's not my job to be GM.  But just for fun, let's assume that for both '09 and '10 DeWitt actually could have afforded just the $105 he spent last year.  That means he pocketed $17 M in '09 and another $12 M in '10, for a total of $29 M during the period that he was pissing off Pujols by not offering him a contract extension. Now let's see, what monetary gap separated the Cards guaranteed offer of $210 M, and the Angles guaranteed offer of $240 M?

Yes, I was right that he was not "all in" when he signed Holliday, that's proven Fors.  And I think that in 10 or 20 years time, DeWitt will be seen as the greedy megalomaniac who made Jerry Jones's quest for total control look like a silent partner by comparison.  I think his legacy will be as the guy who put his ego in the way of retaining the greatest player since Ruth, even though the money was there.  In the final analysis, Pujols said he would work for less than top dollar, but I argue that DeWitt will be seen as the guy who said, 'that's not enough; I'm going to gamble against you, year after year, pocket the money I was raking in while gambling against you, and then lowball you and humiliate you if you want to be a Cardinal for life.  It's MY team."

But history takes time.

Last edited by Max (1/09/2012 10:33 pm)

"I see the problem as having been DeWitt's ego, far more than one of money. DeWitt gambled against Pujols and lost the gamble, and then, rather than bargaining with humility he bargained with arrogance."

Except there are no facts to back up this hypothesis of yours. There's not even a hint of evidence. This is a scenario you've concocted in your mind to fit your image of the two principals involved.

"Pujols left for pride, not for money.  He earned that right."

So it's not OK for DeWitt to driven by his ego, but it's OK for Pujols to be driven by his? At the end of the day, Pujols went for more money than the Cardinals offered, after he said he already had made enough money and was all about winning championships and finishing his career in St. Louis. That's all we know. Everything else is speculation. Other than DeWitt described Pujols in terms like "iconic." I can see why Pujols was offended by a guy who was willing to spend ~$400 million on him over the course of two contracts and treat him reverentially. Whose ego wouldn't be bruised?

This isn't even close to an interesting argument.

Max wrote:

This isn't even close to an interesting argument.

Excellent exit strategy. Throw some far-fetched theory out there, repeat it until you believe it, but when someone else with an point of view based on factual information offers a counter-argument, call the whole thing a great big bore and cut and run.
Sounds like you're a birther. Are you auditioning for Donald Trump's press secretary when he becomes president?

artie_fufkin wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

Yes, I was right that he was not "all in" when he signed Holliday, that's proven Fors.

How can you prove what their opinion was?

He can't, AP. He's just interested in proving he's the smartest person in the room. Again. Talk about an argument that isn't interesting.
Look, I've love half-assed conspiracy theories. They're great fun. Half my day is spent figuring out how the NFL is going to screw the Raiders next. But I have to dabble in reality once in a while. George W. Bush didn't use Hurricane Katrina as a cover to blow up New Orleans because he doesn't like black people. Barack Obama isn't a Kenyan-born operative of an Islamic terror cell. Colonel Sanders didn't put a chemical in his fried chicken that made you subconsciously crave it at least every other week. And Bill DeWitt didn't drive Albert Pujols out of St. Louis because he couldn't compete with another ego. They make for talking points, but there's zero factual evidence to back them up.

rec

forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

Yes, I was right that he was not "all in" when he signed Holliday, that's proven Fors.

How can you prove what their opinion was?

It's simple AP, you look at how much money they spend, and if it doesn't live up to what Max thinks they're supposed to spend, Dewitt is a cheap egotistical prick.

Next off-season, the Cardinals could see Lohse ($12M), Westbrook ($8M) and Berkman ($12M) fall off their payroll.  The Cardinals could replace them with Cole Hamels ($16M??), Shelby Miller ($400K) and Evan Longoria ($6M) and Max would complain that Dewitt was pocketing $10M and not trying to win.

I have asked Max many times how he would spend money and on who.  He simply refuses to address that question stating that he isnt a GM.  Same old song and dance.

There are a few rumors out there.  Oswalt reportively has narrowed it down to the Cardinals or Red Soxs.  Then the Cardinals down-played the rumor.  I would be pretty happy with them adding him.  Also the Cardinals are on Ryan Mason's list of teams.  Both player for the right price would be a very good idea.  Something I think would be a good idea that hasnt been rumored is Kerry Wood.  The Cubs dont want him.  He settled for less to stay in the area last year.