APIAD wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

"there was a time when wearing the Birds on the Bat meant you had to conduct yourself with a certain amount of class and character."

That tends to be an expectation of how the player conducts himself while employed by the Cardinals.  I have a difficult time holding it against a player how he behaved elsewhere.  Jim Edmonds was supposed to be a major malcontent when he was with the Angels.  There were few players more popular that Edmonds during his tenure.  And there may not have been any player more despised by Cardinals fans than Will Clark when he played with the Giants, but his 2 months with the Cardinals made a lot of people forget how much they hated him.

Chris Carpenter wasn't exactly a peach when he was on the mound.  Maybe he didn't yell at all of his teammates, but I suspect he doesn't receive Christmas cards from Brendan Ryan.

 

Spezio comes to mind.  Lopez?  Did he best his wife or am i thinking of another middle infielder.  Tlr got a dui.  Long have the cardinals been accused of promoting players with ped histories....peralta.  it is hard to find a group of 25 men who dont have baggage.  If u do it is one damn boring group.

The incident I recall with Carpenter and Ryan involved Carpenter talking to Ryan in the dugout runway. That's a lot different than yelling at a guy on the field.
But I digress. You're correct that the perception is often different from reality. The hero of the 1926 World Series was an alcoholic who spent the first seven innings of Game 7 sleeping off a hangover in the bullpen. The hero of the 1946 World Series was a racist, at least by today's standards and maybe even back in his day.
And I never bought into the revisionism of Will Clark, though. I still think the Cardinals' uniform made him look fat.
 

Last edited by artie_fufkin (8/02/2014 10:23 am)

don.rob11 wrote:

I vaguely remember something of the Carpenter ,Ryan incident . Seems that Cardinals had taken the field and Ryan was not out there ,(looking for his glove ? Something else ) and you could see Carpenter was clearly irritated by it . I'm pretty sure Ryan knew he was gonna catch hell in between innings ........

 

That's my recollection, too.
In spite of what Horton and Hrabosky would have us believe, I thought Masterson was lousy tonight, and a poor outing was ameliorated by Lohse being lousier. I understand this is his first major league start since coming off the DL, but I didn't see anyone riding in on a white horse tonight. I hope Lackey is better tomorrow.

Artie, just curious. Why didn't Craig play last night?  Not trying to start anything, just a legit question I couldn't find an answer to.

tkihshbt wrote:

I have to think he's going to be in a platoon situation with Daniel Nava.

Interestingly, Craig played LF on Friday.

JV wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

I have to think he's going to be in a platoon situation with Daniel Nava.

Interestingly, Craig played LF on Friday.

Cespedes hadn't arrived from Oakland in time to play Friday, and he played left on Saturday, but from what I've read the plan was to play Craig in left and Cespedes in right. I don't know why Craig hasn't played the last two games, but I didn't watch either one of them.
One of the wiser beat writers from the Globe said his sources within the organization have told him the trade is all about Kelly, and the key component of the deal was the Red Sox' willingness to take on Craig's contract if they wanted Kelly.
That runs against the conventional wisdom on the national level that Craig was the centerpiece of the trade and Kelly was a throw-in.
In either event, Kelly pitches against Miller, I believe on Wednesday. They were apparently the best man at each other's wedding.
 

Last edited by artie_fufkin (8/03/2014 9:58 pm)

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Yahoo marked us a trade loser, and basically called us crazy for the Lackey deal."

I wouldn't necessairly pay too much attention to that particular article, Alz. It was written by Passan. He's a former Royals' beat writer who loves to antagonize Cardinals' fans. He crucified Moz for trading Rasmus in 2011. I suspect if the Cardinals had traded Tony Cruz for Clayton Kershaw, he still would graded them losers just to get a reaction.
The bottom line for me here is the A's gave up less for Lester than the Cardinals gave up for Lackey, and Lester is a much better pitcher. The difference is Lester is going to be a FA at the end of the season and Lackey has an option for $500,000, but Lackey has said he's not going to pitch next year for $500,000. Not just once off-handedly, but consistently and adamantly. If Moz was able to talk him off the stance, then he's miscast as a baseball general manager and should be moderating the cease fire talks between Israel and Hamas.
Based on the Oakland trade, the Cardinals could have gotten Lester and a decent hitter for Kelly and Craig. And as much as their fans want to believe it, the assumption that Lester is going to sign with the Red Sox at the end of the season is unconvincing. I don't think Lester was as happy in Boston as everyone made him out to be. He seems more of a St. Louis guy than a Boston guy, and Moz would have had two months to make a very good pitch to re-sign him.

Dont you think on some level prospects have a higher worth then mlb ready players.  If lackey was who the cardinals wanted i doubt they had to trade off the active roster. The system is good enough there are pieces there to offer.