1 of 1- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline - Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Larussa v. Rasmus
This was a pretty good conversation, and I didn't want to lose it since we were switching boards. This was Max's last post on the topic:
"This is an interesting take, and if true, it makes Rasmus more understandable, and even less likable: a guy who used office politics to get what he wanted.
So, Rasmus got drafted, decided he wanted to be CF and wasn't willing to wait patiently for the machine to juggle the pieces around until the round pegs were all in round holes.
Every where I've gone I've encountered people who scout out a position within an organization, and then set out to get it by any means available, and to the extent that I allow myself to h8 anything, I h8 those people."
I think everybody knows where I come down with respect to the parties involved. I've largely been a Larussa supporter, although I don't agree with everything he does.
My point in agreeing with the basic premise of Miklasz's article is that I think both parties share some blame. I personally believe that more of the blame lies with Rasmus, but Larussa isn't blame-free in this whole thing.
In response to your "wait patiently" argument, I would ask--until when? Of course Rasmus wants to be the center fielder. That's what he was drafted to be. Is that really a character flaw? What inappropriate means did Rasmus use to get that spot? Was he wrong to outperform Ankiel and Duncan during Spring Training 2008? Understand, I don't think Rasmus and his family handled it the right way after the decision was made, but I don't have a problem with his having been disappointed.
There is also some interesting history at work here. In 1996, after the Cardinals acquired Royce Clayton, Larussa made a comment to the effect of whoever had the better spring would play the most at SS. Ozzie Smith clearly had the better Spring, but basically divided time with Clayton. Did Larussa make a similar comment regarding Rasmus (i.e., did Larussa state that Rasmus could play his way onto the 2008 roster?) I don't know, but if such a statement was made, then I could understand Rasmus' frustration when the promise wasn't kept.
I also found it interesting that it was Pujols who spoke up. In 2001, after a phenomenal Spring, Pujols was scheduled to be sent back to Memphis in favor of Bobby Bonilla. It was only after Bonilla was injured that Pujols made the Opening Day Roster. I wonder how Pujols would have felt going back to the minors in 2001 if Bonilla hadn't been injured. Perhaps he'd have more empathy for Rasmus' situation if he had.
Also, everyone here acknowledges that Larussa has pets (Miles, Taguchi) and often provides them an inexplicable amount of playing time. Does anyone seriously dispute that Ankiel wasn't one of Larussa's pets? Ankiel was awful last season (.231/.285/.387). With the exception of injuries, do those numbers provide any justification for playing Ankiel over Rasmus? taking it a step further, how many at bats to Rasmus lose to Chris Duncan (.227/.329/.358)? I think you could make an argument that if there were any square pegs being put into round holes in 2009, they were named Ankiel and Duncan, not Rasmus.
This post is already way too long, so I'll close with one last point. Larussa was a utility infielder who shows a strong propensity to favor guys who remind him of himself. I suspect he doesn't tolerate young "bonus babies" who show up with a sense of entitlement--and I suspect Rasmus has quite a bit of that personality. But TK's right: Rasmus is the third best offensive player on this team BY A LARGE MARGIN. Jon Jay, So Taguchi and Aaron Miles may play the game the right way, but playing Rasmus almost every day would help them to win more games than sitting him in favor of Randy Winn. And that's where I place the blame on Larussa.
- Max
- Colby Rasmus
Offline
- From: Pacific Northwest
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 5,269
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
forsberg_us wrote:
What inappropriate means did Rasmus use to get that spot?
Going over the manager's head and asking the GM, directly, to be traded, is one. Having pissy moaning complaints find their way into the press that he was unhappy with his playing time was another. We don't know what all else went on, but we know that his potential competitors are not even with the organization anymore, and I include Ludwick in that group.
You and I agree on much. There's blame to go around, Rasmus was the best center fielder, etc. But if it took La Russa a little bit more time to make Rasmus the full-time center fielder than either Rasmus or a pile of fans wanted, I think that the deference is owed to the third winningest manager in MLB history, not Rasmus, and certainly not the fans.
The best thing for the Cardinals would be for everyone to get over this and for Rasmus to develop into a star center fielder playing for us. The worst thing would be for this to fester until Rasmus loses his trade value and becomes a gigantic Anthony Reyes, or perhaps a bit more realistically, becomes Jim Edmonds circa 1999, and we trade him for a Kent Bottenfield because he is perceived as a clubhouse problem. My faith in this organization's ability to repair damaged relationships with players is very low, so I am not optimistic about the former, even if I accept that it is preferable.
- Max
- Colby Rasmus
Offline
- From: Pacific Northwest
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 5,269
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
This was a pretty good conversation, and I didn't want to lose it since we were switching boards. This was Max's last post on the topic:
oh, and by the way, thanks for saving this thread. i agree, it was a good conversation.
- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
What inappropriate means did Rasmus use to get that spot?
Going over the manager's head and asking the GM, directly, to be traded, is one. Having pissy moaning complaints find their way into the press that he was unhappy with his playing time was another. We don't know what all else went on, but we know that his potential competitors are not even with the organization anymore, and I include Ludwick in that group.
I agree 100% that Rasmus shouldn't have gone to Mozeliak, but he was the center fielder long before that happened. And I think the press has been complaining about Rasmus' playing time long before anything became public.
As far as Rasmus' competitors, that would include Ankiel and to a lesser extent Duncan. You can't honestly say that the Cardinals are worse off without those guys. If anything, they made a mistake not trading Ankiel before 2009 when they could have obtained something of value (perhaps) and uncluttered the outfield a bit.
- •
Thread Starter- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
You and I agree on much. There's blame to go around, Rasmus was the best center fielder, etc. But if it took La Russa a little bit more time to make Rasmus the full-time center fielder than either Rasmus or a pile of fans wanted, I think that the deference is owed to the third winningest manager in MLB history, not Rasmus, and certainly not the fans.
Perhaps, but LaRussa's approach would have had Pujols starting 2001 in Memphis had it not been for Bonilla's injury.
And the 4th winningest manager would appear to disagree. Jason Heyward has started just about every game this season for the Braves. Despite a .237/.329/368 line against left handers, Heyward has almost as many at-bats this season against lefties as Rasmus does in his career.
I would have less of a problem with Larussa's approach if Rasmus was losing at bats to a decent right handed outfielder. But losing at bats to Randy Winn is a joke and losing them to Chris Duncan was nearly criminal.
One other thing I thought of that wasn't mentioned in the Miklasz article. Rather than worry about the Luhnow factor (which isn't correct, Jocketty drafted Rasmus, not Luhnow), what about the Duncan factor. Think about how LaRussa and Duncan reacted when Chris Duncan was traded. There were stories that they threatened to quit on the spot. If Chris Duncan was traded to make room for Rasmus to play more, how do you think that sits with Larussa and Duncan? And fatherly love aside, Chris Duncan couldn't carry Rasmus' bat bag.
- •
Thread Starter- APIAD
- Administrator
Offline
- From: Central IL
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 11,090
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
Rasmus main issues isnt his playing. That is coming alone fine and as expected. His issue is that he is a whiner and not a mans mans. More of a daddies boy. He doesnt have to win back the fans or justify playing time. He has to win his teammates trust. Not having that is reason enought to be traded at some point, IMO. It might hurt the teamin the short term but this has been the most talented team in several years on paper. We have seen less out of them then any team in the last 10 years. I blame character more then skill set. It does have value. My opinion has settled some and I think most peoples has over the last few days. The ball is in Rasmus court. I wont blame ownership if Rasmus pushes them into a trade. At some point they have to show who is boss and that on the field importance does mean you can be a roral pain. Or do we just want to start say "it is just Rasmus being Rasmus"?
- Max
- Colby Rasmus
Offline
- From: Pacific Northwest
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 5,269
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
Rather than worry about the Luhnow factor (which isn't correct, Jocketty drafted Rasmus, not Luhnow)
LMAO! So you mean Bernie got that wrong, too?!? And I took the bait!!! Fucking hilarious. Damn, that guy only stays in business because he generates press.
I look forward to Strauss and Hummel, but I have always treated Bernie's assertions with a bit of dispassionate skepticism, especially those that cannot be easily verified, like "Pujols made an erroneous assumption." Now I can't even believe those assertions that are easily verified!
- Max
- Colby Rasmus
Offline
- From: Pacific Northwest
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 5,269
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
Chris Duncan couldn't carry Rasmus' bat bag.
You and I could quibble all day about when Rasmus should have been given the full time job, when Ankiel/Duncan/whoever should have been traded, and when La Russa got it wrong. The bottom line is this is La Russa's team, and to the extent that it isn't, it belongs to Pujols, Carp, Molina, Wainwright, and Holliday, in some kind of descending order. Rasmus should have let his play do all the talking, and if he's dug himself a hole with his teammates now, he was the guy wit the shovel.
Here's one thing I learned on the job. As an employee you should never say: "The boss is an OK guy, but frankly, if he was doing his job even better he would have promoted me sooner than he did."
- Mags
- Ray Lankford
Offline
- From: Tora Bora West
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 1,441
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
I'm glad you guys brought this discussion over here. At the time I decided to put Yahoo!! in my rear view mirror I had just spent a considerable time trying to salvage a long post that I had written. And I had even followed Max's sound advice of copying the post before attempting to submit it.
Anyway, I went back one last time expecting to see one or more comments saying good riddance or "don't let your shirt tail hit your ass." And instead I found string of comments in which Fors, Albert, and Max had covered about 90% of what I had tried to post. In fact, at one point I got the idea that my post had made it after all and one of them was responding to it. Obviously I would have had a different take on many points since they're not in complete accord either.
For one thing, I don't agree with Fors and TK that Rasmus is by far the third best offensive player on the team. Frankly, with men on second and third or in a situation where you really need a hit, I'd rather have Molina or Wainwright at the plate, and especially Molina if the other team is bringing in their closer.
BTW, I'd have to defer to Fors, who not only lives in St. Louis but is also close to the team's inside goings on, but I don't think it was Ankiel and Rasmus who forced Duncan out of town. It seemed to me like it was the fans. Having watched him play in Memphis quite a bit and having seen some character flaws that should have been known throughout the organization, I thought the fans were too much in love with him when things were going well and too hard on him when he was hurt and struggling. Even though he looked awkward in the outfield, because he could use his speed he was much better there (when he hustled) than he was at first base where his footwork was so bad he couldn't even be counted on to catch a waist high throw.
Now I had another long post on leadership and Pujols that never made it and hasn't been so fully explored. I'll try to get back to it.
- APIAD
- Administrator
Offline
- From: Central IL
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 11,090
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
- KC_Card_Guy
- Roger Cedeno
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 49
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
Passan's an idiot most times with an axe to grind against STL but he does have one thing right. Forget about the LaRussa-Rasmus stuff. The priority is Pujols. I'm more concerned about the fact that Passan picked Garcia for ROY. That's the kiss of death as far as I'm concerned.
- JV
- Ray Lankford
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 1,429
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
Did you guys notice Passan's little "(over)managing" dig at TLR?
- butteminers
- Roger Cedeno
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 31
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
He does over manage Mags, especially on hot days.
- Max
- Colby Rasmus
Offline
- From: Pacific Northwest
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 5,269
Re: Larussa v. Rasmus
Passan's an idiot most times with an axe to grind against STL.
I would say that he's a smart enough guy that he knows he needs to grow his audience, and he panders to us at least as much, or more, than he grinds his axe on us. Either way, he's often obnoxious, but that doesn't much separate him from a lot of other stuff that is known by the oxymoronic rubric, "sports journalism."
Last edited by Max (9/11/2010 12:19 pm)