forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

If the Reds dont win the next game the NL central wont have won a playoff game in 4 years win the Cardinals won the WS.

Not that it makes it much better, but Milwaukee won a game in 2008.

From Associated Press:

"The Reds, making their first postseason appearance in 15 years, committed six errors in the last two games of the series after finishing second in the NL with a club-record .988 fielding percentage during the regular season.

"The NL’s top offense managed only 11 hits in three games—the fewest for a team in a postseason series, according to STATS LLC. The previous low was 13 by Texas against the New York Yankees in 1998."

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Max everyone agrees that payroll needs to increase to 120 and that ownership should have the money to do it.   . . . Of the 8 teams that spent over 100 million this year only 2 made the payoffs.  The phillies and yankees.  I think you should put more stress on ownership making good personal moves.

To the first part, not really.  Last off-season my recollection is that both TK and Fors were arguing against raising payroll.

To be accurate, my argument was against a need to increase payroll.  I'd still argue that going into the season, that need didn't exist.  Let's re-examine the roster coming into the season:

Starting Lineup

C- Molina
1B- Pujols
2B- Schumaker
SS- Ryan
3B- Freese
LF- Holliday
CF- Rasmus
RF- Ludwick

Both Schumaker and Ryan were coming off of good 2009 seasons.  The only real issue was Freese, but the club was clearly intent on giving him a chance to start at 3B and his minor league numbers in 2009 certainly seemed to justify that.  You can make a case for having a fall back plan in the event Freese failed (or as we now know, got injured) and I'll address that when I address the bench.

Bench (working from memory)

Lopez
Larue
Mather
Craig
Stavinoha

Larue was a done deal as the back up catcher, and Craig was the minor league player of the year in 2009.  Lopez was supposed to provide the veteran insurance for Freese, as well as providing the versatility to play other positions as well.  You can make an argument that there may have been others who ultimately produced better results (Tejada was a name you mentioned quite often), but it isn't like they gave the job to an unqualified rookie.  Most of us were OK with the Lopez signing, particularly at only 1 year and at a price that seemed reasonable.  Also, Lopez was a fit because he was willing to accept being a utility/bench player, something you never know if others are willing to do (Tejada ended up starting for Baltimore--we have no way of knowing if he would have ever considered riding the pine behind David Freese and Brendan Ryan). 

If you want to argue that they should have signed a veteran 4th/5th outfielder rather than go with Mather and/or Stavinoha, I really won't argue that point with you.  But you're not talking several millions of dollars, you're talking about another Lopez-like contract.

Starting Pitching

Carpenter
Wainwright
Penny
Lohse
Garcia

They spent money to sign Penny and in hindsight, that turned out to be a terrible mistake.  Again, you can argue that they should have signed a 6th starter in case of injury or poor performance, but that requires finding a player willing to accept that role.  We can all look at free agent lists and say "I wish they'd signed Player X," but we really have no way of knowing if that Player would have accepted the role the Cardinals had to offer (unless he accepted a similar role elsewhere).

Bullpen

Franklin
Motte
Hawksworth
McClellan
Boggs
Miller
Reyes

I know you would have preferred an established closer.  I would have as well.  Having said that, I don't remember there being much in the market.  Brandon Lyon isn't very good and signed a ridiculously huge deal.  Tampa struck gold by taking a gamble on Rafael Soriano and I think they had to trade to get him.  About the only name of note that I remember was Valverde and I seem to remember he wanted a HUGE amount of money before finally accepting a lesser deal from the Tigers.

As far as the others, the lefties were both guys the Cardinals signed as free agents.  The righties are all home grown.  The team may have benefitted from one more established set-up guy or from signing an established closer and re-inserting Franklin into the set-up role, but when you look at what a number of other successful franchises are doing, going with a bunch of cheap power arms from your own system isn't a horrible plan.

My point is this--when you look at the couple of changes that they could have made, perhaps they could have benefitted from spending an extra $3-4M.  Where I disagreed with you was that they needed to spend in the range of $110M this season.  There weren't those type of identifiable needs headed into this season.  Having the benefit of seeing how 2010 played out, we now know the needs are there.  We also now know that those needs cannot be filled internally.  So now it's time to open up dewallet.

In fairness to Max, I wasn't all together opposed to Lohse's contract when he signed it. I thought the money and years were a little steep, but up to that point he had pitched well and I hoped through my carmine-colored glasses he would continue to flourish in the NL with Duncan tutoring him. I knew he'd revert to the mean a bit from 2008, but I at least expected 30-35 starts and a reliable #4, best case #3 behind Carpenter and Wainwright. I didn't expect the second coming of Sid Ponson.

On a completely unrelated subject, did anyone see the play Alex Gonzalez just made? He's on the short list of the best defensive shortstops I've ever seen. He's probably behind Ozzie and Omar Vizquel, but not by much.

butteminers wrote:

The Cards did win some Central Division titles, but the the General Manager wasn't Mozeliak it was, surprise, the Reds General Manager Walt Jocketty.

Well, you have to give Moz some credit for last year's division title. I can't recall who posted the quote about Moz saying payroll has to increase. If that hadn't already been endorsed by his boss, he's - as my son would say - in biiiiig trouble.

forsberg_us wrote:

I'm not sure it matters with this regime.  I seem to remember statements about Ballpark Village.  In all fairness, they have at least removed the trailer from the site.

I'm really surprised that thing hasn't taken off. Kraft has built an entire city in Foxboro - which unlike BP Village is 20 miles past the middle of nowhere - and people show up. The entire enterprise is a friggin' cash cow for the guy, especially considering he got the state to take the land by eminent domain (forcing about 300 people out of their homes, which led to Kraft's Marie Antoinette comment about them *only* living in a trailer park). He probably makes more money off the rent he charges for space in that stupid mall than he does from his $7 cold hot dogs and $9 cups of warm beer.

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

I'm not sure it matters with this regime.  I seem to remember statements about Ballpark Village.  In all fairness, they have at least removed the trailer from the site.

I'm really surprised that thing hasn't taken off. Kraft has built an entire city in Foxboro - which unlike BP Village is 20 miles past the middle of nowhere - and people show up. The entire enterprise is a friggin' cash cow for the guy, especially considering he got the state to take the land by eminent domain (forcing about 300 people out of their homes, which led to Kraft's Marie Antoinette comment about them *only* living in a trailer park). He probably makes more money off the rent he charges for space in that stupid mall than he does from his $7 cold hot dogs and $9 cups of warm beer.

I think the whole Ballpark Village was a ruse to encourage the City to chip in tax dollars.  Once the City coffers went dry, I think the plans for BV went in the trash can.

DeWitt ought to build it anyway on his own dime. He'll still make a king's ransom. I went to Foxboro Stadium last December when my town's high school played in a state championship game, and the only other place I've seen people happier to part with their money is Disney World. The kids even talked me into escorting them into the Patriots Hall of Fame. They have this area set aside for highlights of the Snow Job. You stand in a tunnel watching Charles Woodson make Brady fumble, and little fake snowflakes waft down from the ceiling. By the time Walt Coleman got to the line in the script that started with "After further review ...," I told the boys to wrap it up because I was going to do something that would have required them to post bail.

tkihshbt wrote:

So they actually celebrate the Snow Job? Somehow that's not surprising.

Celebrate it?!? Without a hint of irony, that play is considered to be the defining moment in the history of the franchise. Shaughnessy even suggested putting a statue of Walt Coleman outside the new stadium, because he's the person most responsible for their self-described dynasty.
If you ever happen to meet anyone who claims to be a Patriots' fan, ask him who the head coach was before Belichick. 80 percent of them won't know, 15 percent of them will say "Pahhhhhcellz" and 5 percent will give you the right answer. Anyone who doesn't say "Pete Carroll," just poke them in the eye.
Half of those 5 percent will then try to justify the whole episode with what I call the "Bad rule; good call" argument. They go through all their gestures and flailings and tucking to try to convince me what Brady did was legal. My response, which always ends the conversation is, "OK, if that was a pass, who was the intended receiver?"
The other half, the real old-timers, will tell me that I ought to get over it because the Snow Job squared the account with the Raiders after the roughing-the-passer call on Ray Hamilton in the 1976 playoffs, which they bitched about for 26 years.

"I have a friend who fancies himself a Patriots fan and have done as you suggested -- he thought it was Parcells."

And you thought I was making that up. Did you poke your buddy in the eye, like I advised you?

APRTW wrote:

It really doesnt take much to get you to go on a tear about that subject.

No, it really doesn't. But remember, I'm amongst the den of thieves here, so I get reminded about it constantly. I didn't really have much for or against the New England Patriots prior to Jan. 19, 2002, but since then it's been like living next door to the guy who stole your wife.

Mags wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

it's been like living next door to the guy who stole your wife.

Or worse yet, living next door to the guy who let you steal his.

I could swipe Gisele from Brady. If for purely financial reasons.

APRTW wrote:

Related to payroll,  the Cardinals are number one in TV viewing.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/dan-caesar/article_5bda9b52-2f92-5462-9556-848f26d79650.html

Since I don't live in Joplin, I'm glad they're dumping KSDK. I probably got blacked out on a half-dozen Sunday games this season because EI didn't carry either the Cardinals' or their opponent's "free" provider.