forsberg_us wrote:

Apparently criticism of the system is verbotten

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/cardinal-beat/article_d0ca985c-daef-11df-bcbd-00127992bc8b.html

"Mason had made clear to Mozeliak his misgivings about the integrity of the player development pipeline, an opinion club sources believe made him vulnerable to Monday's move."

In Journalism 101, this is what's called "burying the lead." Ahhhh, the blissful life of a reporter in a 1-newspaper town.

Thia makes me mad.  Nobody ever said a bad thing about Mason.  He shouldnt have been fired just because he has the balls enough to speak out about an issue that the club is turning a blind eye to.  If that was part of the clubs problem in 2010 this move doesnt make 2011 any more promising.

tkihshbt wrote:

It'd be nice to know more details, but at some point, criticism of your employer goes too far.

Thats true but if the players are tight with him then it could dampen there already sour mood.  This feels like the Ludwick trade all over again.  I would say there are strong odds that Mason gets picked up by Walt and company.

He's apparently got a good rapport with the pitchers and is good with spotting mechanical problems. I agree that the sky isn't falling, though.

forsberg_us wrote:

On my way home last night, I heard an interview with Mozeliak.  His explanation for the move was that the organization felt it necessary to create an opening to reward someone in the minor leagues with a big league position.

I call bullshit.  As an employment law attorney, I've argued for some pretty bad terminations decisions, but I'm not sure that even I could stand up with a straight face and argue "we fired this coach to improve organizational morale by promoting someone from the minor leagues to a position in which they could be fired at any moment."

Sorry, this was nothing more than getting rid of someone who didn't drink the organizational koolaid.

Like you, I think that explanation is complete bullshit.  What's more is that it is a completely stupid cover story.  Assuming some of the players who really like Mason are more naive than you or I, Mason's replacement is going to come into the job with a large bulls-eye on the seat of his pants.  Every time he does something wrong, or is perceived to have done so, they'll be thinking "Marty wouldn't have done it that way," or "Marty would have known what to do."

And of course it does even more damage to the organization's credibility when the story is already out there that he had been critical of the organization.  Whether that story is valid or I not, and I strongly suspect it is, they should have acknowledged that he had some criticisms of the player-development program, down played it, and simply said that they felt they needed someone whose views were more in line with the organization.

artie_fufkin wrote:

He's the bullpen coach, people. I'd be surprised if the difference between winning and losing the division next year comes down to the absence of Marty Mason's ability to answer a telephone.

Do other teams fans even know who there bullpen coach is?  I dont mean that in the since that we are smarter but wondering why we know who Marty Mason is.  At the same time I think there is more to it.  Why do fans know that there is friction between the farm system and big club.  I dont here that from other clubs.


Does Ryan's "to hell with the Vets" come from out spoken people against like Mason for speaking out against Luhnow or young player sick of Miles and Winn getting roster spots?  I think this is an example of the issues that are tearing the team, clubhouse and TLR's leadership apart.

Last edited by APRTW (10/20/2010 12:23 am)

artie_fufkin wrote:

"I dont mean that in the since that we are smarter but wondering why we know who Marty Mason is."

Hrabosky tends ... or tended ... to mention him at least once per game.

If they were not talking about promoting from within I would guess Cal Eldred would get a call.

"The Marty thing was complicated"--La Russa.

Some could read it as a difference of opinion / power struggle between the La Russa faction and the Luhnow faction, wherein Luhnow got his wings clipped and Luhnow fired back by counting coup on the only one he could get at.  Very likely that would be a vast oversimplification, and a dangerously candid description.  La Russa has been given what he needs, but probably told that he and his staff must be company men, so La Russa succinctly described it as "complicated". 

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think this might get to the heart of it:

"On the persistent questions about organizational unity, specifically the relationship between the Cardinals' minor-league development and the club's major-league coaching staff: "I don't think we were ever very far from the Cardinal Way. It too ingrained. The Cardinals Way to play - it's real basic. We never got too far away from that. But there were some rough moments. I think Mo (GM John Mozeliak) has recognized that. ... It was a little confusing for awhile. It was never too confusing. The Cardinals are the Cardinals."

followed by:

"On the firing of bullpen coach Marty Mason: La Russa would not offer specifics on who pushed for the move, saying only that he knew the move was coming before he left the ballpark a few days after the end of the regular season. La Russa also confirmed that Mason was not told about his dismissal until Monday. "He was competent professionally," La Russa said about Mason. "It's very uncomfortable for me to go into (the meetings with minor-league coaches) and have the same staff. Stability is a great thing. (It can) stagnate the minor leagues. The Marty thing was complicated.""

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_e936bf2c-dbeb-11df-8f28-00127992bc8b.html

Duncan to a 2 year deal is great news.