APIAD wrote:

I add would add Jeff Kent, Craig Biggio and Ryan Sandberg to the list.  I guess it depends on your idea of truely great.

Yeah, I suppose. Biggio played catcher and outfield as well as second base. I forgot about Kent. He drove in a shitload of runs.

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

Of course not "immediately", that's called a "straw man" when someone unfairly characterizes another person's argument for the purposes of ridiculing it; refer to the SEC echo chamber discussion for an example of me doing that to Fors' argument about why Obama won.

But the Cardinals 2B offers excellent examples of cutting bait quickly.  Marlon Anderson got 253 ABs in 2004, Tony Womack was brought in last minute and got 553 ABs.

Max wrote:

Corrected on that.  But my original intent was, indeed, to contrast the fact that they ate the Junior Spivey deal from day one and they didn't with Adam Kennedy.  Thus, this team does not eat Adam Kennedy sized contracts..

You'll have to forgive Max.  He doesn't mean what he writes.

APIAD wrote:

I add would add Jeff Kent, Craig Biggio and Ryan Sandberg to the list.  I guess it depends on your idea of truely great.

I was going to mention Kent, too, but wasn't he 'roiding?  at least during his big power years?

Biggio is a good call.

We are revisiting an argument we had in 2007, when I asserted that the team did not eat Adam Kennedy sized contracts (3-year, $10 million?), and I was contrasting that to some big payroll teams, like the Red Sox (and even the Cubs), who were pretty quick to spend more when they felt they'd had the mistake.  Whether the Cards should, or should not have gone that route, and found someone to start in front of Kennedy early in the 2007 season is a debate that can go around and around.  What has changed, however, since then, is that I was among a group who claimed the team had the money but that DeWitt was being too frugal.  Opposed to us were many who claimed the money simply wasn't there.  In the 5-6 years since then, I think the evidence has fallen clearly on the side of those of us who argued that the money was, indeed, there.  Again, whether a player was available and whether they should have spent that money, those are all still debatable.  But the debate as to whether the money was there or not, I think has been settled.

Perhaps there is an issue within the Cards FO that they do not feel comfortable admitting to an Adam Kennedy sized mistake by hiring his replacement before having him make an ass of himself on and off the field?

forsberg_us wrote:

"Basicly Kennedy was released because of a his crying and not producing two year prior to being cut."

That, and if I remember correctly, Kennedy blew off Winter Warm-up the off-season he was released.  That's a big deal to the team unless there's a pretty good reason to miss.

Hasnt Molina missed the last two for "family reasons"?  I forgot about Kennedy missing warmups tho.  The fan base turned on him.  He wasnt a TLR favorite.  Missing the warmup kind for broke the camels back.

Max wrote:

We are revisiting an argument we had in 2007, when I asserted that the team did not eat Adam Kennedy sized contracts (3-year, $10 million?), and I was contrasting that to some big payroll teams, like the Red Sox (and even the Cubs), who were pretty quick to spend more when they felt they'd had the mistake.

How has that worked for the two teams you mentioned?

APIAD wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

"Basicly Kennedy was released because of a his crying and not producing two year prior to being cut."

That, and if I remember correctly, Kennedy blew off Winter Warm-up the off-season he was released.  That's a big deal to the team unless there's a pretty good reason to miss.

Hasnt Molina missed the last two for "family reasons"?  I forgot about Kennedy missing warmups tho.  The fan base turned on him.  He wasnt a TLR favorite.  Missing the warmup kind for broke the camels back.

Molina definitely missed last year's because a lot of people thought it was in response to Pujols not being re-signed and an indication that Molina already had one foot out the door.  Not sure about the year before.

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

We are revisiting an argument we had in 2007, when I asserted that the team did not eat Adam Kennedy sized contracts (3-year, $10 million?), and I was contrasting that to some big payroll teams, like the Red Sox (and even the Cubs), who were pretty quick to spend more when they felt they'd had the mistake.

How has that worked for the two teams you mentioned?

As I said, the argument about what do with money available could go on and on.  The argument about whether the money was there at all should now be fairly clearly resolved on the side that it was.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

It depends one what you mean by day one.  I was probably using it as a figure of speech.  But it is accurate, in this case, if day one means opening day.  My recollection is that both Anderson and Spivey were signed in the offseason, and before Spring training was done, the team had already signed their replacement.  So, from day one (of the regular season) the team had already looked for a fix.

Anderson was signed in the 03-04 off-season to provide a veteran alternative to the illustrious Bo Hart who had finished the 2003 season as the starting second baseman.  Anderson wasn't the "starter" when they traded for Womack.  Anderson was signed to a 1 year, $600K deal.

If I recall, Spivey was given 1 year, $1M. with the hopes he would be the starter.  The team didn't sign a replacement.  AAAron Miles was the opening day second baseman and was on the team before Spivey.

Sounds like we're saying the same thing, Fors.

Anderson $600k/1.
     -Fuck it, Womack is available.  Let's try him.  We'll find a support role for Anderson

Spivey $1M/1
     -Are you fucking kidding me?  A lawn gnome would be better!  Send Jr. to the minors.

Kennedy $10M/3
     -Well, he ain't great but . . . meh, let's see if this Kennedy kid improves. 

Thus, this team does not eat Adam Kennedy sized contracts.

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

We are revisiting an argument we had in 2007, when I asserted that the team did not eat Adam Kennedy sized contracts (3-year, $10 million?), and I was contrasting that to some big payroll teams, like the Red Sox (and even the Cubs), who were pretty quick to spend more when they felt they'd had the mistake.

How has that worked for the two teams you mentioned?

As I said, the argument about what do with money available could go on and on.  The argument about whether the money was there at all should now be fairly clearly resolved on the side that it was.

Maybe it happened, but I don't remember anyone ever saying the Cardinals didn't have money available.  I remember a lot of discussion about all in, deck chairs and where would it be spent.

We've all known from the opening of the new ballpark that one of the Cardinals expenses was fast-tracking payment of the ballpark.  That's something they chose to do, not something they had to do.  The $30M or so they've been spending toward the stadium debt has always been there and has always been "available" to spend.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Me and the wife still watch survivor"

Is the chick from the Facts of Life still hanging around? She's not much to look at now, but back in the day she could bring some serious heat.

Yeah she is.  Jeff Kent was the only person I liked.  He seemed normalish.

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Me and the wife still watch survivor"

Is the chick from the Facts of Life still hanging around? She's not much to look at now, but back in the day she could bring some serious heat.

Yeah she is.  Jeff Kent was the only person I liked.  He seemed normalish.

Honestly, I don't think she's changed all that much. 

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoS05RKVQCBsA6zqJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3F_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va%3Dlisa%2Bwhelchel%26fr%3Dyfp-t-701%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D31&w=600&h=450&imgurl=img2-3.timeinc.net%2Fpeople%2Fi%2F2012%2Fnews%2F120903%2FLisa-Whelchel-600.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.people.com%2Fpeople%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2C20622670%2C00.html&size=87+KB&name=Remember+Blair+Warner%2C+the+spoiled+rich+girl+on+the+80s+sitcom+The+Facts+of+Life%3F+Prepare+to+see+her&p=lisa+whelchel&oid=e86f46ed121dbfd4bc18b7d012f03252&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-701&tt=Remember%2BBlair%2BWarner%252C%2Bthe%2Bspoiled%2Brich%2Bgirl%2Bon%2Bthe%2B80s%2Bsitcom%2BThe%2BFacts%2Bof%2BLife%253F%2BPrepare%2Bto%2Bsee%2Bher&b=0&ni=21&no=31&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11of6qn6l&sigb=13c5b8gm6&sigi=12272i33p&.crumb=q8tvDyMH.YF

That's what I recall.  But I don't recall it ever being a "they don't have the money" as opposed to "where would you have spent the money"  I remember specifically asking you the latter question on several occasions.