We've been talking baseball a long time, Fors. To the point that I literally confuse Junior Spivey for Marlon Anderson.  So, I could be confused here, but my hunch is, no.  Even at the time of deck chairs, the "all in" argument was the money that was committed indicated they were "all in" (point of fact, they raised payroll substantially the very next year).  But, more to the point, even before Holliday, before Lohse, way back when the were selling urinals, the question was whether the money was there. period.  that's the way i remember it.

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

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

So when did you expect them to release Kennedy?  What is your arguement or do you not even have one?  Maybe you can change it midway through or tell me what you think you ment to say.  Are these arguements fun for you?  To me it is like watching a worm after a rain on the sidewalk.  The sun comes back out and dries the side walk out.  Soon the worm if baking in the sun with no place to go.  Next thing you know it is a dried shriveled up piece of leather.  Your arguements are the worm.

My argument is that the Cardinals don't eat Adam Kennedy sized contracts.

And your right because to do so would be stupid.  You must be agreeing with the front office.  They also dont eat Holliday size contracts or Craig sized contracts.  They are not going to just up and release Lynn after an all star year.  I high doubt they bulldoze over the new ballpark either.

Max there are other reasons beyond money that weigh against the kind of suggestion you're making. 

These players are human.  They aren't cards in a strat-o-matic game or players on your fantasy roster.  Adam Kennedy was someone who came up through the Cardinals system and had likely played with people on the roster.  He was drafted in 1997, probably by Jocketty and reached the majors in 1999 playing for Larussa.

So now he reaches free agency and sits down with his agent and the Cardinals front office and they reach an agreement on a 3 year contract.  I'll assume that Adam Kennedy didn't have enough leverage to get a no-trade clause, so he has no guarantee he'll stay in St. Louis for 3 years, but there's some expectation that might be the case.

So Kennedy reports to Spring Training.  In the meantime his marriage has hit the skids and his head is all out of whack.  Never mind that he'd hit .300 twice in the past 5 seasons, and never below .266 in a full season.  In your hypothetical, somehow the Cardinals become convinced based on mental state and the 50 or so at bats a veteran gets during Spring Training that Kennedy is done.

So your solution is to release Kennedy or bring in a different option.  As to the latter, by the time you reach the end of Spring Training there probably isn't much available, so that isn't an ideal option.  As to the former, assume you do that.  What free agent ever signs with your team in the future?  Undoubtedly Jocketty and Larussa sat down with Kennedy and his agent, talked about the revolving door at 2B from 2004 through 2006, sold him on the idea that for at least the next 3 years the job was his.  You're suggesting that the team could somehow cut ties and maintain its credibility around the league or with its own players for that matter?

If you believe this, look no further than what's going on in Miami.  By all accounts, baseball people have strongly suggested that Miami got good return on the trades they've made.  Does anyone seem to care?

I realize we're talking about one player, and that player happens to be Adam Kennedy.  But you can't treat players like a pez dispenser that you happen to have 5 others in the same style/color at home.

You bring in a player on a minor league deal, there's an understanding that player may never make the team.  You bring in Junior Spivey on a 1 year, $1M deal, there's some understanding that it's more of a "make good" deal.  You bring in an established starter on a 3 year deal and send him packing after Spring Training, you better be ready to overpay the next time you try to convince a free agent (or his agent) to sit down with you and discuss terms.

That's a cogent argument, one that did not surface before: Adam Kennedy is a human being, for the sake of the organization's ability to sign FAs, we need to give him a chance.  Thus, 2007 goes down the pooper.  Or, what better time to prove our loyalty to a FA than 2007, when our starting rotation was so bad we were destined for the pooper anyway? 

On the other hand, people skills go a long way: Adam, we know you're having some problems off the field, and with your on-field numbers being down, people in this business could make a link and think some awfully bad things about you if this keeps up.  We don't want that to happen to you.  Here's what we want to do.  We want to use the trade deadline to find a 2-month rental to add some punch at 2B until the end of the season.  That will take some pressure off of you, and maybe you'll find some roles to really help out.  Then by next offseason, the new guy will be off the book and you hopefully you'll have the rest of your life settled, and we'll get back to the starting point.  Let's make a win-win out of this, Adam.

Bottom line: When I see failings and faults, I am going to examine the top at least as thoroughly as a I examine the bottom.  It's not always the FO that is to blame, and players certainly are culpable.  But are we supposed to fault A-Ron Miles for being a lawn gnome, or the FO for hiring a lawn gnome to do a man's job?

"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."

Well, in that context it's kind of like buying a used car. You buy a Pinto for 600 bucks and it craps the bed after a month, you have someone tow it to the junkyard. You buy a Mustang for a couple thousand and it craps the bed, maybe you throw some money into repairs to see if you can salvage another year or two. But at some point you ultimately come to the realization that you're throwing good money into a bad car and cut your losses.
Kennedy may not have been a Mustang. Maybe he was more like a Galaxy. Reliable once, but not a lot of tread left on the tires. Anderson and Womack were Tauruses. Practical in their role, but certainly nothing sexy. Spivey was a Pinto. In a lousy color. Like lime green or piss yellow.

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

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

So when did you expect them to release Kennedy?  What is your arguement or do you not even have one?  Maybe you can change it midway through or tell me what you think you ment to say.  Are these arguements fun for you?  To me it is like watching a worm after a rain on the sidewalk.  The sun comes back out and dries the side walk out.  Soon the worm if baking in the sun with no place to go.  Next thing you know it is a dried shriveled up piece of leather.  Your arguements are the worm.

I think you are being a bit over the top AP.  This was what started it all: "This team does not eat Adam Kennedy sized mistakes."

"So when did you expect them to release Kennedy?"

Dunno, "How long did we keep trotting Junior Spivey out there after it was clear he wasn't what was needed?"

"Maybe you can change it midway through or tell me what you think you ment to say. "

I don't think I changed anything midway.  Midway I used the expression "from Day one", which is sort of the case with Spivey.  If you object to that as an exaggeration or figure of speech, I retract it.  But keep in mind that entered midway. 

So, at the end of the day, the Cards did eat a Junior Spivey sized mistake.  Some teams eat much larger mistakes.  There's a sliding scale and all teams are different, indeed, one could argue that each individual circumstance is unique, and there is some merit to that.  In 2007 the Cards trotted Adam Kennedy and K-I-P Wells a lot longer than I cared to watch them.  But perhaps one of the issues, AP, is that buried within my argument is the assertion that Kennedy (and Wells) were mistakes.  Bad signings.  Furthermore, those of us who have been here a long time know that I went through a mental switch after the Jocketty firing and prior to the Holliday signing, and I began to see the Cards FO more negatively, whereas prior to that I had been a huge supporter.  So I think that my arguments, whether it be about Pujols or Kennedy, run particularly foul of those who maintain strong support for the FO.

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

APIAD wrote:

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

She looks better in the photo on the right than what I've seen (albeit briefly) of her on Survivor.
But can you elaborate your comment? Are you saying she was hot then and she's still hot now, or she's gone from a 1-bagger to a 2-bagger?

Neither really, just that she doesn't look that different.  I guess I never put Blair Warner in the "hot" category.  Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have kicked her out of the sack, but that show always had sort of a weird vibe.  You sort of half expected to learn that their house was the site of regular lesbian trysts.  Come to think of it, if the show had gone with that angle, Blair would have been much hotter.

I guess all I was saying was that as someone who had watched the show, I think if I happened to encounter her on the street, I probably would have recognized her.  Considering its been something like 30 years since that show aired, there's something to be said for that.  I'm not sure I'd want to see what the rest of them look like these days.

Tootie:

http://www.fanpix.net/gallery/kim-fields-pictures.htm

Jo:

http://www.fanpix.net/picture-gallery/nancy-mckeon-picture-10244275.htm

Natalie:

http://www.fanpix.net/picture-gallery/mindy-cohn-picture-20413341.htm

I wasn't a Blair guy either. The first time I watched the show, I had just come back from ASU after dumping a chick partly because she had that southwestern accent and used to pronounce her 'e'  like an 'i' (like "pincil" instead of "pencil" or "Tixas" instead of "Texas") and it was like Blair was her driving me crazy with that accent all over again.
Jim Nantz does the same thing "The Bingals lead Dinver, 34-31 ..." and it still drives me nuts.

I also recall Kennedy groused about playing time and asked to be traded after the 2008 season. The Cardinals released him when they were unable to find a taker for a second baseman with an OPS under .700 who couldn't beat out Aaron Miles.

forsberg_us wrote:

You sort of half expected to learn that their house was the site of regular lesbian trysts.  Come to think of it, if the show had gone with that angle, Blair would have been much hotter.

rec.

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

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

So when did you expect them to release Kennedy?  What is your arguement or do you not even have one?  Maybe you can change it midway through or tell me what you think you ment to say.  Are these arguements fun for you?  To me it is like watching a worm after a rain on the sidewalk.  The sun comes back out and dries the side walk out.  Soon the worm if baking in the sun with no place to go.  Next thing you know it is a dried shriveled up piece of leather.  Your arguements are the worm.

I think you are being a bit over the top AP.  This was what started it all: "This team does not eat Adam Kennedy sized mistakes."

"So when did you expect them to release Kennedy?"

Dunno, "How long did we keep trotting Junior Spivey out there after it was clear he wasn't what was needed?"

"Maybe you can change it midway through or tell me what you think you ment to say. "

I don't think I changed anything midway.  Midway I used the expression "from Day one", which is sort of the case with Spivey.  If you object to that as an exaggeration or figure of speech, I retract it.  But keep in mind that entered midway. 

So, at the end of the day, the Cards did eat a Junior Spivey sized mistake.  Some teams eat much larger mistakes.  There's a sliding scale and all teams are different, indeed, one could argue that each individual circumstance is unique, and there is some merit to that.  In 2007 the Cards trotted Adam Kennedy and K-I-P Wells a lot longer than I cared to watch them.  But perhaps one of the issues, AP, is that buried within my argument is the assertion that Kennedy (and Wells) were mistakes.  Bad signings.  Furthermore, those of us who have been here a long time know that I went through a mental switch after the Jocketty firing and prior to the Holliday signing, and I began to see the Cards FO more negatively, whereas prior to that I had been a huge supporter.  So I think that my arguments, whether it be about Pujols or Kennedy, run particularly foul of those who maintain strong support for the FO.

Kennedy was a 3 year contract and Spivey was a one year contract.  The Cardinals were invested in Kennedy deeper and needed to find out if it was just going to be one bad year.  Year two was better.  By then the fan base had turned on him and I believe it was a strong finish that made his numbers respectible.  Still if he wouldnt have had a bad year one and showed up to winter warmup he would have been there for his third year.  Hell if TLR didnt have his stroke he would have been there for a third year.  He went on to have a fine 2009.  The Cardinals likely would have been better off keeping him if he could have produced like that in STL.  It would have been better then Skip costing them a run a game.  The signing of Kennedy wasnt a mistake.  Most people were happy because he was supposed to be better then crap we had been seeing.  It wasnt like he was being a horrible person off the field.  He was having women issues.  Hell everyone has those.  It is funny you make this arguement using the one guy the Cardinals did indeed eat.  well it hasnt even been just one.  For stated several player they ate.  I also think they had to eat the final year of Spizio's contract.

artie_fufkin wrote:

My recollection was the "all in" comment was said when they acquired Holliday, not when they signed him to his current deal.

that was one of our comments, and i don't recall for sure.  i thought it was with the signing.  the deck chairs was my argument and it definitely came after the signing, in response to people making the argument that the club was making some impressive new commitment of funds. 

the dry powder and low hanging fruit both came before that season, i think.