Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
"The plan would be to play Berkman in left field and shift Holliday to right."
Is the plan also to use a short fielder, like they do in slow pitch softtball?
I have to believe the Berkman thing is nothing more than Larussa being Larussa. Remember a few years back Larussa met with Bonds at the winter meetings. Management quickly stepped in and announced that the team had no interest in Bonds and that was the end of it. I can't imagine the front office would seriously consider signing Berkman. As everyone has aptly noted, he doesn't have a defensive position and, if the front office were willing to pay that kind of money for an outfielder, they could have simply held onto Ludwick.
Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
"Hummel also mentioned, which I had not yet heard, that Tejada signed with the Giants."
Good. I hope they play him at shortstop.
Can you imagine an infield with Tejada at short and Sandoval at third? Ugh.
Offline
"BTW- 5 stars for the Fat Elvis line."
Please. That's hardly original. That's why he came up with "Big Puma," because he didn't want to be called Fat Elvis.
Offline
"Remember a few years back Larussa met with Bonds at the winter meetings. Management quickly stepped in and announced that the team had no interest in Bonds and that was the end of it."
I'm not even sure if it got that far. I think La Russa just happened to see Bonds' agent in Shula's steak house. And then we all started wondering what La Russa would be doing in a steak house.
Offline
forsberg_us wrote:
artie_fufkin wrote:
"Hummel also mentioned, which I had not yet heard, that Tejada signed with the Giants."
Good. I hope they play him at shortstop.Can you imagine an infield with Tejada at short and Sandoval at third? Ugh.
The Giants will have to cover the left side of their infield with a layer of mustard.
Offline
forsberg_us wrote:
Can you imagine an infield with Tejada at short and Sandoval at third? Ugh.
They would be better off putting two parking cones out there and telling the other team that they are out if they hit them.
Offline
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Phillies will be moving Ryan Howard to center to make room for Pujols once the Berkman contract is complete.
Offline
APRTW wrote:
forsberg_us wrote:
Can you imagine an infield with Tejada at short and Sandoval at third? Ugh.
They would be better off putting two parking cones out there and telling the other team that they are out if they hit them.
See, now that's funny. And original. Five smiley faces or whatever.
Offline
APRTW wrote:
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Phillies will be moving Ryan Howard to center to make room for Pujols once the Berkman contract is complete.
Can you imagine how many home runs Pujols would hit if he played 82 games a season in that band box?
Offline
forsberg_us wrote:
[T]hey'll want a veteran backup who can play third when Freese gets hurt. Miles isn't that guy. If so, he'd have been there last season.
It didn't keep him from playing short.
Come to think of it, I guess that proves your point. If they were willing to play miles at short but not third, he's clearly not in the picture for third next year.
Offline
FYI: The Tejada story is now on the wire, 1 year $6.5 million. That's real money, so we were out of contention for that.
It is looking like we will westbrook, pujols resigned, and a bunch of flotsam and jetsam that can be had for nickels and dimes. I don't see how the team will be significantly improved over last year with everyone a year older and westbrook for 6 months instead of 2.
Offline
forsberg_us wrote:
Max wrote:
artie_fufkin wrote:
Ryan must be an incredible prick.
In my experience, or rather, this is something that happened to . . . er, a friend of mine, the employee doesn't have to be an incredible prick to get the heave ho, he merely has to clash with an anal retentive control-freak boss. And if we are talking about 99% of all boss's who have survived in their position for any length of time, then the adjectives I used in front of "boss" are redundant.
I was listening to an interview this morning with Rick Hummel who I think generally has a pretty good sense of what's going on in Cardinal-land and who tends to be the most objective of the Post-Dispatch reporters who follow the team. The guy doing the interview asked if the team's desire to be rid of Ryan was a simple matter of his having gotten off on the wrong foot with Larussa. Hummel's take was that the issue ran much deeper than that and that Ryan had also lost a great deal of standing with the veterans. Hummel cited the clash with Carpenter as an example. Hummel then noted that Carpenter has been quoted in the past as saying that Ryan was the best defensive shortstop who he had ever played with, but then followed it up with a statement to the effect that it signified how deep Ryan's issues with his teammates were that he had fallen out of favor with a pitcher like Carpenter, who relies so heavily on his defense.
Hummel said that assuming Ryan has any value, he'll be moved during the Winter meetings.
Hummel also mentioned, which I had not yet heard, that Tejada signed with the Giants. One less veteran infielder for the Cardinals to choose from.
This whole Ryan thing is bound to be spun, and many people will realize that they can curry favor with La Russa if they tell some story of deep-seated problems with Ryan and some key players. So far we have heard Carpenter's on-field outburst spun into evidence of deep-seated problems and we have heard it alleged that Ryan's arrogance infected Rasmus. Frankly, I don't feel I am in a position to form an opinion as to whether this was mostly a conflict between manager and player, or whether the guy is a bona fide troublemaker. Whatever it is, it's a damned shame, because I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this guy goes on to become a repeat GG and all-star.
Offline
And for what it's worth, I am confused by print journalism; what does it mean to have an article titled: "Round Two: A Water-Cooler Discussion of Today's Hot Sport Topic with Roger Hensley", featuring comments by Derrick Gould, Joe Strauss, Bryan Burwell, Jeff Gordon, and Bernie Miklasz, with a Reid Laymance byline???
Offline
Max wrote:
forsberg_us wrote:
Max wrote:
In my experience, or rather, this is something that happened to . . . er, a friend of mine, the employee doesn't have to be an incredible prick to get the heave ho, he merely has to clash with an anal retentive control-freak boss. And if we are talking about 99% of all boss's who have survived in their position for any length of time, then the adjectives I used in front of "boss" are redundant.I was listening to an interview this morning with Rick Hummel who I think generally has a pretty good sense of what's going on in Cardinal-land and who tends to be the most objective of the Post-Dispatch reporters who follow the team. The guy doing the interview asked if the team's desire to be rid of Ryan was a simple matter of his having gotten off on the wrong foot with Larussa. Hummel's take was that the issue ran much deeper than that and that Ryan had also lost a great deal of standing with the veterans. Hummel cited the clash with Carpenter as an example. Hummel then noted that Carpenter has been quoted in the past as saying that Ryan was the best defensive shortstop who he had ever played with, but then followed it up with a statement to the effect that it signified how deep Ryan's issues with his teammates were that he had fallen out of favor with a pitcher like Carpenter, who relies so heavily on his defense.
Hummel said that assuming Ryan has any value, he'll be moved during the Winter meetings.
Hummel also mentioned, which I had not yet heard, that Tejada signed with the Giants. One less veteran infielder for the Cardinals to choose from.This whole Ryan thing is bound to be spun, and many people will realize that they can curry favor with La Russa if they tell some story of deep-seated problems with Ryan and some key players. So far we have heard Carpenter's on-field outburst spun into evidence of deep-seated problems and we have heard it alleged that Ryan's arrogance infected Rasmus. Frankly, I don't feel I am in a position to form an opinion as to whether this was mostly a conflict between manager and player, or whether the guy is a bona fide troublemaker. Whatever it is, it's a damned shame, because I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this guy goes on to become a repeat GG and all-star.
I would. Ryan's defense is very good, maybe the best in the NL, but his offense remains a major liability. So long as shortstops like Hanley Ramirez, Jimmy Rollins and Tulowitzki remain in the NL, Ryan will never see an All-Star game without a ticket. And since offense and reputation have a lot more to do with winning a Gold Glove than actual fielding ability, Ryan's limited in that area also.
I have to admit Max, I do find one aspect of your Brendan Ryan loyalty pretty ironic. You predict future stardom for a 29 year old player with a .259 career ML average and a .264 career average above Class A in the minors, but you're fairly certain that 26 year old outfielder who hit .300 in his first crack at the majors and whose career AA/AAA average is .294 is destined to a lifetime of hitting .240.
I will say this--I hope there's at least 1 general manager who shares your opinion of Ryan's abilities. If so, the Cardinals should get quite a return when they trade him next week.
BTW--just curious--if it's true, is it still spin?
Offline
forsberg_us wrote:
Max wrote:
forsberg_us wrote:
I was listening to an interview this morning with Rick Hummel who I think generally has a pretty good sense of what's going on in Cardinal-land and who tends to be the most objective of the Post-Dispatch reporters who follow the team. The guy doing the interview asked if the team's desire to be rid of Ryan was a simple matter of his having gotten off on the wrong foot with Larussa. Hummel's take was that the issue ran much deeper than that and that Ryan had also lost a great deal of standing with the veterans. Hummel cited the clash with Carpenter as an example. Hummel then noted that Carpenter has been quoted in the past as saying that Ryan was the best defensive shortstop who he had ever played with, but then followed it up with a statement to the effect that it signified how deep Ryan's issues with his teammates were that he had fallen out of favor with a pitcher like Carpenter, who relies so heavily on his defense.
Hummel said that assuming Ryan has any value, he'll be moved during the Winter meetings.
Hummel also mentioned, which I had not yet heard, that Tejada signed with the Giants. One less veteran infielder for the Cardinals to choose from.This whole Ryan thing is bound to be spun, and many people will realize that they can curry favor with La Russa if they tell some story of deep-seated problems with Ryan and some key players. So far we have heard Carpenter's on-field outburst spun into evidence of deep-seated problems and we have heard it alleged that Ryan's arrogance infected Rasmus. Frankly, I don't feel I am in a position to form an opinion as to whether this was mostly a conflict between manager and player, or whether the guy is a bona fide troublemaker. Whatever it is, it's a damned shame, because I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this guy goes on to become a repeat GG and all-star.
I would. Ryan's defense is very good, maybe the best in the NL, but his offense remains a major liability. So long as shortstops like Hanley Ramirez, Jimmy Rollins and Tulowitzki remain in the NL, Ryan will never see an All-Star game without a ticket. And since offense and reputation have a lot more to do with winning a Gold Glove than actual fielding ability, Ryan's limited in that area also.
I have to admit Max, I do find one aspect of your Brendan Ryan loyalty pretty ironic. You predict future stardom for a 29 year old player with a .259 career ML average and a .264 career average above Class A in the minors, but you're fairly certain that 26 year old outfielder who hit .300 in his first crack at the majors and whose career AA/AAA average is .294 is destined to a lifetime of hitting .240.
I will say this--I hope there's at least 1 general manager who shares your opinion of Ryan's abilities. If so, the Cardinals should get quite a return when they trade him next week.
BTW--just curious--if it's true, is it still spin?
Does Obama's birth certificate prove he was born in the USA? The truth can be spun many ways.
We will just have to see what happens to Ryan. My thought is that I will not be surprised if he wins GG's and maybe even gets to an allstar game or two. Niether would I be surprised if he fizzles and goes away.
I am a big Jon Jay supporter, or was, at least. Check the board. I was trumpeting his put out from CF and his potential from . . . May? perhaps. His offensive surge, followed by collapse has the look and feel of a guy who was figured out by MLB pitchers. I won't be surprised if he fizzles next year, although I hope he does not. But even if he doesn't, he seems to project sort of like a young skip schumaker with, possibly, a weaker arm. Very useful, but not an impact player, seems to be his ceiling.
The difference between Ryan and Jay (or Schumaker, for that matter) is that Ryan excels at one thing, with 'excel' in this case meaning, 'the best in the league'. That's really something, especially for a key defensive position on a team that is built around groundball pitchers. With Ryan at SS, you could almost think about putting Berkman in LF, because Ryan's range into shallow left is simply amazing.
Anyway, I don't seem to be at the lonely end of the bar in several recent opinions, and I think Moz is taking some hits, and justifiably so. I hope he pulls off miracles, and fields a great team for us next season, but it doesn't seem to be going that way. The worst part is that it seems like the other guys are getting the better of him in his trades, and we are just giving away pieces for the right to exclusive negotiation.
Offline
I like Ryan. I'm not sure he'll ever be an all-star, but I'd certainly take what he gave the Cardinals in 2009. My main issue is I don't understand why you would keep Miles instead of him, unless his personality is that much of a distraction.
Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
I like Ryan.
I'm don't. He makes some super plays and he doesn't make a whole lot of errors. But it seems they often come at exactly the wrong time. The operative word is "seems." I haven't tried to keep a journal and my memory no longer functions in specifics, if it ever did.
But the thing that really turns me off is his silliness. Your shortstop and second baseman ought to be guys who keep their heads in the game all the team and don't create distractions for others. I was really surprised when fors pointed out that he was 29. I knew he had been around for quite some time but had assumed he was no more than 26.
Offline
Bernie makes a subtle dig at the Theriot move, and the argument that he brings much of anything that Ryan doesn't already do better. I interpret this to mean that St. Louis sports journalists will be increasingly critical of roster moves that flop:
Offline
forsberg_us wrote:
I would. Ryan's defense is very good, maybe the best in the NL, but his offense remains a major liability. So long as shortstops like Hanley Ramirez, Jimmy Rollins and Tulowitzki remain in the NL, Ryan will never see an All-Star game without a ticket. And since offense and reputation have a lot more to do with winning a Gold Glove than actual fielding ability, Ryan's limited in that area also.
How does Theriot play into this as an improvement?
Offline
APRTW wrote:
forsberg_us wrote:
I would. Ryan's defense is very good, maybe the best in the NL, but his offense remains a major liability. So long as shortstops like Hanley Ramirez, Jimmy Rollins and Tulowitzki remain in the NL, Ryan will never see an All-Star game without a ticket. And since offense and reputation have a lot more to do with winning a Gold Glove than actual fielding ability, Ryan's limited in that area also.
How does Theriot play into this as an improvement?
Theriot is an offensive upgrade. His career OBP is .348. That's a lot better than you can expect from Ryan. I don't know of anyway to calculate whether it's enough of an upgrade to offset the loss of defense so it's difficult to argue that the move is an on-the-field improvement.
The reason for the move is pretty obvious--Ryan had to go. His clubhouse behavior had made it such that he was a liability. In that sense it's addition by subtraction. Last year's team was inexplicably unfocused. There were more mental errors than any Larussa team I remember. That's a focus issue and I'd argue that goes to off-field issues. Not all of it can be dumped on Ryan. Lopez was such a problem that they sent him packing before the season ended. Rasmus clearly has "daddy issues" but enough talent that the plusses override the minusses. Ryan doesn't have anywhere enough talent to be a clubhouse problem. He's a one-dimensional player whose one-dimension diminishes when he's struggling at the plate.
I mentioned it earlier as a joke, but really the best example I can give you is Randy Moss. Moss has always been a headache, but you tolerated him when he was the most talented receiver in the NFL. Now he's just a headache and the two teams who parted ways with him have both been better since his departure. That's not a coincidence. Milton Bradley would be another example. There are just some players you are better off without. Ryan may be one of them.
Last edited by forsberg_us (12/02/2010 9:58 am)
Offline
Max I wanted to respond to your post about it being better to excel in one thing to be be mediocre in several. To that I would say "not necessarily, especially in 2010. The days of a "no-hit, all defense" player, even at short, are long gone. Mark Belanger made a career of it, but he'd be lucky to find a job in today's game.
In contrast, David Eckstein doesn't "excel" in anything. But he was a pretty good player. Skip, in his decent years, is comparable to Eckstein.
I don't see Jay as an impact player, but I do see him as a 4th outfielder who can play all of the positions. While he only costs $400K, that has value.
Brendan Ryan is comparable to Cesar Izturis. His defensive skills will keep him around, and he might even start for a mediocre/bad team. But we wouldn't have tolerated Cesar Izturis if he hadbeen a clubhouse problem, so why should we tolerate it from Ryan?
I'll be very curious to see where Ryan ends up and the role he plays when he gets there.
Last edited by forsberg_us (12/02/2010 9:57 am)
Offline
forsberg_us wrote:
Max I wanted to respond to your post about it being better to excel in one thing to be be mediocre in several. To that I would say "not necessarily, especially in 2010. The days of a "no-hit, all defense" player, even at short, are long gone. Mark Belanger made a career of it, but he'd be lucky to find a job in today's game.
In contrast, David Eckstein doesn't "excel" in anything. But he was a pretty good player. Skip, in his decent years, is comparable to Eckstein.
I don't see Jay as an impact player, but I do see him as a 4th outfielder who can play all of the positions. While he only costs $400K, that has value.
Brendan Ryan is comparable to Cesar Izturis. His defensive skills will keep him around, and he might even start for a mediocre/bad team. But we wouldn't have tolerated Cesar Izturis if he hadbeen a clubhouse problem, so why should we tolerate it from Ryan?
I'll be very curious to see where Ryan ends up and the role he plays when he gets there.
For the record, I said the "difference" is that Ryan excelled at one phase of the game, not that it was better to excel at one thing rather than to be medium at many.
The real question is how to weigh ones plusses and minuses. That's where spin can play a major role. You state that Theriot's career OBP is .348 and that's "a lot better than you can expect from Ryan". Point of fact, Ryan's OBP in 2009 was .340. So, it goes, back and forth. You can argue that he had a terrible year offensively 2010, and therefore his offense sucks. But in contrast to that, Schumaker had a terrible year offensively at the plate, but the manager explains that away as an off year and the team stands by him. Bernie was making these digs more subtly than I, presumably because his job requires he dance on eggshells when it comes to criticizing the Cardinals entrenched interests, such as front office, manager, key players. All I am doing is stating more plainly what can be easily read, in so many words, from more professional sources.
So the idea that Theriot is an offensive upgrade is a defensible one, but barely, and Mozeliak would look like an idiot if he were trumpeting that to be the case, without some supporting rumors that there was more to this acquisition than meets the eye. Thus, we get the story that Ryan was a clubhouse cancer. Everyone knows this is true. Why? We heard rumors from 2009 that he was a hyperactive guy who behaved like he was ADD. We heard rumors that La Russa found him annoying. We heard rumors that he might have poisoned Rasmus against the veterans. We saw one on-field incident where Carpenter (a guy who is increasingly known for his on-field outbursts) yelled at him.
Suppose you were representing a company who was being sued by a guy claiming to have been wrongfully fired. The company claimed he was a well-known problem who had to go. The evidence you had to defend your client's claims was the same as the evidence we have that Ryan was a clubhouse cancer. Do you like your chances?
Last edited by Max (12/02/2010 10:35 am)
Offline
Speak of the Devil--and I mean that literally--listen to what this clubhouse cancer has to say. God, this miserable little runt-sized pain in the ass must be unbearable to have around:
"You want to be where you're wanted. I owe everything to the Cardinals. It's my home. They made my dreams of being in the major leagues come true. They gave me a shot. ... As for projecting what this means, I'm keeping quiet for the first time in my life, and let's see how things unfold."
[On La Russa] "I think I give him gray hairs, but we get along. Maybe it's something I do in the clubhouse, maybe I need to be less out there, or maybe it's a ball he doesn't want me to throw from that deep in the hole. I'm able to salvage things though by making a play up the middle. I think he respects my passion for the game and the energy I bring. From the other side of it, though, I get why they'd like to see more consistency from me. They want more consistent quality at-bats. I know I need to let my success on the field speak the loudest."
"I know this is a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately game. A repeat of 2009 is more likely than a repeat of 2010. Sure, that is looking at things from my point of view, my believing in myself, but it's also looking at it realistically. I know the player I can be, and last season that wasn't me. I'm doubling-down on that."
What an arrogant, ungrateful little punk. Spoken just like Randy Moss. I am now a believer. He HAS to go!!!
(FWIW, the fact that Goold even took this story on indicates to me that the St. Louis sports journo crowd is not ready to let this go, and will not lightly let anyone off the hook if this backfires.)
Last edited by Max (12/02/2010 10:49 am)
Offline
It may also be that the real plan is to play Theriot at 2B while either trading skip or using him as a back-up inf-of type. Something they will sorely need if they sign Fat Elvis.
At the same time, they are sending a message to Ryan about what they think of his attitude and hope to give him bit of humility and make him shape up. That quote is Ivory Snow Pure is far as being free from ego problems ("by making a play up the middle") but it goes a long way.
Talk's cheap but sometimes just getting a player to say the right things is a big first step. Most of the time, though not always, a person will say what he needs to gain group acceptance whether he believes it or not and before long he comes to believe it. Most people like to deceive themselves with the belief that they are truthful Whitefoot. [Perhaps today Cary Grant would have to use another ethnic group.]
Offline
and here's a very informative analysis by Goold about Theriot, Ryan, Schumaker, and what the Cardinals need to do: