I was just updating the daily transaction and was going to post pretty much everything you said as soon as I was done.

tkihshbt wrote:

Two years and $11.5 million.

Let's review:

-Theriot ($4 million)
-Berkman ($8 million)
-Laird ($1 million)
-Westbrook ($8 million)

That's $21 million to downgrade the defense at shortstop and right field and a complete waste of $1 million for a guy to play 120 innings a year. Had they simply moved Schumaker to right field (a move I would have been highly in favor of), kept Ryan, went with Anderson (or even Pagnozzi) and signed O-Dog, they would've spent $13.5 million.

But what I just wrote makes too much sense, involves spending money efficiently and doesn't take into account that the Cardinals improved their grit/hustle.

They also improved the offense, but hey that's not important.

The comical thing is everyone saying this team isn't any better on paper than the 2010 team. I agree. But I'm going to go out on a limb right now and say that this team doesn't end up below .500 against Milwaukee, Houston, Pittsburgh and Chicago.  That's why the 2010 team failed. They were actually pretty good against good competition.

If they can figure out a way to get 120 games in the OF from Berkman, I think this team wins 90+ games and the division.

And sorry TK, but any post that includes Anderson playing an inning as a catcher doesn't make sense.

forsberg_us wrote:

They also improved the offense, but hey that's not important.

They added Berkman, who I think will hit like Ludwick, with more OBP and lesser slugging. If anything, they're getting back to where they were on July 30.

The comical thing is everyone saying this team isn't any better on paper than the 2010 team. I agree. But I'm going to go out on a limb right now and say that this team doesn't end up below .500 against Milwaukee, Houston, Pittsburgh and Chicago.  That's why the 2010 team failed. They were actually pretty good against good competition.

I think that will balance itself out, but I'm more worried about counting on comeback years from Schumaker, Freese, Theriot, Molina and Berkman than I am with how well they perform against the dregs of the division.

And sorry TK, but any post that includes Anderson playing an inning as a catcher doesn't make sense.

I don't understand why, but OK. I listed Pagnozzi, who would clearly be a more acceptable backup. I'm not going to dismiss Anderson because La Russa and Duncan say he can't call a game. That is absurd, especially coming from a guy who thinks Aaron Miles can play capably at shortstop and Berkman can still hit lefties.

I wish, but I'm actually just someone who believes putting together an awful defensive team with wonderful personalities is not going to overcome the most serious deficiencies. And it appears to me that everyone in management looked at what happened in 2010 and made the wrong conclusions.

I'm probably starting to grate on people's nerves. I understand and apologize for that. But I really hate the direction they are going in.

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

Two years and $11.5 million.

Let's review:

-Theriot ($4 million)
-Berkman ($8 million)
-Laird ($1 million)
-Westbrook ($8 million)

That's $21 million to downgrade the defense at shortstop and right field and a complete waste of $1 million for a guy to play 120 innings a year. Had they simply moved Schumaker to right field (a move I would have been highly in favor of), kept Ryan, went with Anderson (or even Pagnozzi) and signed O-Dog, they would've spent $13.5 million.

But what I just wrote makes too much sense, involves spending money efficiently and doesn't take into account that the Cardinals improved their grit/hustle.

They also improved the offense, but hey that's not important.

The comical thing is everyone saying this team isn't any better on paper than the 2010 team. I agree. But I'm going to go out on a limb right now and say that this team doesn't end up below .500 against Milwaukee, Houston, Pittsburgh and Chicago.  That's why the 2010 team failed. They were actually pretty good against good competition.

If they can figure out a way to get 120 games in the OF from Berkman, I think this team wins 90+ games and the division.

And sorry TK, but any post that includes Anderson playing an inning as a catcher doesn't make sense.

Fors is Larry Borowski:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/round-two/article_27306a58-0a13-11e0-8670-0017a4a78c22.html

I hadn't seen that Max, but that was exactly what I was thinking when I made my post.  Nice catch

forsberg_us wrote:

You're right TK, personalities and team chemistry have nothing to do with success.  The Giants were the best team in baseball last season, right?

I don't know what their personality has to do with allowing 583 runs and having the best bullpen in MLB. I'm not being condescending, either. Their pitching staff was brilliant and they got outstanding seasons from Posey, Burrell, Huff and Torres.

The Cardinals brought back the exact same team from 2009 and couldn't hit to save their lives.

BTW, not sure if you're still experiencing the effects of last nights drinking, but last year's team's failure can almost directly be linked to its inability to beat the dregs of the division.  In particular that stretch that followed the sweep of the Reds.  So perhaps we should be a little more concerned with how we perform against those teams.

I remember quite well, but my point is that "play better against Houston" is not exactly something that you can plan for. Just being better will take care of that.

I have to admit, I'm also getting quite a chuckle out of the "sky is falling approach" everyone is taking about the defense.  They definitely downgraded at short, but I'm not certain that Berkman is necessarily going to worse in right than Craig would have been.  Berkman isn't replacing Ludwick, he's replacing a converted third baseman.

If we're trying to figure out what Berkman improves upon from last season, then we compare him to Ludwick/Jay, since Craig played 175 innings.

As for the Berkman /Hudson debate, it is debatable.  On one hand Berkman offers a higher ceiling on the other Hudson is safer.  Hudson also adresses a team weakness in both 2011 and 2012.  The Cardinals are not getting better at 2nd, ss or third in 2012.  Signing Hudson might have fixed that.  Plus as TK pointed out moving Skip to the outfield would fix the defensive worries.  I like Berkman because it clearly give the Cardinals the best chance to win in 2011.  However I also think this team is clearly hurting it chances at long term success by its current moves.  Every issue that the 2011 Cardinals have will only get worst in 2012 only they might not have Pujols.  In 2012 we will know if Freese can cut it or not.  Theriot will be a year older as will Skip and Berkman.

Last edited by APRTW (12/18/2010 11:56 am)

APRTW wrote:

I am with TK on this one.  Backup cater is meaningless if Molina is going to catch 150 games.

I want to raise two issues.  One is that there has been talk for a while that the backup catcher needs to catch a lot more games . . . that Molina needs more time off.

Second, it seems to me that when the backup catcher situation is in perfect La Russian equillibrium, that he works almost exclusively with one of the back-of-the-rotation [BOTR] starters.  La Russa then plans lots of substitutions for that game, and it becomes one of those games that he uses for the team to catch its breath, and they are really supposed to win it.  So in a La Russian perfect world, Yadi catches about 130 games and his replacement works exclusively with, say, Lohse.

Mags wrote:

Screw all you guys.  I've been checking in every 10 minutes for something interesting to read and this board has been DEAD.  Now I put in an hour pruning my email boxes and come back to find new posts that are something close to a week's assignment in law school.  And it's past my bed time.

I should have learned long ago to seek the company of people my own age.

Don't leave, Mags. We need you. You're the only one here who can provide us with a first person perspective of what it was like before the Earth cooled.

APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

They also improved the offense, but hey that's not important.

The comical thing is everyone saying this team isn't any better on paper than the 2010 team. I agree. But I'm going to go out on a limb right now and say that this team doesn't end up below .500 against Milwaukee, Houston, Pittsburgh and Chicago.  That's why the 2010 team failed.  They were actually pretty good against good competition.

If they can figure out a way to get 120 games in the OF from Berkman, I think this team wins 90+ games and the division.

And sorry TK, but any post that includes Anderson playing an inning as a catcher doesn't make sense.

Is this a new angle?  Building a team able to beat the worst teams in the league?  I thought the point was to beat the best.  Maybe you are channeling your inter LaRussa and thinking outside the box.  Do you feel like a Veggie Burger?

All joking aside you are likely correct.  This team with the addition of Berkman and Theriot will likley have better focus then the team did in 2010.

Not a new angle, it's a recognition of what failed this team last season.  Isn't that what we're trying to do, be better than last season?

As far as beating the best, the 2010 Cardinals were 25-15 against the 4 NL teams that made the playoffs.  I'd say last years team did a pretty good job beating the best.

On the other hand, that same team was 27-33 against Houston, Milwaukee, the Cubs and Pittsburgh, and most of that was because they were 9-6 against Pittsburgh.  If they had simply played better than .500 against Milwaukee, the Cubs and Houston, they finish no worse than tied with Cincinnati.


But you're right, those games aren't important.

APRTW wrote:

I am with TK on this one.  Backup cater is meaningless if Molina is going to catch 150 games.  Looking at the guy they sign the plan is for Molina to catch every game in 2011.  If Molina gets hurt then we are up shit creek anyway.  The debate between backup catcher isnt about which one is better but which one is less worst.  It is like picking between Cement-head and Anthoney Reyes as your 5th starter.  Either way you are screwed but Reyes cost less.  It is poor bussiness and baseball to put someone on the roster that offers nothing over current internal options and cost twice as much.  I doubt Laird offers more deffensively then Pagz would have and I doubt he offers anything more then Anderson would have at the plate.  It was going to be a weakness regardless.  Why make it a more expensive weakness?  Not only that but it shows current ownerships willingness to sign washed up vets before trying internal cheaper options.

You're seriously arguing over $550-600K like that's crippling the franchise?

forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

I am with TK on this one.  Backup cater is meaningless if Molina is going to catch 150 games.  Looking at the guy they sign the plan is for Molina to catch every game in 2011.  If Molina gets hurt then we are up shit creek anyway.  The debate between backup catcher isnt about which one is better but which one is less worst.  It is like picking between Cement-head and Anthoney Reyes as your 5th starter.  Either way you are screwed but Reyes cost less.  It is poor bussiness and baseball to put someone on the roster that offers nothing over current internal options and cost twice as much.  I doubt Laird offers more deffensively then Pagz would have and I doubt he offers anything more then Anderson would have at the plate.  It was going to be a weakness regardless.  Why make it a more expensive weakness?  Not only that but it shows current ownerships willingness to sign washed up vets before trying internal cheaper options.

You're seriously arguing over $550-600K like that's crippling the franchise?

Again I never said it was going to cripple the franchise.  I am saying that it isnt logical.  Again it is TLR getting someone signed because he favors them over guys in the system and ownership doing his bidding even though they have publicly said that isnt the direction the want to go.  This is the same lack of direction that was being used when they fired Walt.  It is the lack of direction that fuel Ryan and Rasmus to say "fuck the veterns".  It is the same logic that put Miles back on the roster or gave Winn at bats over Craig.  We could have seen more of what Craig had to offer and if he was a solution in 2011 if Winn wasnt signed.  How much did those moves cost the club?  I assume it adds up.  Maybe only to a couple of million but a couple of million could add a bullpen arm that would make a hell of alot more difference them Liard.  A mistake and waste of money is wrong no matter what size it is.