APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

The glory of being a major leaguer is one thing.  When you start talking abou the difference in money a guy can make by being promoted you reach another angle.  I would like to know what Anderson will make being in triple A vs on the big league roster.  I am sure it is enough to be bitter over.

Bitter at who?  Himself for not learning how to be a major league caliber defensive catcher?  Himself for not being bright enough to understand how to implement the gameplan they expect the catcher's to use? 

The day after Laird was signed, Strauss posted a tweet that the same people complaining about the Ryan trade would probably start complaining that the team signed a quality defensive catcher rather than a "prospect with 0 trade value.". I thought Strauss was crazy. Little did I know.

Bitter that an offensive and defensive minded catcher were in the Cardinals system but were passed up because they had not grew there first grey hair.  I didnt complain about the Ryan trade and have no clue what Anderson's trade value has to do with not promoting him or keeping Pagz on the roster.

I dont understand how you can take a stance that TLR doesnt promote signing veteran players over promoting from within.  I dont understand how you could think that doing that wouldnt cause the younger players to feel bitter.  The dirrection the team publicly said they were shifting to was developing players.  Wasnt the Marty Mason deal because he wasnt playing nice with the minors and promoting the triple A pitching coach suposed to smooth things over?  You act like my angle of viewing the situation is off the deep end even though the club dysfunction has been made public.  It was even made public by a pro cardinals media outlet.  Hell the Post website still has a story titled " Tony, like Whitey, prefers old-school players" on its front page.  I am just not putting the happy gushy Cardinal patting on the back media spin on it.  I know you support the current manager and coaching staff.  I have said many times that I think we will suffer when TLR leaves.  He will be hard to replace.  However I think your loyality is clouding the thought of the issues that could be in play.  Or even the chance that they are there.  You have an inside tract to know what is going on and I do not.  I am only speculating.

My point is very simple. Would you rather promote from within or sign a superior player?  IMO Laird is supeior to either internal option they had, and it certainly doesn't bother me that they elected to spend an extra $600K to keep their starters happy.

That's your opinion, and you're absolutely entitled to it.  But do you think you're more qualified to make that assessment than the Cardinal coaching staff?

Funny that the same staff that was willing to let Mike Matheny walk in favor of a young, relatively unproven catcher would willfully hold back a future All-star like Brian Anderson.

Last edited by forsberg_us (12/19/2010 7:45 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

That's your opinion, and you're absolutely entitled to it.  But do you think you're more qualified to make that assessment than the Cardinal coaching staff?

Come on, Fors. You're being a little too defensive of the Cardinal coaching staff now. Tony La Russa may know more than we'll ever forget combined, but that doesn't make him infallible and it doesn't mean that every opinion that doesn't jive with his means we need a three-page discussion on how he knows more than us.

Funny that the same staff that was willing to let Mike Matheny walk in favor of a young, relatively unproven catcher would willfully hold back a future All-star like Brian Anderson.

Not a single person has called Bryan Anderson an All-Star, so let's throw that out right now. And I don't know this situation with Laird is comparable to the situation with Matheny.

APRTW wrote:

For a second take Pagz to be the best option and then try an explain the signing of Liard.

Laird is superior to Pagnozzi offensively.  That's not to say Laird is a great offensive catcher, but better than Pagnozzi.  He has hit as high as .296, although he's hit as low as .207.  For his career, Laird is a .242 hitter.  Pagnozzi is a career .214 hitter IN THE MINOR LEAGUES.  Laird also has a little bit of power, having hit as many as 9 HR in a season.  Pagnozzi has 16 career HR in 1908 minor league at bats (Laird has almost double that in about the same number of major league at bats.  ADVANTAGE: Laird

Defensively, I don't know a metric for measuring ability to call a game, but Laird has the benefit of having started over 500 major league games.  You may not like that answer, but in this instance, experience is a benefit.  Turning to factors that can be quantified, Laird has thrown out 38% of the base runner who have attempted to steal against him.  Laird has thrice been in the top 5 in the AL in caught stealing percentage and currently ranks 6th among active catchers in CS%.  Pagnozzi's numbers have been pretty bad since moving past AA.  In 2009, his CS% was only 24%.  It bounced back a bit in 2010 to 31%.  But with the Cardinals, he was a pretty abyssmal 1 for 11.  ADVANTAGE: Laird

Other factors- Laird is highly thought off enough that he's been the starting catcher on two different teams.  Someone (other than Larussa) seems to think he has some major league skills.  Also, for all the talk about favoring old v. young, Laird is only 3 years younger than Pagnozzi (Laird will be 31 when the season begins, Pagnozzi will be 28).

Is Laird a great option if Molina goes down--no (if it was possible for the same money, I would have rather had Benji), but is a better option than Pagnozzi--IMO yes, and it's not that close.

artie_fufkin wrote:

I don't mean to ruin a discussion that has valid points on both sides, but does anyone else think we're giving the backup catcher situation a little too much thought, especially in December?

Yes, and I apologize for my role in it.

I'm just getting sick and tired of the organization trying to sell the fans a bunch of snake oil regarding their minor leaguers and for some reason is struck a chord when AP suggested that guys had the right to be resentful because they haven't been handed a job that IMO, they aren't qualified to perform.

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

I don't mean to ruin a discussion that has valid points on both sides, but does anyone else think we're giving the backup catcher situation a little too much thought, especially in December?

Yes, and I apologize for my role in it.

I'm just getting sick and tired of the organization trying to sell the fans a bunch of snake oil regarding their minor leaguers and for some reason is struck a chord when AP suggested that guys had the right to be resentful because they haven't been handed a job that IMO, they aren't qualified to perform.

That gets at a bigger and broader debate, which asks if there are systemic failures within the Cards minor league teams.  No one would question that unqualified players should not be promoted, but everyone should question why reasonable options for filling holes are not waiting around in your AAA team; not every hole, perhaps, but surely some.  I heard the announcers for a nationally televised Cardinal game address this a year or two back because the Cards were having issues with their fifth starter on account of injuries and ultimately filled the hole with a trade (hmm, sounds like this past season . . . ).  One of the announcers said something to the effect of, "If a mid-season injury puts your fifth starter on the DL, his replacement had better be in your minor league affiliate, or there is something wrong with the system."

The hypothesis that there is a systemic failure with the Cards minor league teams ties together so many threads that someone should write a book on it.

Do the Cardinals repeatedly over-value their own products?  Consider who does the rating and the office adage, PYA.

Are the Cardinal minor leaguers resentful, particularly the position players?  Consider the effects on morale of knowing your are in a company that is dysfuncional.

etc.

forsberg_us wrote:

That's your opinion, and you're absolutely entitled to it.  But do you think you're more qualified to make that assessment than the Cardinal coaching staff?

Funny that the same staff that was willing to let Mike Matheny walk in favor of a young, relatively unproven catcher would willfully hold back a future All-star like Brian Anderson.

That's just a bit unfair.  I think that La Russa and his coaches would have been happy to have Matheny come back for at least one or two more years, but my recollection is that he was insisting on a three year contract and the front office was unwilling to go that far.  So Matheny was gone.

Also, by that point, owing to Matheny's mishap with a hunting knife, Yadi had earned significant playing time in the playoffs and world series and, as far as I know, had impressed the hell out of anybody.  Frankly, I was sold on Molina the moment he stepped in front of Manny Ramirez and blocked his path to the batter's box in the WS.  If I am the starting pitcher on the mound that night, earning millions of dollars but watching everything I throw over the plate get knocked to the warning track or beyond, I am buying that rookie catcher a shiny new automobile for that brief conversation in Spanish, which quite likely the umpire could hear but not understand.

Top it off and the guys last name happened to be "Molina" and his older brothers were on record as saying something like: if you want to see the Molina brother who can really catch, wait until Yadi grows up and makes the majors.

APRTW wrote:

it sometimes appears they’re trying to win the argument more than they’re trying to win a world championship.

My experience, first and second hand, with this kind if thing is that it might appear that way, but it's more likely an unintended side-effect of having too many chefs.

If we can stretch the analogy very, very far from baseball and the here and now, there is a classic case of this from the Second Punic War, when Hannibal was marching an invading army up and down the Italian peninsula at will, in spite of everything Rome did.  Rome was still a Republic in those days and by their constitution they had two elected Consuls to command armies, among other things.  If it ever happened that both Consuls were present in the same army camp at one time, then the compromise was that they would each lead the army on alternate days.  Now, as Rome concentrated its forces this situation occurred, and it happened that one of the Consuls favored engaging Hannibal, while the other, wary of several Roman defeats at that point, favored caution.  So, they literally had the legions marching back and forth on alternate days, towards Hannibal's army, and then away from it.  The obvious deleterious effects of this on the defense of Rome might easily have led some observers to speculate that each Consul was putting his own ego ahead of his desire for victory, but the reality was more likely that each man was doing what he truly believed was the best path toward victory.  The problem was in the system, not in the egos of the individuals involved.

Last edited by Max (12/20/2010 11:49 am)

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

My experience, first and second hand, with this kind if thing is that it might appear that way, but it's more likely an unintended side-effect of having too many chefs.

If we can stretch the analogy very, very far from baseball and the here and now, there is a classic case of this from the Second Punic War, when Hannibal was marching an invading army up and down the Italian peninsula at will, in spite of everything Rome did.  Rome was still a Republic in those days and by their constitution they had two elected Consuls to command armies, among other things.  If it ever happened that both Consuls were present in the same army camp at one time, then the compromise was that they would each lead the army on alternate days.  Now, as Rome concentrated its forces this situation occurred, and it happened that one of the Consuls favored engaging Hannibal, while the other, wary of several Roman defeats at that point, favored caution.  So, they literally had the legions marching back and forth on alternate days, towards Hannibal's army, and then away from it.  The obvious deleterious effects of this on the defense of Rome might easily have led some observers to speculate that each Consul was putting his own ego ahead of his desire for victory, but the reality was more likely that each man was doing what he truly believed was the best path toward victory.  The problem was in the system, not in the egos of the individuals involved.

I hate it when you do this.  If you want me to follow what you are saying you are going to have to dumb it up a bit.

All told, it's a pretty good analogy, and undoubtedly the first to reference the Second Punic War in regard to a baseball organization, but I'm with AP here. I'm just a dumb baseball fan.
Can you, say, re-work it a bit to something about whether Aerosmith was a better band when they were on drugs and venting their anger toward each other by writing blues-based material than they were in their collegial, sober days that produced more radio-friendly but less musically-ambitious songs?
Thanks.

Max wrote:

Also, by that point, owing to Matheny's mishap with a hunting knife, Yadi had earned significant playing time in the playoffs and world series and, as far as I know, had impressed the hell out of anybody.  Frankly, I was sold on Molina the moment he stepped in front of Manny Ramirez and blocked his path to the batter's box in the WS.  If I am the starting pitcher on the mound that night, earning millions of dollars but watching everything I throw over the plate get knocked to the warning track or beyond, I am buying that rookie catcher a shiny new automobile for that brief conversation in Spanish, which quite likely the umpire could hear but not understand.

Not true Max.  The hunting knife incident was in 2001 (when Ankiel had his meltdown).  Yadi came up in 2004.  He earned his playing time by being the better catcher.

I believe your recollection of the contract issues was correct, but my point was that if Larussa was so determined not to give a young player a chance, he could have pushed for the organization to give Matheny the 3rd year.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

Also, by that point, owing to Matheny's mishap with a hunting knife, Yadi had earned significant playing time in the playoffs and world series and, as far as I know, had impressed the hell out of anybody.  Frankly, I was sold on Molina the moment he stepped in front of Manny Ramirez and blocked his path to the batter's box in the WS.  If I am the starting pitcher on the mound that night, earning millions of dollars but watching everything I throw over the plate get knocked to the warning track or beyond, I am buying that rookie catcher a shiny new automobile for that brief conversation in Spanish, which quite likely the umpire could hear but not understand.

Not true Max.  The hunting knife incident was in 2001 (when Ankiel had his meltdown).  Yadi came up in 2004.  He earned his playing time by being the better catcher.

I believe your recollection of the contract issues was correct, but my point was that if Larussa was so determined not to give a young player a chance, he could have pushed for the organization to give Matheny the 3rd year.

The hunting knife incident was in 2000. They had traded for Carlos Hernandez to backup Matheny because they didn't think Marrero was an adequate defensive catcher.
They swept the Braves in the NLDS (they won the Ankiel meltdown game because they lit up Maddux for six runs in the first inning of Game 1) but then lost to the Mets in the NLCS. I remember Ankiel starting one of those games (maybe Game 2) and having to leave in the first inning because of his wildness. He came on in relief during a blowout later in the series and had the same issues with walks and wild pitches.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

Also, by that point, owing to Matheny's mishap with a hunting knife, Yadi had earned significant playing time in the playoffs and world series and, as far as I know, had impressed the hell out of anybody.  Frankly, I was sold on Molina the moment he stepped in front of Manny Ramirez and blocked his path to the batter's box in the WS.  If I am the starting pitcher on the mound that night, earning millions of dollars but watching everything I throw over the plate get knocked to the warning track or beyond, I am buying that rookie catcher a shiny new automobile for that brief conversation in Spanish, which quite likely the umpire could hear but not understand.

Not true Max.  The hunting knife incident was in 2001 (when Ankiel had his meltdown).  Yadi came up in 2004.  He earned his playing time by being the better catcher.

I believe your recollection of the contract issues was correct, but my point was that if Larussa was so determined not to give a young player a chance, he could have pushed for the organization to give Matheny the 3rd year.

My bad on the hunting knife.  That was unrelated to the main points, which otherwise, still hold water.  My comment was that your statement was a bit unfair, calling Yadi (that's Mr. Molina to the rest of us) "relatively unproven": "Funny that the same staff that was willing to let Mike Matheny walk in favor of a young, relatively unproven catcher would willfully hold back a future All-star like Brian Anderson."  Molina had a LOT more proof at the big leagues by the offseason of 2004-2005 than Anderson has now.  Nor were they so much willing to let Matheny walk, as that Metheny was asking for more years than the front office wanted to give.  I suspect you are right that La Russa could have pushed for the third year, and if Molina hadn't proven something at that point, he probably would have.

But your main point, that La Russa is not opposed to promoting young position, per se, is demonstrated by Pujols and Molina, and even Schumaker.  Now, the anti-La Russa crowd could turn around and say that if Pujols and Molina set the bar, then the threshold is too high, and Skip, in that argument, is obviously a case of La Russa trying to bolster his own argument and ego at the expense of winning by promoting one under-talented guy just to prove that he doesn't favor veteran talent and future all-stars to the exclusion of all others!

None of this would be an issue if the Cardinals minor league system was simply better, and that's a good point to make.

Last edited by Max (12/20/2010 1:35 pm)

APRTW wrote:

There are not to many exaples of minors being pass on without any cause but there was no reason for Winn or Miles to be on the team in 2010.

AP,

There's way too many anti-Miles sentiments for me to try to argue Miles, but I'm going to offer a counter to your position on Winn.

The Cardinals broke camp with 3 outfielders, all of whom had come from their own system: Stavinoha, Mather and Craig.  On April 26, 2010, Craig was sent down and Jay was recalled.

On May 29, Mather was sent out to add a 13th pitcher after Penny and Lohse went to the DL and Walters and Ottavino were added to the rotation.

On June 5, Winn was signed and Jay sent out. 

Jay was recalled on July 3 when Ludwick went on the DL.  Ludwick returned from the DL on July 24 and was traded July 31.

When Ludwick was on the DL, Jay started 12 of the 18 games the Cardinals played.  Winn started 3.  Stavinoha started 1 and Craig started 2.  After Ludwick was activated, Jay started every game until Ludwick was traded.  Winn didn't start any.

My point is this--I think the team viewed Jay as a better option when there was an open position.  When the outfield spots were filled by Holliday, Rasmus and Ludwick, they felt it was better for Winn to sit on the bench in St. Louis and for Jay to play regularly in Memphis.

Would you agree that sometimes it is better for the younger player to play regularly at AAA rather than sit the bench in the majors?