I tried to block it out of my memory, but I seem to recall that during that stretch there was enough "stink" to go around the entire clubhouse. 

Hell, Chad was probably responsible for at least a couple of those losses.   (happy)

forsberg_us wrote:

I tried to block it out of my memory, but I seem to recall that during that stretch there was enough "stink" to go around the entire clubhouse. 

Hell, Chad was probably responsible for at least a couple of those losses.   (happy)

BTW, I have been meaning to ask you what Chad thought of all the bad attention that the players use of video got last year.

forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

I tried to block it out of my memory, but I seem to recall that during that stretch there was enough "stink" to go around the entire clubhouse. 

Hell, Chad was probably responsible for at least a couple of those losses.   (happy)

BTW, I have been meaning to ask you what Chad thought of all the bad attention that the players use of video got last year.

The only thing he ever said was he found it ironic that McGwire brought it up since McGwire was completely dependent on video when he played.

I found that odd to.  I thought the statement might hold some truth just because they seemed to be playing so tight and methodical.  I dont think the team had much fun in 2010.  I dont know if I would blame video but some was wrong.

The hack keeps hacking away (i.e., another nice piece by Burwell).

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bryan-burwell/article_4927fa9c-dcff-5695-a406-cff8f11f0c7e.html

forsberg_us wrote:

"Hack writing has a reputation for quantity taking precedence over quality."

3 stories in 5 days saying nothing new. Looks like a case of self-fulfilling prophecy.

That seems like more stories then he wrote during the whole 2010 season.


Does he even have a radio show anymore?  I cant find it.

Max wrote:

The hack keeps hacking away (i.e., another nice piece by Burwell).

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bryan-burwell/article_4927fa9c-dcff-5695-a406-cff8f11f0c7e.html

Maybe Burwell forgot the Cardinals signed Pujols to an 8-year, $116 million contract that is probably the best bargain in the history of baseball. It's less money for eight years than what the Phillies are committed to paying Howard for five years.

Is Howard really 31?

forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

"Hack writing has a reputation for quantity taking precedence over quality."

3 stories in 5 days saying nothing new. Looks like a case of self-fulfilling prophecy.

That seems like more stories then he wrote during the whole 2010 season.


Does he even have a radio show anymore?  I cant find it.

No. Burwell was canceled

People must not like to listen to him any more then they like to read him.

artie_fufkin wrote:

Max wrote:

The hack keeps hacking away (i.e., another nice piece by Burwell).

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bryan-burwell/article_4927fa9c-dcff-5695-a406-cff8f11f0c7e.html

Maybe Burwell forgot the Cardinals signed Pujols to an 8-year, $116 million contract that is probably the best bargain in the history of baseball. It's less money for eight years than what the Phillies are committed to paying Howard for five years.

Not sure where you were going with that, but I think the point is that in the first $111 M contract the Cards gambled and won . . . big.  So, if they wanted to extend Pujols at less than market rate, they should have done the deed prior to 2010, with one year and the option left on Pujols's contract.  That says, "We won, thank you.  Let's do another deal."  The Cards themselves said as much.  Instead, they didn't do squat, and then exercised their option for 2011, thus getting two more seasons (2010 and 2011) in which they thumb their nose at Pujols and say, "We win!  It's a business Mr. Pujols."  So, yeah, Pujols is 100% justified in saying, "It's a business.  Let's find out my market value.  Let's talk again after I am a free agent."

DeWitt has played hard-nosed 'business-is-business' with the face of the franchise, and Pujols has been the definition of magnanimous.

Max wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Max wrote:

The hack keeps hacking away (i.e., another nice piece by Burwell).

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bryan-burwell/article_4927fa9c-dcff-5695-a406-cff8f11f0c7e.html

Maybe Burwell forgot the Cardinals signed Pujols to an 8-year, $116 million contract that is probably the best bargain in the history of baseball. It's less money for eight years than what the Phillies are committed to paying Howard for five years.

Not sure where you were going with that, but I think the point is that in the first $111 M contract the Cards gambled and won . . . big.  So, if they wanted to extend Pujols at less than market rate, they should have done the deed prior to 2010, with one year and the option left on Pujols's contract.  That says, "We won, thank you.  Let's do another deal."  The Cards themselves said as much.  Instead, they didn't do squat, and then exercised their option for 2011, thus getting two more seasons (2010 and 2011) in which they thumb their nose at Pujols and say, "We win!  It's a business Mr. Pujols."  So, yeah, Pujols is 100% justified in saying, "It's a business.  Let's find out my market value.  Let's talk again after I am a free agent."

DeWitt has played hard-nosed 'business-is-business' with the face of the franchise, and Pujols has been the definition of magnanimous.

Not disagreeing with any of what you've written. In fact I'm agreeing with you. My point was aimed those who have accused Pujols of being greedy. He didn't grouse once - at least publicly - about being paid less than a couple dozen or so other players who couldn't hold his jock for the past eight years.
Like most successful businessmen, DeWitt has gotten where he is partly because he doesn't look at things emotionally. It makes very little sense from a business standpoint to pay ~$30 million a year to a player whose skills are almost certainly going to diminish over the length of the contract.
I'm not sure who said last week that if the Cardinals don't sign Pujols, it frees up all that cash to go out and get 2 or 3 other players. What bothers me is DeWitt may not be looking at it that way. The only time he's really increased payroll in the last five years is when he went out and got Holliday, after he admitted the attendance in the early part of 2009 was such that he could take on another high-priced player.

APRTW wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Not disagreeing with any of what you've written. In fact I'm agreeing with you. My point was aimed those who have accused Pujols of being greedy. He didn't grouse once - at least publicly - about being paid less than a couple dozen or so other players who couldn't hold his jock for the past eight years.
Like most successful businessmen, DeWitt has gotten where he is partly because he doesn't look at things emotionally. It makes very little sense from a business standpoint to pay ~$30 million a year to a player whose skills are almost certainly going to diminish over the length of the contract.
I'm not sure who said last week that if the Cardinals don't sign Pujols, it frees up all that cash to go out and get 2 or 3 other players. What bothers me is DeWitt may not be looking at it that way. The only time he's really increased payroll in the last five years is when he went out and got Holliday, after he admitted the attendance in the early part of 2009 was such that he could take on another high-priced player.

Good point Artie.  There is no way Dewitt is going to increase the payroll 30 million if the dont add Pujols.  He will do what he always does an increase payroll just enough to get by and convince the fans that the team has a chance. 

Another interesting way of looking at things is that Pujols actually made DeWitt.  If a 200th some pick doesnt turn into gold the 2000s wouldnt have been any better then the 90s.  The Cardinals might not have a new staduim or 3 million people paying to see the games every year.

I'm not sure I agree with you AP.  No one can question the impact Pujols has had on the Cardinals, but the 2000 Cardinals won 95 games and made it to the NLCS.  They also drew 3.3M in attendance.  It isn't like Pujols joined a floundering organization.

On your first point, I don't think anyone is suggesting the payroll increases $30M, but if they lose Pujols they have about $30M freed up between Pujols, Berkman, Shumaker and Franklin.  My guess is that they would spend to fill at least 2 of those spots to, as you said, "convince the fans the team has a chance."

I'm not saying they could have found another player to put up Pujols' numbers.  But it isn't like the roster was stagnant in the years you're talking about.  After signing Edmonds to a long term deal in 2000, the Cardinals added Woody Williams (resigned in 2003), traded for and signed Rolen to a long-term deal and signed Isringhausen and Tino Martinez as free agents.  Martinez was a bust, but they added over $30M in just those 4 contracts alone.  They also traded for Larry Walker, although Colorado picked up a lot of that salary.

I'm not trying to dispute the effect Pujols has had.  All I'm saying is that if you look at the 2004 team, even without Pujols, it was a lot better than anything that ever stepped on the field in the last years of the Busch ownership.  And when you look at the list of players who were added to the team between 2000-04 (Edmonds, Rolen, Izzy, Williams, Walker, Darryl Kile, Andy Benes, Fernando Vina, Matheny, Carpenter, Reggie Sanders), I have a difficult time believing they were on the verge of collapsing.

Last edited by forsberg_us (2/21/2011 7:14 pm)

I think the 2004 team would have still been a good team without Pujols but I cant say the same for the 2001 team.  I think they would have been a bust.

artie_fufkin wrote:

Max wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Maybe Burwell forgot the Cardinals signed Pujols to an 8-year, $116 million contract that is probably the best bargain in the history of baseball. It's less money for eight years than what the Phillies are committed to paying Howard for five years.

Not sure where you were going with that, but I think the point is that in the first $111 M contract the Cards gambled and won . . . big.  So, if they wanted to extend Pujols at less than market rate, they should have done the deed prior to 2010, with one year and the option left on Pujols's contract.  That says, "We won, thank you.  Let's do another deal."  The Cards themselves said as much.  Instead, they didn't do squat, and then exercised their option for 2011, thus getting two more seasons (2010 and 2011) in which they thumb their nose at Pujols and say, "We win!  It's a business Mr. Pujols."  So, yeah, Pujols is 100% justified in saying, "It's a business.  Let's find out my market value.  Let's talk again after I am a free agent."

DeWitt has played hard-nosed 'business-is-business' with the face of the franchise, and Pujols has been the definition of magnanimous.

Not disagreeing with any of what you've written. In fact I'm agreeing with you. My point was aimed those who have accused Pujols of being greedy. He didn't grouse once - at least publicly - about being paid less than a couple dozen or so other players who couldn't hold his jock for the past eight years.
Like most successful businessmen, DeWitt has gotten where he is partly because he doesn't look at things emotionally. It makes very little sense from a business standpoint to pay ~$30 million a year to a player whose skills are almost certainly going to diminish over the length of the contract.
I'm not sure who said last week that if the Cardinals don't sign Pujols, it frees up all that cash to go out and get 2 or 3 other players. What bothers me is DeWitt may not be looking at it that way. The only time he's really increased payroll in the last five years is when he went out and got Holliday, after he admitted the attendance in the early part of 2009 was such that he could take on another high-priced player.

Just a correction--a sore point with me, actually--he did NOT raise payroll to get Holliday.  He kept it even; that's why I did not buy the argument that DeWitt made any new commitment.  He allowed his GM to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

The payroll increase, at last, is for the coming season.  And franly, I am a bit miffed that the media has not used this increase to call out DeWitt's argument (lie?) that the club could not be financially secure with a payroll above the $93 M range he was keeping us in after kicking Walt out.