forsberg_us wrote:

Mags wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

If they do nothing else, I agree with you.  But they're a better team today than they were at this time yesterday.  Now they need to fix the bullpen
 

I agree they need to "fix the bullpen" to be competitive.  I am, however, skeptical about whether that can be done except by luck.  Of course they make a real effort or they can make a half-assed effort.  But I don't hold out much hope for success either way.  I can think of two instances where they have been successful -- Bruce Sutter and Jason Isringhausen.  In the latter case, I never felt that good about Izzy, despite his stats.  It helps when you have a good defense and enough offense to provide some breathing room.  With very few exceptions, the really good bullpen guys don't seem to have much shelf life.  And I fear it is only going to get worse with the way the pens are being used almost everywhere.

The big bats are another story.  Since I first started following the Cards in the early 50's, it seems like the Cards have been making trades to acquire the right-handed slugger that they needed.  In the fifties, it was Del Ennis and Gino Cimoli.  In the 60's it was Orlando Cepeda.  In the late 70's, it was George Hendrix, followed by Jack Clark and then Bob Hoerner and then Pedro Guerrero.  More recently, Matt Holliday and  that switch hitter who limped around in RF (Alzheimer's at work on me).  Cepeda and Clark were obvious successes.  The last two are debatable.  Right now, it looks like Goldschmidt may be the best of the lot.  Maybe by the time he departs, we'll have another Albert Pujols who gets drafted somewhere around #400, though I don't think it goes that far anymore.
 

I'm not sure exactly how you define the term success, but Matt Holliday and Carlos Beltran outperformed Clark and Cepeda during their respective Cardinals careers.  

If building a bullpen is just luck then the Cardinals should just continue to do what they've been doing because after 3 years of close to the worst bullpen in baseball they should be due.  Guess they're just really unlucky.

At this point, who do you think they should go after?
 

Mags wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Mags wrote:

I agree they need to "fix the bullpen" to be competitive.  I am, however, skeptical about whether that can be done except by luck.  Of course they make a real effort or they can make a half-assed effort.  But I don't hold out much hope for success either way.  I can think of two instances where they have been successful -- Bruce Sutter and Jason Isringhausen.  In the latter case, I never felt that good about Izzy, despite his stats.  It helps when you have a good defense and enough offense to provide some breathing room.  With very few exceptions, the really good bullpen guys don't seem to have much shelf life.  And I fear it is only going to get worse with the way the pens are being used almost everywhere.

The big bats are another story.  Since I first started following the Cards in the early 50's, it seems like the Cards have been making trades to acquire the right-handed slugger that they needed.  In the fifties, it was Del Ennis and Gino Cimoli.  In the 60's it was Orlando Cepeda.  In the late 70's, it was George Hendrix, followed by Jack Clark and then Bob Hoerner and then Pedro Guerrero.  More recently, Matt Holliday and  that switch hitter who limped around in RF (Alzheimer's at work on me).  Cepeda and Clark were obvious successes.  The last two are debatable.  Right now, it looks like Goldschmidt may be the best of the lot.  Maybe by the time he departs, we'll have another Albert Pujols who gets drafted somewhere around #400, though I don't think it goes that far anymore.
 

I'm not sure exactly how you define the term success, but Matt Holliday and Carlos Beltran outperformed Clark and Cepeda during their respective Cardinals careers.  

If building a bullpen is just luck then the Cardinals should just continue to do what they've been doing because after 3 years of close to the worst bullpen in baseball they should be due.  Guess they're just really unlucky.

At this point, who do you think they should go after?
 

Andrew Miller and Zach Britton

Mags wrote:

Not surprisingly, I overlooked one of the most interesting.  Dick Allen. As best I can recall, he was only with the Cards for one year and missed a large part of the season with an injury.  He still hit over 30 home runs, as best I recall, in the old Busch.  But I don't think the team benefited that much from them.  I wasn't following the Cards too carefully at the time, however.

I had to look this up, but he was the centerpiece of the Curt Flood trade. Allen went .279/34/101 in 122 games in 1970 and then the Cardinals traded him to Los Angeles for Ted Sizemore. He lasted one year with the Dodgers and was traded to the White Sox in 1972, and he ended up winning the American League MVP that year. 
IIRC, Allen had a reputation for being outspoken and confrontational, and one supposes that the Cardinals only wanted to deal with one black player at a time to whom the adjective "uppity" - in the fashion of the '60s and '70s - could apply.

artie_fufkin wrote:

Mags wrote:

Not surprisingly, I overlooked one of the most interesting.  Dick Allen. As best I can recall, he was only with the Cards for one year and missed a large part of the season with an injury.  He still hit over 30 home runs, as best I recall, in the old Busch.  But I don't think the team benefited that much from them.  I wasn't following the Cards too carefully at the time, however.

I had to look this up, but he was the centerpiece of the Curt Flood trade. Allen went .279/34/101 in 122 games in 1970 and then the Cardinals traded him to Los Angeles for Ted Sizemore. He lasted one year with the Dodgers and was traded to the White Sox in 1972, and he ended up winning the American League MVP that year. 
IIRC, Allen had a reputation for being outspoken and confrontational, and one supposes that the Cardinals only wanted to deal with one black player at a time to whom the adjective "uppity" - in the fashion of the '60s and '70s - could apply.

I remember the Dick "Don't you f'n' DARE call me Richie anymore" Allen era well.

Does Reggie Smith merit addition to Mags' list?

JV wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Mags wrote:

Not surprisingly, I overlooked one of the most interesting.  Dick Allen. As best I can recall, he was only with the Cards for one year and missed a large part of the season with an injury.  He still hit over 30 home runs, as best I recall, in the old Busch.  But I don't think the team benefited that much from them.  I wasn't following the Cards too carefully at the time, however.

I had to look this up, but he was the centerpiece of the Curt Flood trade. Allen went .279/34/101 in 122 games in 1970 and then the Cardinals traded him to Los Angeles for Ted Sizemore. He lasted one year with the Dodgers and was traded to the White Sox in 1972, and he ended up winning the American League MVP that year. 
IIRC, Allen had a reputation for being outspoken and confrontational, and one supposes that the Cardinals only wanted to deal with one black player at a time to whom the adjective "uppity" - in the fashion of the '60s and '70s - could apply.

I remember the Dick "Don't you f'n' DARE call me Richie anymore" Allen era well.

Does Reggie Smith merit addition to Mags' list?

I wouldn't have thought of him (or Edmonds or Rolen) because I wasn't aware of any talk about going out to get the big bat in those days.  Of course they had Ted Simmons and I think Hernandez and Heity Cruz had just arrived on the scene.

Did they trade Reggie Smith for the Catcher/1B from the Dodgers, or vice versa?
 

"Did they trade Reggie Smith for the Catcher/1B from the Dodgers, or vice versa?"

The dealt him for Joe Ferguson, who was the Dodgers' offensive yin to Steve Yeager's defensive yang in the '70s, but I think by the middle of the decade they figured they were getting enough production from Yeager that they could afford to deal Ferguson.
Baseball Reference says the Cardinals ended up trading Ferguson for Larry Dierker, but I'm not sure if I remember either one of them being in a Cardinals' uniform.
In any event, Reggie Smith went on to have several good years in Los Angeles, I suspect partly because he was from there and was more comfortable with his environment.
And, boy, the Cardinals made some shitty trades in the '70s. 

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Id take the greg holland that pitched for the nationals."

So would I. Interesting that he flourished after he left the Cardinals. Maybe there's more to being a pitching coach than putting your hand on a pitcher's shoulder so you can determine his pulse rate.

Yeah but not everyone can find a pitching coach like the nationals did.

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Id take the greg holland that pitched for the nationals."

So would I. Interesting that he flourished after he left the Cardinals. Maybe there's more to being a pitching coach than putting your hand on a pitcher's shoulder so you can determine his pulse rate.

Yeah but not everyone can find a pitching coach like the nationals did.

Does anyone scapegoat coaches more than the Cardinals? I'm asking. When La Russa was the manager, it seemed like they fired the hitting coach every time Pujols went 0-for-4.
 

Last edited by artie_fufkin (12/07/2018 8:45 pm)

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Id take the greg holland that pitched for the nationals."

So would I. Interesting that he flourished after he left the Cardinals. Maybe there's more to being a pitching coach than putting your hand on a pitcher's shoulder so you can determine his pulse rate.

Yeah but not everyone can find a pitching coach like the nationals did.

Does anyone scapegoat coaches more than the Cardinals? I'm asking. When La Russa was the manager, it seemed like they fired the hitting coach every time Pujols went 0-for-4.
 

Per Wikipedia list of cards hitting coach since 2000

Mike easler 1999-2001
Michell page 2001-2004
Hal mcrae 2005 -2009
Big mac 2010 -2012
John mabry 2013 - 2018

Doesnt seem like a lot of turn over but i dont follow other teams close enough to tell. 

Personally i dont think maddux does a bad job.  At keast ive not seen any evidence of that.  However i thought liquest did fine as well. 

Mabry on the other hand...see ya

forsberg_us wrote:

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Does anyone scapegoat coaches more than the Cardinals? I'm asking. When La Russa was the manager, it seemed like they fired the hitting coach every time Pujols went 0-for-4.
 

Per Wikipedia list of cards hitting coach since 2000

Mike easler 1999-2001
Michell page 2001-2004
Hal mcrae 2005 -2009
Big mac 2010 -2012
John mabry 2013 - 2018

Doesnt seem like a lot of turn over but i dont follow other teams close enough to tell. 

Personally i dont think maddux does a bad job.  At keast ive not seen any evidence of that.  However i thought liquest did fine as well. 

Mabry on the other hand...see ya

There was a good reason Easler was fired, but I don’t remember the specifics.

Page was an alcoholic

Imo coaches are like managers but on a shorter time span...after awhile the message gets stale.

APIAD wrote:

So the cards are talking about:

Carp
Gold
Ozuna
Dejong

As a top of the lineup.  I like batting carp and Goldschmidt back to back.  Of course carp second and Goldschmidt third would be my preference but i understand the team must meet carps needs first and foremost.  Accepting that as the faith id say bat wong or batter 9th and pitcher 8th.

I hate Matt Carpenter.

forsberg_us wrote:

APIAD wrote:

So the cards are talking about:

Carp
Gold
Ozuna
Dejong

As a top of the lineup. I like batting carp and Goldschmidt back to back. Of course carp second and Goldschmidt third would be my preference but i understand the team must meet carps needs first and foremost. Accepting that as the faith id say bat wong or batter 9th and pitcher 8th.

I hate Matt Carpenter.

Of course, on a team that isn't being held hostage by its MVP Candidate, it would make sense to bat the fastest runner they've had since Vince Coleman at the top of the lineup, followed by their lefthanded hitting second baseman who batted .317 after the all-star break, followed by an actual MVP candidate, followed by a leftfielder who drove in 124 runs the last time he had someone of Goldschmidt's skill hitting in front of him, 
Shildt seems like a fine fellow. The team played well once he took over, and he's clearly earned a chance to manage the team for 2019. But part of me thinks the Cardinals would better respond to a manager like Dick Williams or Earl Weaver who has the stones to tell Carpenter "Look, you're batting fifth. If that's going to make you unhappy, I don't care. I've got two other third basemen in camp who will bat ninth if I ask them."
 

Last edited by artie_fufkin (12/08/2018 5:11 pm)

artie_fufkin wrote:

Of course, on a team that isn't being held hostage by its MVP Candidate, it would make sense to bat the fastest runner they've had since Vince Coleman at the top of the lineup, followed by their lefthanded hitting second baseman who batted .317 after the all-star break, followed by an actual MVP candidate, followed by a leftfielder who drove in 124 runs the last time he had someone of Goldschmidt's skill hitting in front of him, 
Shildt seems like a fine fellow. The team played well once he took over, and he's clearly earned a chance to manage the team for 2019. But part of me thinks the Cardinals would better respond to a manager like Dick Williams or Earl Weaver who has the stones to tell Carpenter "Look, you're batting fifth. If that's going to make you unhappy, I don't care. I've got two other third basemen in camp who will bat ninth if I ask them."
 

Yep. Is there no St Louis reporter who will ask Carpenter directly why he thinks the team benefits from having his slow ass at leadoff?