The Cardinals Conundrum

by on February 3, 2011 · 37 comments

Simply put, a “conundrum” is a particularly difficult problem that cannot be solved in a satisfactory manner (yes I just made up that definition).  It just so happens to be an appropriate way to describe the position I find myself in when the Cardinals make a move that I consider nonsensical or downright dumb. 

I absolutely refuse to root against the Cardinals, even if the front office chooses to give away players for a bucket of baseballs.  I do not derive satisfaction in seeing the team fail as a result of really bad decisions made by the people in charge.  However, I do want to see the decision-makers taken to task for their missteps, and I want blame apportioned appropriately.  If mistakes are made, I expect the manager or executive responsible to take the heat and be forthright about defending their decisions.  That’s not to say that I expect them to make the right decision every time, but they should be honest and forthcoming about why they do what they do.  Simple accountability isn’t too much to ask.

So, what’s a guy to do when something looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, but the front office claims it’s a squirrel? 

Take a lesson from The Godfather.  “It’s not personal.  It’s business.”  ~Don Lucchesi

That’s right.  It’s not personal, and it’s all about business.  It’s about the business of baseball, and my voice will never be heard by the Cardinals front office, because I’m just one fan.  I’m just one fan who happened to pay to attend a lot of games last year.  This year?  This year may be a different story.  I may spend a bit more time watching games from the comfort of home.  It’s nothing personal against the front office or the team.  It’s a non-emotional businesslike decision.  More money stays in my pocket instead of going into the team’s pockets.  It’s also a very small, symbolic gesture to show my disapproval of what I consider a series of ill-conceived moves resulting in a massive payroll for 2011.  Yes, I’ll miss Brendan Ryan.  Yes, I wish Joe Mather and Matt Pagnozzi were still with the organization.  However, I think Ryan will be better off in Seattle, and I think it’s the best thing for him.  Same goes for Mather in Atlanta and Pagnozzi in Colorado.  I expect the team to be just fine, but I think that they could be even better. 

Here’s the crux of my conundrum.  Unlike most baseball teams in MLB, we don’t really know all that much about the Cardinals’ balance sheet.  When the GM claims that the payroll has reached the “leaking” point, we have no way of knowing what that even really means.  We certainly don’ t know whether or not he’s actually telling the truth, either.  That’s a bit discouraging as a fan, because I want to believe what we’re being told.  I want to believe that the team is honest with the fans, and that the team is doing everything within reason to put the best product on the field possible and still turn a decent profit.  Therein lies the problem, though.  What qualifies as the “best product” and what is a “decent profit”? 

At this point, I’m not convinced that the team is doing everything possible on the “best product” side.  The team spent a decent amount of money in the offseason, but its biggest acquisition was arguably re-signing Jake Westbrook.  The rest were free agents who are either looking to have rebound years or just snag backup positions.  On the profit side, I don’t think we’ll ever know the whole truth, and that’s a bit unsettling.  If Pujols doesn’t get re-signed, will the fans ever know the whole truth about how the negotiations played out? 

Regardless of what happens, I’m probably still stuck in my conundrum.  I won’t root against the team on the field, but I certainly have issues with the “team” behind the one on the field.  I’d like to watch Albert Pujols play the next several years in a Cardinals uniform.  If that does not happen, I’m going to look for someone to blame, and I’m probably not going to start with Albert, because he’s bigger than I am.

DISCLAIMER:  I don’t have a specific issue with a big payroll, but I do have issue with the accompanying “leaking” claim without proof being provided.

TIDBIT:  Today is February 3rd, 2011 which is the Chinese New Year.

Like it?  Have a duck that you claim is a squirrel?  Find me on Twitter, and we’ll talk about The Godfather!

email
Cardinals fan since I could hold a fishing pole steady. Accidental blogger. Opinionated. I could care less about what you think of me. Constantly confounded, bemused, and confuzzled (ie I'm a pc and a mac). I'm an IT infrastructure analyst with a penchant for breaking tech toys. I ate a sabermetric primer for breakfast. I love playing "All-powerful GM of MLB". The 2010 Cardinals represented a good, practical definition "cognitive dissonance". The 2011 version got by on duct tape and a prayer, and I'm fine with that. They just need new tape for #12 in 12.
View all posts by Dennis
Follow Dennis on Twitter

{ 37 comments }

Andrew February 3, 2011

I wish this could be done, too, but I just find asking a privately held company to reveal the complexities of their investments and employee payroll to be a little unrealistic.

Dennis February 3, 2011

Yeah, I know it’s unrealistic, but then they shouldn’t allow anyone representing the team to make comments/assertions about the general financial well-being of the team’s payroll. Of course, I don’t feel that they should get special tax or loan treatment, but that’s something that cities and counties do for businesses all the time. Still, some teams put more financial information out there for consumption than others. It’s just a sticking point for me.

PH8 February 3, 2011

Even if you knew their financial situation, is that going to make the situation re: Pujols any different?

I mean, in a vacuum – which is essentially how we’re operating right now – you want Pujols to sign and stick. If they do that, it’s liable to mean a patchwork supporting cast, or having to spend all their money on development instead of big signing splashes all around Pujols, which you dislike as well.

As I’ve mentioned before, the whole thing is remarkably danged if you do, danged if you don’t for the Cardinals. Pujols holds most, if not all, of the leverage.

Craig F. February 3, 2011

It’s funny that you posted about this D. We are planning a trip to the motherland in May and have it designed so we can catch a Cardinals game.. yes.. Astros are in town that day.. lol.

Anyway.. I am a bit frustrated with the Cardinals lack of interest in signing Pujols and some serious talent to help the team out. I am seriously considering not going to that game when we show up.. and like most families.. that would include lots of concessions and memorabilia.

Now on top of that.. since the Cardinals were nice enough to get back onto KMOX and I can pick that up at my house in Houston.. I have even thought about not picking up mlb.tv online.

If more of us decide not to spend our hard earned money on this team maybe the Cardinals will get the idea.

Sign Albert Pujols.. or seriously.. John Mozeliak should be tar and feathered while he is chased out of town with pitchforks.

PH8 February 3, 2011

Yikes, Craig. Threats to not buy memorabilia?

What “idea” are the Cardinals supposed to “get”? That fans have been spoiled by years of excellent play and championships when most other teams in similar markets have been rebuilding for 10 or more years?

Why are baseball teams always viewed as charities rather than businesses? The DeWitt’s are anxious to field a winner, IMO – but sure they want to make some money on the side as well. I still hold the opinion that they’ve been putting a bit away, knowing that AP’s contract was coming due – and I think they’ll eventually get something done. But to *expect* the team to just make it happen regardless is a bit too easy, no?

Re: Mozeliak, there’s no doubt that this negotiation will define his career as the Cards’ GM – but with few misses, and arguably already being hamstrung a bit by Pujols, I’d argue he’s been successful. Not sure why you want to chase him out of town?

Dennis February 3, 2011

Yes, I do think that knowing the details would make a difference. If the team is truly constrained, then that changes my view and potentially my reaction to the Pujols situation.

I do want Pujols re-signed, and I’m okay with not signing big name free agents in favor of developing talent from within. I just don’t believe in the “build to compete every year” approach. That philosophy simply wastes a lot of money
and stunts player development in my opinion.

If the team really is reaching to keep AP, then we’ll understand more about how the negotiations reach the final conclusion. Regardless of that outcome, I am curious about that as a fan. If the team isn’t being cheap, then I want to know.

PH8 February 3, 2011

Hang on a second – how do you reconcile

“At this point, I’m not convinced that the team is doing everything possible on the “best product” side.”

with

“I just don’t believe in the “build to compete every year” approach. That philosophy simply wastes a lot of money”

???

Seems to be an either or decision, no? I don’t envision a scenario where the most storied franchise in the National League enters a rebuilding phase – so either they sign Pujols and have to be able to make it happen around him (which is easier for Albert’s presence), or they reallocate his resources to other players (which may be more efficient for a team of the Cardinals’ resources).

At any rate, I expect we’ll know a lot more in two weeks.

Dennis February 3, 2011

Craig, I would imagine that Mo wants to get AP signed as much as anybody. His tenure in St. Louis could be judged by how this ultimately plays out, even though the yes/no decision is probably not his to make. He’s likely working within financial parameters given to him which is typical for any large contract in baseball.

That said, I would hope that I didn’t influence anybody to change their minds about attending a game. I’ll still attend some, but I won’t go to as many as I have in the past. It’s just my small gesture and not meant to be anything more than that.

Andrew February 3, 2011

They had to finance a large chunk of their stadium. As much as any team has had to of the new generation of stadiums. With tv revenues outweighing their lack of market size — putting them aroundv7th-10th in market revenues, my guess is mch over 105-110 is constraining. Or leaking. That’s not to say that can’t increase — it will with salary inflation and other sources of revenue being developed from a very bright business mind in DeWitt III

PH8 February 3, 2011

At the risk of sounding like a front office apologist – sometimes, a step back provides perspective that makes it amazing that the Cardinals are able to reach into the top ten of the league in payroll.

I thought I read that the Kansas City metropolitan market is actually larger than St. Louis? Anyone back me up on that, or was I imagining again?

Dennis February 3, 2011

I reconcile the two by saying that I don’t have an issue with spending a year or two “reloading” as opposed to trying to take a shot every single year. Sure, it’s great to be in the hunt every year, but how expensive is that? Does it really pay off in the long term?

It’s not an either/or scenario to me. They just have to allow the inexperienced players a legit sink/swim opportunity and be willing to part ways with some that sink. Stunting growth in favor of veteran journeymen doesn’t help the team long-term.

PH8 February 3, 2011

So reloading = handing jobs to inexperienced players and letting an entire season tank if they can’t handle it?

I’m all for having young players step up when they can as well – but not just for the sake of making sure that the Joe Mather’s of the world have a “fair chance” at making it happen.

I completely understand what you’re saying, I’m just not sure there’s actually growth to be realized in some of the young guys who have come through lately (another failing of the franchise, to date).

Dennis February 3, 2011

I agree that being in the top ten in payroll is a big deal, but I think the fans deserve an awful lot of credit for that. Fans are responsible for $95M+ in gate receipts alone. It’s because of those fans that the team benefits from an outsized tv revenue stream. It’s what the team does with that money that matters to me. They already have a product that basically sells itself with a demand that is already there.

Trust me, if they can get Albert signed to a really creative deal, I’ll be the first to jump on the bandwagon. If they make a legit offer that he declines, I’ll still side with the front office as well. If they lowball him and are hamstrung due to their own shortcomings, I won’t be nearly as quick to jump on that bandwagon. However, I am keeping an open mind, and I’m not blindly choosing a side.

PH8 February 3, 2011

No doubt the fans deserve credit, but it’s a chicken and egg thing.

If the team was floundering with quad-A players surrounding Pujols on a $65mm payroll, they wouldn’t draw as well.

I expect that when we have news – there will be a difference in belief of what is “lowball” versus realistic. I don’t intend to imply that your expectations are unrealistic, but if the club has done their homework and said that $25mm AAV is their limit because they can better the club without AP for above that amount, is that lowball? i’d argue not, but I suspect many others would disagree.

Craig F. February 3, 2011

If you look at the way the Cardinals are attempting to do business and compare it to reality. Then yes.. I believe that the Cardinals are going down the wrong path. This is going to ramble a bit so bare with me for a moment.

I do believe they can afford Pujols. If they couldn’t they should have traded him prior to his 10/5 rights. And this speaks volumes to the stupidity of the front office.

Pujols should have been signed last offseason. The payout to him would have been more reasonable and his wanting a 10 year contract might have been a little bit more palpable.

When I say that Mozeliak should be run out of town if he doesn’t sign Pujols.. I don’t mean it because I really want Pujols signed.. yes I do.. I want him a Redbird for life.. but the truth of the matter is.. if you can’t afford to sign Pujols, do one of two things.. sell the team or trade him when you have an opportunity. Billy Beane has been doing that for years with his star players… sometimes with better results than others.

If you look at a team that did not rebuild properly it would be the Houston Astros. If they traded specific players at the right time they would have been fine. They stuck with their old horses long after their worth had diminished.

And getting back to my first statement. You cannot continue to support the payroll in the way the Cardinals do for the long term without paying customers. The stadium was filled on average last year at 87% capacity. That my friends is a lot of money. Trust me when I tell you this.. the amount of money alone based on concessions is a killing. That is your biggest money maker overall regardless of what anyone tells you.

How much does a hotdog go at cost? Total cost after everything is said and done is maybe 25 cents. That beer that you drink.. a typical keg of All Belgium Budweiser beer goes for maybe $40 at wholesale cost? Lets say they sell that beer to you for $8 per beer. It is equal to 24 ounces. A typical keg of beer holds 6 1/2 cases so a keg will typically sell about 80 beers. So that keg gets you a profit of $600 per keg. Now think about how many beers are sold per year…

My whole point is.. they will make their money. Please do not feel sorry for these owners.. we do not understand what it is like to be in their shoes because they are Billionaires. I personally have four millionaires in my family and I know they live their life on a completely different level than I do.

All signing Pujols does is cut into the profits. If they had been smart this would have all been over with and the youth movement would have been continued without the cost of signing Fat Elvis.

PH8 February 3, 2011

First, thanks for reading Craig. I don’t want to seem to be on the attack, I am obviously just as passionate as you are about this subject and the team. We don’t always have to agree to be fans of the same team, right? :)

1. I believe they can afford Pujols too, to an extent.
2. Your comments about “they should’ve traded him when they had the chance” only further illustrate my damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario – how do you think trading Pujols would’ve gone over with the St. Louis fanbase? About as well as him just walking? Especially if you admit after trading him that it was because you had no intention of paying his asking price? No-win situation.
3. A ten-year contract is never “more palpable.” It just means the player is not as far on the wrong side of 36 when he’s done with it.
4. Mozeliak doesn’t own the team, nor is he the one maknig final decisions on how much money to offer AP.
5. In my opinion, the time for holding up Billy Beane as a shining beacon for general managers to follow has passed. Maybe it’s just me.
6. The ‘Stros are a completely different story, and none of their players held a candle to the situation with Pujols and his once-in-a-lifetime status.
7. I don’t feel sorry for anyone, particularly the DeWitts. They have done quite well for themselves. That doesn’t mean that they can’t continue to run the Cardinals like the business that they are and expect to make a little money off of them. You don’t think the Royals or Pirates owners are making money? It’s all a matter of scale.
8. They gave Mather, and Stavinoha, et al, etc their chances to make the club and further the “youth movement.” They all failed. Pujols has announced his desire for the club to win as one of his pre-requisites for re-signing with the Cardinals. The club felt Berkman gave them the best chance to win this year, and before that Holliday, and before that Lohse, and on and on.

Now I do sound like I’m a front office honk. I really want what’s best for the team, and thus far, I trust those in power to do it. I’ve been critical when it’s been necessary (Ludwick trade). Most important – I don’t think they are sitting around in a room looking for ways to screw the fans.

Craig F. February 3, 2011

1. I believe they can afford Pujols too, to an extent. – We agree! Yeah!
2. Your comments about “they should’ve traded him when they had the chance” only further illustrate my damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario – how do you think trading Pujols would’ve gone over with the St. Louis fanbase? About as well as him just walking? Especially if you admit after trading him that it was because you had no intention of paying his asking price? No-win situation. – It is just forward thinking.. it you tell the fan base that this is what we can spend and really this is the line.. then we get it. – They have yet to get to that point.. and Dennis is right.. we don’t know what they can truly afford.. not a big deal though..
3. A ten-year contract is never “more palpable.” It just means the player is not as far on the wrong side of 36 when he’s done with it. – I have gone on record as saying I see Pujols as a Hank Aaron type player and he has done nothing to make me think he can’t be that type of player.. Hank Aaron played peak baseball until after 39.. so a 10 year contract does make sense in that case IMHO.
4. Mozeliak doesn’t own the team, nor is he the one maknig final decisions on how much money to offer AP. – I blame Mozeliak because he knows what the owners intentions are.. if he doesn’t he does not deserve to have that job IMHO.
5. In my opinion, the time for holding up Billy Beane as a shining beacon for general managers to follow has passed. Maybe it’s just me. – I was using Beane as an example and he has strayed from his original idealogy in the last 4 years. He really needs to go back to his own roots.
6. The ‘Stros are a completely different story, and none of their players held a candle to the situation with Pujols and his once-in-a-lifetime status. – I believe the Astros could have moved Oswalt in 2008 and gotten great value at that point along with moving Berkman.. but their owner was holding onto to glory.
7. I don’t feel sorry for anyone, particularly the DeWitts. They have done quite well for themselves. That doesn’t mean that they can’t continue to run the Cardinals like the business that they are and expect to make a little money off of them. You don’t think the Royals or Pirates owners are making money? It’s all a matter of scale. – I don’t have a problem with them making money. however.. if you own the St. Louis Cardinals.. they are a trust of the city of St. Louis.. thus I am always going to be weary of a businessman from Cinncinati owning them.. but he has done right for the city for the most part. I have no problems with the Royals and Pirates stinking since both cities have had it over on the Cardinals over the years and to me this is just Karma coming back at them… lol. jk.
8. They gave Mather, and Stavinoha, et al, etc their chances to make the club and further the “youth movement.” They all failed. Pujols has announced his desire for the club to win as one of his pre-requisites for re-signing with the Cardinals. The club felt Berkman gave them the best chance to win this year, and before that Holliday, and before that Lohse, and on and on. – So my problem with Berkman is this.. he is washed up as a player.. and I say this because I watched him play for a long time.. now.. IF.. LaRussa tells Berkman he is only allowed to hit Left Handed.. then it might actually be a big pick up.. but Berkman is a terrible Right handed hitter the last 4 years.. and I have nightmares thinking about him in the clutch hitting right handed for the Cardinals.. I laughed about it a lot when he played for Houston.. but this is our Cardinals I am speaking about. I truly believe in giving the young guys a chance and even if it doesn’t work out.. keep trying it.

My final point is this.. you cannot replace Albert Pujols probably for another 30 years.. at least I would think that is maybe the time period it would take to get someone that good to end up in St. Louis.

Dennis February 3, 2011

No, that’s not what I’m saying “reloading” is, but if it takes a season to really know what they’ve got in players like Greene, Craig, and Jay, then I’m all for it. Last year was a good example. They had a choice between throwing in the towel or making a trade for starting pitching to make a playoff run. I would have been fine with playing the young guys to see where they fit in the picture for the future. They could have kept Ludwick and saved some money as well.

After those players become known quantities, then the growth comes either from their direct contributions or by replacing them with players who can contribute. Instead, they start 2011 with the same questions marks about what many guys can do at the big league level that they had last year.

PH8 February 3, 2011

Well, then the question becomes where is the threshold for giving up, right? They weren’t out of the race until late in the season last year – so at what point do they start handing things off to the youngsters?

(Yay for some baseball debate!)

Craig F. February 4, 2011

Lets attempt to think of the youngster in the same way they do in other sports.. my case in point is the Houston Rockets.

Ok.. so the Rockets really need some young talent to step it up however we have a older coach here in Rick Adelman. He gives guys a shot to see if they can do it. What I like about Adelman is he does not just give up on players quickly. He gives them serious minutes for a stretch of time to see if they can adapt to the NBA.

I don’t see Tony doing that as much. If a players start to show promise. he does not give them the benefit of the doubt unless they are Pujolsian and basically give Don Tony no choice. You just can’t do that with a typical young player. Tony likes to play mind games with his youngsters and I am not sure that is the best method anymore. I will not debate that LaRussa is not a great manager.. I think he is.. but I do not like what he does to young players.
If you are a contender this does not work out very well.. and the Cardinals should be contenders.. you can get away with it at one position but not more than that… so you are limited at seeing if a player can really stick at the major league level.

Dennis February 3, 2011

Naturally, I don’t believe the team would draw as well, but I do believe that they can field a winner without AP and without a massive payroll. The Rays do it, and they play in a tougher division in my opinion.

If they really offer AP $25M/yr, and he declines, will they spend that money on other players? I’m personally curious To find out about the backup plan. I’ve already written about all this stuff, so I won’t get into detail here. In short, I want to see him retire as a Cardinal, but I don’t want the team to be handicapped by his contract. Team success takes priority above all else. I feel like they can replace his future production, but they can’t replace him or his aura. Fine. I don’t expect that I’ll consider the team’s offer to be a “lowball” one. Anything over $25M/yr is reasonable in my opinion, but that’s just me.

Dennis February 3, 2011

Well, they weren’t mathematically eliminated until late in the season, but they were missing a lot of opportunities due to lack of offense after they swept the Reds. By the end of that month, I felt like the writing was on the wall that they weren’t playing like the better team. At worst, guys like Lopez and Feliz shouldn’t have had many at-bats after that. At best, I question why they chose to trade Ludwick when they probably didn’t have to do it.

Andrew February 3, 2011

It should be noted too that every single year the front office hasn’t unloaded the system for trades, it has gotten considerably better. The guy takes a lot of criticism (most of it unfair, in my opinion), but the system with Luhnow in charge of scouting is in good hands.

PH8 February 3, 2011

It’s with sadness, but great joy that I will not be able to go to the local Midwest League affiliate and see Shelby Miller pitch any longer.

Dennis February 3, 2011

For the record, I thought that the end of the 2008 season would have been the ideal time for a contract extension. Adding 7 years to the 3 years remaining on his deal would have taken him through his age 38 season. Just right in my opinion.

As for Billy Beane, I think he pushed “Moneyball” to the limit, and then he just added a new chapter this offseason by selectively adding some offensive punch to a team that had really, really good starting pitching last year. If that pitching holds up this year, they will make noise in the AL West, and the payroll is still reasonable.

Dennis February 3, 2011

I agree, Andrew. As a matter of fact, I agree so much that I wrote “Cheap Labor” back in December in which I praised Jeff Luhnow for the work he’s done. Credit the crack research staff at PH8 for that one. (Wait, we don’t have a research staff.). Guess we’ll all just take credit for it then.

Andrew February 3, 2011

Hah, I’ll have to look that one up.

Dennis February 4, 2011

Okay, I give. I’m typing on an iPhone, and there is simply no way to reply to 8 point replies. That’s too much. I will say that I find it painfully ironic that anybody will mention Mather and Stavinoha and “youth movement” together. Both of those guys are 28 (I think). That just implies to me that either player development/evaluation often takes too long, or it takes too long to bring them up through the system.

As for the Astros, their situation wasn’t exactly the same in terms of having a once-in-a-generation player, but there are similarities with the Bagwell situation. It was a catch-22 as well.

PH8 February 5, 2011

Well, in a way, that kind of proves the point I was trying to make re: Mather, Stavinoha, et al. They all spent several years trying to catch on with the club and now they’re no longer spring chickens. Same with BRyan. Same with Tyler Greene (now 27). Allen Craig is 26.

Time to put up or shut up.

Colby and Jaime represent the “youth movement” right now – could also include Jay (age 25) – but who else is even close to ready to making something happen? Eduardo Sanchez, maybe?

Dennis February 5, 2011

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes a “youth movement”. I think that evaluating “young” players in brief stints with the big club or in roles that are greatly different than what they are accustomed to playing isn’t an effective approach. Either the sample size is too small, or it doesn’t adequately represent the player’s strengths.

PH8 February 5, 2011

Out of curiosity, which young player do you feel should’ve been handed a full time role that wasn’t?

The Colby thing has been kind of bungled, but he hasn’t helped himself either. Jay was more or less handed a job. McClellan has succeeded in the bullpen since winning a spot in spring a few years ago. Garcia was given about all the rope he could handle.

Dennis February 5, 2011

I don’t think he deserved a full-time job, but I think it was obvious that Allen Craig is not well-suited to be a low at-bat guy. I think that the more swings he gets, the better he’ll get. That’s based on the “eye” or actually the “ear” test. By the end of the year, even his line drive outs sounded different. There just isn’t a place to play him consistently. It’s a waste.

PH8 February 5, 2011

Ok, so then again – then who deserved a spot over someone else on the roster? Seems that if he couldn’t wrap his mind around being a bench guy, Craig should’ve been in Memphis, right?

Dennis February 5, 2011

When did this become about a roster spot? I’m thinking in terms of resource utilization and optimization. Why wait all the way until Sept 21st to start playing Allen Craig (who hit .382 in Sept/Oct combined)? Why wait so long on Descalso as well? On September 1st, the team was 8 games back of the Reds and 5 games out of the WC. By the 14th, the team was still 7 games behind the Reds and 7.5 off the pace in the WC (with 2 teams sandwiched ahead of them and the WC leader). At least a week was lost during which they could have evaluated both guys without taking a “job” away from anybody else.

PH8 February 5, 2011

I certainly agree with you, re: end of season. Descalso, for one, saw a lot of at-bats, and I thought that was great.

Perhaps I’m going the “roster spot” direction involuntarily, because earlier you were arguing about giving these guys a whole year – now it’s just about the end of the season.

I don’t agree with the premise of having Craig play an entire year over someone arguably more suited to get the playing time just to “see what he’s got.” Play to win.

Dennis February 5, 2011

Something has gotten mixed up. I mentioned something about “if it takes a season”, but that wasn’t implying that each player would have the whole season. It was in keeping with my theme that I’d be in favor of a “lost season”, if it provided ample opportunity for separating the viable from the rest. That means that someone like Tyler Greene gets 150-200 at-bats over a 35-40 game span during a “lost season” instead of 300-400 at-bats over 3 different seasons. There are too many years that the team misses the playoffs AND fails to use the opportunity to evaluate players in proper context in my opinion.

PH8 February 5, 2011

That’s fair.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: