GatewayRedbirds.com

Those are great points radio.

GatewaySnayke wrote:I'm not comfortable saying, "hey, Tony, nice job on getting Rolen and Edmonds career years, then on convincing Colorado to swap Larry Walker for almost nothing."

Edmonds' career path is a pretty good argument for TLR though. He went from a nice player with a malcontent rep in Anaheim to a potential Hall of Famer in St. Louis. Something pretty big seems to have happened there.

greenback44 wrote:

GatewaySnayke wrote:I'm not comfortable saying, "hey, Tony, nice job on getting Rolen and Edmonds career years, then on convincing Colorado to swap Larry Walker for almost nothing."

Edmonds' career path is a pretty good argument for TLR though. He went from a nice player with a malcontent rep in Anaheim to a potential Hall of Famer in St. Louis. Something pretty big seems to have happened there.

But how would Tony have changed Edmonds though?

Radio_Bugtussle wrote:What seperates TLR from others is the results he's gotten following extrordinary circumstances.

TLR regrouped the A's following and got a win in the Earthquake series.

The 2001 Cardinals came out of the gate on all cylinders following the September 11th stoppage.

The '02 Cardinals recovered well from the loss of Darryl Kile.

Not all managers get such good results in disasterous, tragic circumstances like that.

Bingo. Spot on. Exactly right. What you said.

Lets talk 2004, the team Snake says his mother could have managed to the World Series. Remember that this was the team that was playing .500 ball in mid-May and on the 18th of May the Cards lost in the 9th in NY to the Mets. Everybody was up in arms and some were callnig for Tony's head. This was the day Tony stopped the bus on its return to the hotel and took a walk in the park to calm himself.

For another week the Cards played .500 ball but Tony was making adjustments and dealing with players heads in the club house. Whatever he did worked as the rest of the season the Cards played the best baseball day in and day out that I can remember seeing. It was an incredible run.

A lot of managers would have started throwing bats, [expletive] the umpires, blaming everything and everybody for the adversity. But Tony, as he always does, takes losing personally and starts with himself and the things he can control to change that.

I'm sorry, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Tony LaRussa. He is a BIG reason for the success of this franchise over the last decade.

GatewaySnayke wrote:

greenback44 wrote:

GatewaySnayke wrote:I'm not comfortable saying, "hey, Tony, nice job on getting Rolen and Edmonds career years, then on convincing Colorado to swap Larry Walker for almost nothing."

Edmonds' career path is a pretty good argument for TLR though. He went from a nice player with a malcontent rep in Anaheim to a potential Hall of Famer in St. Louis. Something pretty big seems to have happened there.

But how would Tony have changed Edmonds though?

Some managers in the way they deal with players get more out of them than other guys do. LaRussa and Cox seem to get more out of guys than other managers do.

GatewaySnayke wrote:

greenback44 wrote:

GatewaySnayke wrote:I'm not comfortable saying, "hey, Tony, nice job on getting Rolen and Edmonds career years, then on convincing Colorado to swap Larry Walker for almost nothing."

Edmonds' career path is a pretty good argument for TLR though. He went from a nice player with a malcontent rep in Anaheim to a potential Hall of Famer in St. Louis. Something pretty big seems to have happened there.

But how would Tony have changed Edmonds though?

Well, he may have given Edmonds some pointers about where to obtain steroids. He also may have told Edmonds to stop worrying about the strikeouts and just do what comes natural.

boiseCardsFan wrote:

Radio_Bugtussle wrote:What seperates TLR from others is the results he's gotten following extrordinary circumstances.

TLR regrouped the A's following and got a win in the Earthquake series.

The 2001 Cardinals came out of the gate on all cylinders following the September 11th stoppage.

The '02 Cardinals recovered well from the loss of Darryl Kile.

Not all managers get such good results in disasterous, tragic circumstances like that.

Bingo. Spot on. Exactly right. What you said.

Lets talk 2004, the team Snake says his mother could have managed to the World Series.

My mother is not a manager in baseball. I said the worst manager, meaning people who have managed before and been unsuccessful at it.

I'm sorry, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Tony LaRussa. He is a BIG reason for the success of this franchise over the last decade.

And I think the bigger reason is Walt Jocketty providing Tony with players such as Edmonds, Rolen, Walker, Sanders, Renteria, Williams, Kile, Isringhausen, Tavarez, Kline, Carpenter, Mulder, Calero, Suppan, Matheny, McGwire, Marquis, King, Wainwright...

If I replaced those smattering of 19 players acquired via trade or free agency with lesser players, would the Cardinals have been the class of the NL Central since 2000?

greenback44 wrote:

GatewaySnayke wrote:

greenback44 wrote:

GatewaySnayke wrote:I'm not comfortable saying, "hey, Tony, nice job on getting Rolen and Edmonds career years, then on convincing Colorado to swap Larry Walker for almost nothing."

Edmonds' career path is a pretty good argument for TLR though. He went from a nice player with a malcontent rep in Anaheim to a potential Hall of Famer in St. Louis. Something pretty big seems to have happened there.

But how would Tony have changed Edmonds though?

Well, he may have given Edmonds some pointers about where to obtain steroids. He also may have told Edmonds to stop worrying about the strikeouts and just do what comes natural.

I don't know if your first comment was supposed to be funny, but I got a good chuckle out of it while also hoping it's not true.

GatewaySnayke wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

GatewaySnayke wrote:Perhaps there is. But from what I see on the surface, I'm pretty sure that if you gave the worst manager the 2004 St. Louis Cardinals, he could've coaxed 100 wins out of them.

The same team picked by everyone and their uncle to finish a distant 3rd in the division behind the Cubs and Astros?

--P--

Yep, that team. The team where two players put up OPS+ of over 170, and another finished with 160. The team where the two corner OFers put up 102 and 105 and then another one came along and put up a 146.

I'm not comfortable saying, "hey, Tony, nice job on getting Rolen and Edmonds career years, then on convincing Colorado to swap Larry Walker for almost nothing."

You would be surprised at how many MLB managers can take talent like that and only get the team 90 wins.

I think you are still focusing too much on game tactics. There is very little difference in MLB managers there. They all know the stats. They all know the book. They've all seen the scouting reports. What seperates Tony is strategy. The periodic resting of players. The benching of players and non-use of relievers to make a statement. Sometimes those techniques don't work. But LaRussa often has more success than failure. More players play better under LaRussa than players who play worse.

--P--

Popeye_Card wrote:

GatewaySnayke wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

GatewaySnayke wrote:Perhaps there is. But from what I see on the surface, I'm pretty sure that if you gave the worst manager the 2004 St. Louis Cardinals, he could've coaxed 100 wins out of them.

The same team picked by everyone and their uncle to finish a distant 3rd in the division behind the Cubs and Astros?

--P--

Yep, that team. The team where two players put up OPS+ of over 170, and another finished with 160. The team where the two corner OFers put up 102 and 105 and then another one came along and put up a 146.

I'm not comfortable saying, "hey, Tony, nice job on getting Rolen and Edmonds career years, then on convincing Colorado to swap Larry Walker for almost nothing."

You would be surprised at how many MLB managers can take talent like that and only get the team 90 wins.

I think you are still focusing too much on game tactics. There is very little difference in MLB managers there. They all know the stats. They all know the book. They've all seen the scouting reports. What seperates Tony is strategy. The periodic resting of players. The benching of players and non-use of relievers to make a statement. Sometimes those techniques don't work. But LaRussa often has more success than failure. More players play better under LaRussa than players who play worse.

--P--

LOL...if that's true then Cub fans are in for a very long year with Jason Marquis.