GatewayRedbirds.com

lukethedrifter wrote:Maybe it's every team but it sure feels like the Cards succcess depends on several guys playing like we hope they can. Grichuk, Wong, Reyes, Diaz, Martinez, Piscotty.
They aren't unreasonable hopes. Consistency from Wong and Grichuk. Pitching maturity from Reyes. No regression from Diaz. And a step up to to elite level for CMart and Stanford educated Piscotty.

To a point, I definitely think that's by design. Acquire as many young, inexpensive assets as you can, let them play and see who steps up. Or put another way, their success depends on several guys stepping forward because they have so many young guys who CAN step forward (they aren't paying on the open market for more certainty, as a general rule). It kind of gets lost in all of the "AGING CORE!!!!" discussion that they have a lot of under-25 talent right now.

Last summer, I read In Pursuit of Pennants (sorry if I've mentioned it too many times). AWESOME book, by the way. It's all about the way teams historically have put themselves together, and it takes special note of when teams do something groundbreaking (like Branch Rickey inventing the farm system, for instance).

There's a HUGE section about Pat Gillick from back in his Blue Jays days. He built their back to back WS winners (then he went to Baltimore and built a winner there, then helped build the 114 win Mariners, then helped build the 2008 WS winning Phillies).

His whole philosophy was to build a team that could win 85 to 90 games, and turn over every stone to build up to that number. For Gillick, it meant the Latin American academies (the Jays were a forerunner), using Rule 5 when other teams weren't, and of course just plain old draft and development. Because if you're 85 to 90 wins, more often than not you'll get a few random-ass players, usually young, who step up and carry you over the top. And if you're on that pace (85 to 90 wins), you can also make a deal at the trade deadline... and if you've done your diligence and have enough young talent, you can also call those guys up at the end of the year. So your 85 win team can become a 95 win team if you're smart about it. Hell, your 85 win team can become 90 just on sheer luck.

The long and short of it is, it's made me think a lot about the Cardinals under Mozeliak. And [expletive], even before that. They seem content to live in that 88-90 win projected range and then hope something good presents itself to them.

Socnorb11 wrote:Cusumano specifically said on his radio show that there were "rumors" about Fowler not wanting to play for the Cardinals. He didn't say he had a source, and he didn't say that he believed it.

He said Tuesday that conversation came from a source, he said Heyward may not have given a glowing recommendation of the Cardinals clubhouse and the words used to describe it were "no fun." He also said money would trump everything else. And Derrick Goold said yesterday that Matheny promoting a more fun atmosphere last spring was a direct response to Heyward.

Miklasz stuck a passing blurb in the middle of one of his columns where he "questioned" whether Fowler wanted to play for Matheny. He didn't say he had a source, and he didn't say that he had heard anything to that regard.

So it's a leap of faith to assume that Bernie has heard something from sources he's picked up over a 30-year career? And because he didn't outright say, "I've heard from people that Fowler might not want to play for Matheny?" that means he's making it up? OK.

When Goold was asked about it, here was his response:

"I don't know if that's the case. It would have to come from Dexter Fowler, and not some guess or speculation".
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball ... d7805.html

"If Fowler has a personal reason…I’d rather hear it from them than a second or third source guessing.”
http://insidestl.com/goold-discusses-ca ... gs/1981313

Goold said yesterday that it was fair to question if Fowler wanted to be in St. Louis.

This stuff should be moved to the "false news" thread in Social, quite frankly. It's absolute 100% speculation with no foundation.

No, you say it's 100 percent speculation because you choose to believe that Frank Cusumano and Bernie Miklasz are making [expletive] up. If you want to parse their words and get semantical because they didn't add a disclaimer before writing or speaking on the topic, go ahead. It makes little difference now since Fowler has signed, and that's a great thing. Maybe Heyward had a completely different experience than other guys who have come through St. Louis. But it's something to keep an eye on in the future.

Tim wrote:

BW23 wrote:Wait, I thought Mo wasn't capable and Fowler hated Matheny. I'm sure some hate being wrong.

Did someone said he hated Matheny or that he didn't want to play with Matheny PER reports?

And maybe he doesn't want to play for Matheny, but money talks.

When they talk about all this clubhouse type stuff holding them back from signing with someone....that's when the two offers are equal. When the two offers are not equal, they always take the higher one.

This was the right thing to do, even if they ended up paying more than they hoped. It's exactly like the Peralta contract. Not a core player, but a really nice piece to supplment what they have for a few years. If he sucks at the end of the contract, worry about it then.

I really hope they take a look at Turner for the same reasons, but I am doubting that they will.

I'm glad Jason is having fun batting .225.

Farewell Friends wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:Cusumano specifically said on his radio show that there were "rumors" about Fowler not wanting to play for the Cardinals. He didn't say he had a source, and he didn't say that he believed it.

He said Tuesday that conversation came from a source, he said Heyward may not have given a glowing recommendation of the Cardinals clubhouse and the words used to describe it were "no fun." He also said money would trump everything else. And Derrick Goold said yesterday that Matheny promoting a more fun atmosphere last spring was a direct response to Heyward.

Miklasz stuck a passing blurb in the middle of one of his columns where he "questioned" whether Fowler wanted to play for Matheny. He didn't say he had a source, and he didn't say that he had heard anything to that regard.

So it's a leap of faith to assume that Bernie has heard something from sources he's picked up over a 30-year career? And because he didn't outright say, "I've heard from people that Fowler might not want to play for Matheny?" that means he's making it up? OK.

When Goold was asked about it, here was his response:

"I don't know if that's the case. It would have to come from Dexter Fowler, and not some guess or speculation".
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball ... d7805.html

"If Fowler has a personal reason…I’d rather hear it from them than a second or third source guessing.”
http://insidestl.com/goold-discusses-ca ... gs/1981313

Goold said yesterday that it was fair to question if Fowler wanted to be in St. Louis.

This stuff should be moved to the "false news" thread in Social, quite frankly. It's absolute 100% speculation with no foundation.

No, you say it's 100 percent speculation because you choose to believe that Frank Cusumano and Bernie Miklasz are making [expletive] up. If you want to parse their words and get semantical because they didn't add a disclaimer before writing or speaking on the topic, go ahead. It makes little difference now since Fowler has signed, and that's a great thing. Maybe Heyward had a completely different experience than other guys who have come through St. Louis. But it's something to keep an eye on in the future.

"Maybe" Heyward didn't like St. Louis. Maybe Molina doesn't either. Maybe Matt Carpenter doesn't. We can speculate and play the drama game with anyone. Why just Heyward?

I didn't parse any words. I gave direct quotes.


Again, if ANY of those 3 guys (Bernie, Goold or Cusumano) had heard something, why would they hesitate to say so? If they had a source, why would they stop short of saying that they heard it from "someone"? I mean, this would be a pretty big story. Why wouldn't they run with it, unless it's mere speculation?

Of course they're making it up. They are in the business of getting people to read or listen to them. They've got to get people listening and guessing and coming back for more. Apparently it's working.

pioneer98 wrote:

Tim wrote:

BW23 wrote:Wait, I thought Mo wasn't capable and Fowler hated Matheny. I'm sure some hate being wrong.

Did someone said he hated Matheny or that he didn't want to play with Matheny PER reports?

And maybe he doesn't want to play for Matheny, but money talks.

When they talk about all this clubhouse type stuff holding them back from signing with someone....that's when the two offers are equal. When the two offers are not equal, they always take the higher one.

I thought Heyward took less to play for the Cubs.?

Socnorb11 wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:

Tim wrote:

BW23 wrote:Wait, I thought Mo wasn't capable and Fowler hated Matheny. I'm sure some hate being wrong.

Did someone said he hated Matheny or that he didn't want to play with Matheny PER reports?

And maybe he doesn't want to play for Matheny, but money talks.

When they talk about all this clubhouse type stuff holding them back from signing with someone....that's when the two offers are equal. When the two offers are not equal, they always take the higher one.

I thought Heyward took less to play for the Cubs.?

Less guaranteed money, higher AAV

Socnorb11 wrote:

Farewell Friends wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:Cusumano specifically said on his radio show that there were "rumors" about Fowler not wanting to play for the Cardinals. He didn't say he had a source, and he didn't say that he believed it.

He said Tuesday that conversation came from a source, he said Heyward may not have given a glowing recommendation of the Cardinals clubhouse and the words used to describe it were "no fun." He also said money would trump everything else. And Derrick Goold said yesterday that Matheny promoting a more fun atmosphere last spring was a direct response to Heyward.

Miklasz stuck a passing blurb in the middle of one of his columns where he "questioned" whether Fowler wanted to play for Matheny. He didn't say he had a source, and he didn't say that he had heard anything to that regard.

So it's a leap of faith to assume that Bernie has heard something from sources he's picked up over a 30-year career? And because he didn't outright say, "I've heard from people that Fowler might not want to play for Matheny?" that means he's making it up? OK.

When Goold was asked about it, here was his response:

"I don't know if that's the case. It would have to come from Dexter Fowler, and not some guess or speculation".
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball ... d7805.html

"If Fowler has a personal reason…I’d rather hear it from them than a second or third source guessing.”
http://insidestl.com/goold-discusses-ca ... gs/1981313

Goold said yesterday that it was fair to question if Fowler wanted to be in St. Louis.

This stuff should be moved to the "false news" thread in Social, quite frankly. It's absolute 100% speculation with no foundation.

No, you say it's 100 percent speculation because you choose to believe that Frank Cusumano and Bernie Miklasz are making [expletive] up. If you want to parse their words and get semantical because they didn't add a disclaimer before writing or speaking on the topic, go ahead. It makes little difference now since Fowler has signed, and that's a great thing. Maybe Heyward had a completely different experience than other guys who have come through St. Louis. But it's something to keep an eye on in the future.

"Maybe" Heyward didn't like St. Louis. Maybe Molina doesn't either. Maybe Matt Carpenter doesn't. We can speculate and play the drama game with anyone. Why just Heyward?

I didn't parse any words. I gave direct quotes.


Again, if ANY of those 3 guys (Bernie, Goold or Cusumano) had heard something, why would they hesitate to say so? If they had a source, why would they stop short of saying that they heard it from "someone"? I mean, this would be a pretty big story. Why wouldn't they run with it, unless it's mere speculation?

Of course they're making it up. They are in the business of getting people to read or listen to them. They've got to get people listening and guessing and coming back for more. Apparently it's working.

Well respected and credible journalists are just making stuff up now LMAO

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

Well respected and credible journalists are just making stuff up now LMAO

Of course they are. Why wouldn't they? It's working, isn't it? You SERIOUSLY think that the media is above making stuff up?

Answer the question. If they had a source, or if they had heard something, then why wouldn't they say so? They don't even have to say where they heard it. Not one of them has come out and said that they heard that Fowler doesn't like Matheny. They stop short of that, because then they have a way out when the speculation is proven to be false.