Scott Rolen for Troy Glaus (Update: Finalized!)

[haltz]

Many here will refuse to blame Jocketty, however. He's not here to kick around anymore, so that's no fun.

This is also annoying. Dance around an argument for an hour and then throw a general shot out like this. If you want to say this to someone, go for it.

Go read the Jocketty thread again, anyway. Plenty of blame there. Any criticism of Mo or Tony is about what's happened this offseason.

[greenback44]

Personally, I don't think that a team can win a World Championship with a manager whose has seen the game pass him by, which was the way I interpreted your post. Maybe I read too much into it........

It's not a black-and-white thing. He doesn't automatically cause losses. The question is whether LaRussa helps or hurts, and it's not an obvious answer to me. By his numbers Tony LaRussa has been a successful manager, but it's very hard to evaluate what his individual impact has been. He doesn't hit the homer like Pujols or field the groundball like Everett (or not field the groundball like Miles), so I can't readily say what he adds or what he's supposed to add.

What I have heard and seen is that LaRussa comes with a huge freakin' pile of baggage. When you have Rolen and Miles constraints, then it's clearly not easier on paper to win ball games. Whether there's some accompanying and superior intangible that gets added with these constraints is something we effectively have to take on faith. I'd love to hear some explanation from one of those insiders on what exactly that intangible is, because my first instinct is that this a BS dump.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Rolen constraints".

This discussion won't end happily if you're going to throw up road blocks like this. There's plenty of evidence out there that Rolen specifically wanted out because of LaRussa. Letting a potential Hall of Famer go because he's got some issues with your manager doesn't speak well of the manager.

Has Rolen played for a MLB manager yet that he's been able to get along with? Has he played for a team yet that he hasn't wanted to leave? How does that land squarely on Larussa?

Do you want to put LaRussa in a class with Larry Bowa?

You don't want to believe that there are "intangibles" (and I agree), because you can't measure them. Likewise, you can't measure Larussa's influence on the front office, so is it fair to throw that into the equation?

Actually I want to believe in intangibles. But my experience tells me that they're a BS dump, something to fill column inches and air time. Whether they're easily quantifiable isn't the issue. Buzz Bissinger tried his best to convey what makes LaRussa special, and left me thinking that LaRussa's a pathetic human being with note cards.

LaRussa's influence or non-influence is a very different animal from competitive fire, or whatever intangible it is that he apparently adds to a baseball franchise. There's clear evidence for one and not a whole lot for the other. If you want to claim that his presence had no impact on the decisions regarding Rolen and Miles, then we're at an impasse.

[Socnorb11]

Many here will refuse to blame Jocketty, however. He's not here to kick around anymore, so that's no fun.

This is also annoying. Dance around an argument for an hour and then throw a general shot out like this. If you want to say this to someone, go for it.

Go read the Jocketty thread again, anyway. Plenty of blame there. Any criticism of Mo or Tony is about what's happened this offseason.

I wasn't directing it at anyone specifically. You're way too uptight.

My recollection of the Jocketty thread is that many people defended the moves that were made under his regime, because Dewitt had "theoretically" handed the reigns over to Luhnow. It's more fun to blame Luhnow, because he's still around to throw darts at. It's more fun to blame Larussa, because he's still around to throw darts at. I'm guessing that if Larussa resigned tomorrow, the blame would shift back to Dewitt, because he'd still be around.

It's no fun to blame someone that's already gone. Doing that might actually be a concession that things could get better. We can't have THAT kind of talk around here!

[Socnorb11]

Personally, I don't think that a team can win a World Championship with a manager whose has seen the game pass him by, which was the way I interpreted your post. Maybe I read too much into it........

It's not a black-and-white thing. He doesn't automatically cause losses. The question is whether LaRussa helps or hurts, and it's not an obvious answer to me. By his numbers Tony LaRussa has been a successful manager, but it's very hard to evaluate what his individual impact has been. He doesn't hit the homer like Pujols or field the groundball like Everett (or not field the groundball like Miles), so I can't readily say what he adds or what he's supposed to add.

What I have heard and seen is that LaRussa comes with a huge freakin' pile of baggage. When you have Rolen and Miles constraints, then it's clearly not easier on paper to win ball games. Whether there's some accompanying and superior intangible that gets added with these constraints is something we effectively have to take on faith. I'd love to hear some explanation from one of those insiders on what exactly that intangible is, because my first instinct is that this a BS dump.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Rolen constraints".

This discussion won't end happily if you're going to throw up road blocks like this. There's plenty of evidence out there that Rolen specifically wanted out because of LaRussa. Letting a potential Hall of Famer go because he's got some issues with your manager doesn't speak well of the manager.

Has Rolen played for a MLB manager yet that he's been able to get along with? Has he played for a team yet that he hasn't wanted to leave? How does that land squarely on Larussa?

Do you want to put LaRussa in a class with Larry Bowa?

You don't want to believe that there are "intangibles" (and I agree), because you can't measure them. Likewise, you can't measure Larussa's influence on the front office, so is it fair to throw that into the equation?

Actually I want to believe in intangibles. But my experience tells me that they're a BS dump, something to fill column inches and air time. Whether they're easily quantifiable isn't the issue. Buzz Bissinger tried his best to convey what makes LaRussa special, and left me thinking that LaRussa's a pathetic human being with note cards.

LaRussa's influence or non-influence is a very different animal from competitive fire, or whatever intangible it is that he apparently adds to a baseball franchise. There's clear evidence for one and not a whole lot for the other. If you want to claim that his presence had no impact on the decisions regarding Rolen and Miles, then we're at an impasse.

I don't deny that he influences some moves made by the front office (almost certainly the Rolen and Miles moves). But I don't think he's unique in that regard. I think MOST managers have some say in the moves that their team makes.

No, I don't want to compare Larussa to Bowa. Rolen wanted off of Bowa's team. Rolen wants off of Larussa's team. The only common denominator there is Rolen. To me, that adds up to Rolen being more of the problem than Bowa or Larussa.

[haltz]

I wasn't directing it at anyone specifically. You're way too uptight.

I'm not being uptight. When you argue with five people and then make a vague, but slightly insulting statement directed at no one specifically, it's annoying. Call it out if you see it. That would be pretty tough though considering no one is doing that.

It's no fun to blame someone that's already gone. Doing that might actually be a concession that things could get better. We can't have THAT kind of talk around here!

It's stupid to blame someone that's gone for moves that happened after they left. That's what this thread is all about. I should add that I realize planet brought it up, but the criticisms of Mo and Tony are current.

[picasso]

So anyway, are we done? If this trade goes through, I would guess we're pretty much set unless Mo finds a taker for Reyes (who's probably the last unchecked box on Mo's off-season checklist)

[UK]

Blame?

That track record of this decade hasn't been spotty at all.

Unless ownership directly said we aren't going to spend more on scouting and development, them having an inability to rely on the farm starts at Jocketty and trickles down to the scouting/development depts.

UK, you well know what I meant by "current state of the Cardinals" and their relatively bleak future.

The Cards have to improve their farm system, that and health to their ace are the primary reasons why they have dropped off.

Jocketty didn't do too poorly in FA or trades (he was usually very good as far as trades, IMO). If you have an expensive aging core, strict budget, and little to come from within, you'll get this.

IMO, it's whoever was in charge of amatuer scouting/development or if it was a lack of resources or both, there's your answer.

[Socnorb11]

I wasn't directing it at anyone specifically. You're way too uptight.

I'm not being uptight. When you argue with five people and then make a vague, but slightly insulting statement directed at no one specifically, it's annoying. Call it out if you see it. That would be pretty tough though considering no one is doing that.

It's no fun to blame someone that's already gone. Doing that might actually be a concession that things could get better. We can't have THAT kind of talk around here!

It's stupid to blame someone that's gone for moves that happened after they left. That's what this thread is all about. I should add that I realize planet brought it up, but the criticisms of Mo and Tony are current.

The question that UK addressed, and the one that I responded to had to do with the "current state of the Cardinals", which has very little to do with signing Aaron Miles, in my opinion. The current state of the Cardinals has everything to do with moves that were made before Jocketty left.

And I'll expect you to address all of your posts at someone specifically from now on, if those are the rules that we're playing by.

If you're highly annoyed by a pretty meaningless message board (which you admittedly are), I think that qualifies as being "uptight".

[haltz]

and the one that I responded to had to do with the "current state of the Cardinals", which has very little to do with signing Aaron Miles, in my opinion.

You said he wouldn't be blamed because, "he isn't here to kick around anymore, so that's no fun". Intimating that people were kicking the current regime around out of some sort of schadenfreude. Planet didn't bring up the current Cardinals management, but you did.

And it doesn't make any sense. Who would blame Mo for the state of the team he inherited?

If you're highly annoyed by a pretty meaningless message board (which you admittedly are), I think that qualifies as being "uptight".

I didn't say I was highly annoyed, whatever that means. I said your comments were annoying.

[Socnorb11]

Good night, folks. Maybe tomorrow will be a better day, Haltz.