Michael wrote:I suspect TLR started treating Rolen differently once his performance went south. Didn't TLR say something to that effect?
Paraphrasing: "If he wants to be treated like a superstar then he's going to have to start playing like one."
I remember reading something like that. Can't imagine Rolen had much respect for him after that.
I've said it a number of times and I still believe it; there appears to be no "right guy" and "wrong guy" in this LaRussa v Rolen issue, as much as we'd like to place the blame squarely on one of their shoulders (no pun intended). They've both played it the wrong way from what I've heard described about the two of them.
I tend to agree Richie to an extent, but a huge part of a managers job is to keep these things in check, which is why I put the blame squarely on #10's shoulders.
Kyle wrote:I won't start a new thread for this, but the Cleveland Press says that the Cards discussed a Rolen + Reyes for Peralta + Lee deal.
How do you guys feel about that?
I definitely like it better than the Glaus deal. I like Lee and would rather see him on the Cards through 2010 than Reyes, who is bogged down here under some combination of mechanical problems/early injury indicators/Duncan. Peralta is under control at a reasonable price through 2011 if we want...he would fill a position of need at a reasonable price and rate of production.
It definitely enhances our chances for 2009+ (which, in my opinion, should have been the most important consideration). I would have pulled the trigger even though the player aquisitions are redundant (by position) at this stage for 2008.
Last edited by EastonBlues22 on January 14 08, 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kyle wrote:I won't start a new thread for this, but the Cleveland Press says that the Cards discussed a Rolen + Reyes for Peralta + Lee deal.
How do you guys feel about that?
I definitely like it better than the Glaus deal. I like Lee and would rather see him on the Cards through 2010 than Reyes, who is bogged down here under some combination of mechanical problems/early injury indicators/Duncan. Peralta is under control at a reasonable price through 2011 if we want...he would fill a position of need at a reasonable price and rate of production.
It definitely enhances our chances for 2009+ (which, in my opinion, should be the most important consideration. I would have pulled the trigger even though the personel aquisitions are redundant at this stage for 2008.
If that deal was discussed, it probably fell through because the Cards wouldn't satisfy Cleveland's request for enough $. If so, that sucks. Glaus definitely exercised his player option, right? That's what I've read today.
jim wrote:I tend to agree Richie to an extent, but a huge part of a managers job is to keep these things in check, which is why I put the blame squarely on #10's shoulders.
Well, I've said the exact thing in this thread, as I definitely lean toward Tony's taking on the majority of the blame (or responsibility of not losing control of his players) but I also see it, although to a lesser degree, as Scott's job as an employee to make certain he's still in good standing with the boss.
Last edited by Richie Allen on January 14 08, 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kyle wrote:I won't start a new thread for this, but the Cleveland Press says that the Cards discussed a Rolen + Reyes for Peralta + Lee deal.
How do you guys feel about that?
I definitely like it better than the Glaus deal. I like Lee and would rather see him on the Cards through 2010 than Reyes, who is bogged down here under some combination of mechanical problems/early injury indicators/Duncan. Peralta is under control at a reasonable price through 2011 if we want...he would fill a position of need at a reasonable price and rate of production.
It definitely enhances our chances for 2009+ (which, in my opinion, should be the most important consideration. I would have pulled the trigger even though the personel aquisitions are redundant at this stage for 2008.
If that deal was discussed, it probably fell through because the Cards wouldn't satisfy Cleveland's request for enough $. If so, that sucks. Glaus definitely exercised his player option, right? That's what I've read today.
That's my guess, too -- they probably wanted St. Louis to pay a decent portion of Rolen's salary.
But yeah... getting Glaus seems somewhat like a lateral move -- it doesn't help if you want to build for the future. Landing Perlata gives us a solid player who happens to play the most difficult-to-acquire position.
Last edited by Bo Hart on January 14 08, 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
planet pujolsian wrote:
If that deal was discussed, it probably fell through because the Cards wouldn't satisfy Cleveland's request for enough $. If so, that sucks. Glaus definitely exercised his player option, right? That's what I've read today.
I don't know why it fell through, but I'm sad that it did.
It is my understanding that the option has been exercised.
Does it seem like the Cards have alot of communication issues? How many free agents have the Cards loss because of the players not hearing of an offer (Polanco, Benes) Others have complained about communication (Eckstein, Woody Williams)
If there was a big rift between Rolen and TLR, why didn't either GM hold a meeting to hash it out. Funny on how 3 of the Cards greatest fielders (Rolen, Ozzie, Edmonds) have a problem with TLR.
