Scott Rolen for Troy Glaus (Update: Finalized!)

[haltz]

Well, there it is. Case closed.

[skmsw]

In other words, he's always done things to make his team worse.

OK, I'll say it. This is completely off topic, and possibly worth its own thread, but I'll say it.

He has NOT "always done things to make his team worse." It's just that what he does used to be ahead of the curve, and now, it's behind it.

He is still doing the same things he has always done. It's just that, as often is the case among those innovators whom their inustry has finally caught up to and passed by, things he does that USED to make him smarter than everyone else and give him an edge, when the competititon was behaving and making decisions in a certain way, are no longer giving him that edge as the competition learns new ways of thinking and behaving but he does not change.

We've learned things since he first came up with his approach to winning games, and some of his ways, we now know, do not work. When everyone else knew even less, he had an edge; as research evolves and the way the game is understood advances, but he keeps doing things the same way as always, what had put him a few steps ahead, what was progressive, now has him a few steps behind, is now outmoded.

There. I said it.

He won a World Championship a little over a year ago. Things must have evolved and passed him by REALLY quickly.

Whether your argument is completely spurious or not depends on how much you think the manager influences the outcome. I'm not saying there is no effect, but I am saying that the effect is not 1:1, which is the only condition in which your argument above refutes mine.

I'd say the effect is pretty limited, and people who think the team is "doomed" with him as manager are afflicted with Chicken Little Syndrome.

Well, that's odd. I couldv'e sworn that just a second ago you were suggesting that "his" world series win was . . . . but now you're saying that . . . . well, never mind.

Anyhow, who said the team is "doomed" with him?

[Socnorb11]

I'm pretty sure you haven't been in a coma this offseason, because you respond to me this same way every time I make this same point. You do know what I mean.

I said to put it mildly and obviously I think he has more influence than a manager should have. Read my last posts in this thread.

I have no intention of reading all of your posts in the thread. I already know how you feel about Larussa. I just think it's irrelevant to say that he influences decisions. He's managing a successful Major League baseball team. I would hope he's influencing decisions. I just don't know how you can put a measuring stick on which managers are influencing the front office more than others. Especially since none of us are "insiders" on the Cardinals, much less the other 31 teams. It seems like a REALLy arbitrary case to make.

[Socnorb11]

In other words, he's always done things to make his team worse.

OK, I'll say it. This is completely off topic, and possibly worth its own thread, but I'll say it.

He has NOT "always done things to make his team worse." It's just that what he does used to be ahead of the curve, and now, it's behind it.

He is still doing the same things he has always done. It's just that, as often is the case among those innovators whom their inustry has finally caught up to and passed by, things he does that USED to make him smarter than everyone else and give him an edge, when the competititon was behaving and making decisions in a certain way, are no longer giving him that edge as the competition learns new ways of thinking and behaving but he does not change.

We've learned things since he first came up with his approach to winning games, and some of his ways, we now know, do not work. When everyone else knew even less, he had an edge; as research evolves and the way the game is understood advances, but he keeps doing things the same way as always, what had put him a few steps ahead, what was progressive, now has him a few steps behind, is now outmoded.

There. I said it.

He won a World Championship a little over a year ago. Things must have evolved and passed him by REALLY quickly.

Whether your argument is completely spurious or not depends on how much you think the manager influences the outcome. I'm not saying there is no effect, but I am saying that the effect is not 1:1, which is the only condition in which your argument above refutes mine.

I'd say the effect is pretty limited, and people who think the team is "doomed" with him as manager are afflicted with Chicken Little Syndrome.

Well, that's odd. I couldv'e sworn that just a second ago you were suggesting that "his" world series win was . . . . but now you're saying that . . . . well, never mind.

Anyhow, who said the team is "doomed" with him?

Point taken.

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........

[cpebbles]

I have no intention of reading all of your posts in the thread. I already know how you feel about Larussa. I just think it's irrelevant to say that he influences decisions. He's managing a successful Major League baseball team. I would hope he's influencing decisions. I just don't know how you can put a measuring stick on which managers are influencing the front office more than others. Especially since none of us are "insiders" on the Cardinals, much less the other 31 teams. It seems like a REALLy arbitrary case to make.

I actually went and counted, just to be sure I hadn't gone crazy.

[haltz]

I already know how you feel about Larussa.

My head exploded.

I just don't know how you can put a measuring stick on which managers are influencing the front office more than others.

You can't, but at some point after it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's too late. I said "to put it mildly" insinuating that I think he's influencing the decisions too much anyway. I don't want to point that out or my entire posting history this offseason again.

[skmsw]

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........

Again, it depends on how much one believes that the manager affects the outcome. In my opinion, the better the team, the less a good manager contributes -- AND the less a bad manager can side-track.

[Socnorb11]

I have no intention of reading all of your posts in the thread. I already know how you feel about Larussa. I just think it's irrelevant to say that he influences decisions. He's managing a successful Major League baseball team. I would hope he's influencing decisions. I just don't know how you can put a measuring stick on which managers are influencing the front office more than others. Especially since none of us are "insiders" on the Cardinals, much less the other 31 teams. It seems like a REALLy arbitrary case to make.

I actually went and counted, just to be sure I hadn't gone crazy.

I'm an idiot. Been watching too much football today.

[ghostrunner]

I hope I never find out, but I wonder what the page count would be if Pujols were traded.

[sighyoung]

I hope I never find out, but I wonder what the page count would be if Pujols were traded.

Can a mushroom cloud have a page count?