LaRussa's handling of minor leaguers

[indifferent]

This was posted on Cards Talk and I thought it was interesting regarding any teams philosophy to minor leaguers vs. veterans.

 

Quote:

The third example comes from a close family member of another Cardinal player who didn’t make the cut in 2006. It is worded very strongly and was not represented as the view of the player himself. Yet, it puts in print what many have suspected for a long time.

 

Whether right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate, if there is smoke, could fire be far away?

 

Said the family member, “First of all, La Russa always goes with what he thinks is going to get him to the World Series. Good for the City of St. Louis, bad for young players with potential.

 

“La Russa brings in older pitchers/players with experience, who are used to these situations, and they make the best of it. Young players who they like are filled with great hope and are told they have what it takes and to hang in there cause their time will come.

 

“With as many older players (especially pitchers) as they bring in, the younger ones have no hope unless they show star quality. In my opinion, the team paves the road for failure. How about saying, “Hey you’re on the team, go out there and pitch” and take a little of the pressure off?

 

“The pressure on making a La Russa team, unless you’re over 30, has to be immense. I feel sorry for all the young talent in the organization.

 

“If it were me, I would do anything possible to be traded to a team that lets youth play. Believe me, what they did to (Anthony) Reyes was insulting. To all the young players in the organization, I would say, “Remember this when you become a free agent”,” said the family member in closing.

 

http://forums.stltoday.com/viewtopic.php?t=347222

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Reyes looked bad during ST, Ponson earned the job.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

That actually makes me glad we have Dusty/Hendry. :shock:

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Reyes looked bad during ST, Ponson earned the job.

 

13 ST innings did Reyes in?

 

They seemed to have mattered more than the 13.1 innings he pitched at the ML level last season.

[indifferent]

Reyes looked bad during ST, Ponson earned the job.

 

13 ST innings did Reyes in?

 

They seemed to have mattered more than the 13.1 innings he pitched at the ML level last season.

 

What's the difference, they're still small sample sizes. Apparently the Cards looked at Haren's performance in 04 (including the horrid outing against the Cubs) and determined he was not starting pitcher material, so he was included in the Mulder deal. I'm sure we'd like a mulligan on that one.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Reyes looked bad during ST, Ponson earned the job.

 

13 ST innings did Reyes in?

 

They seemed to have mattered more than the 13.1 innings he pitched at the ML level last season.

 

What's the difference, they're still small sample sizes. Apparently the Cards looked at Haren's performance in 04 (including the horrid outing against the Cubs) and determined he was not starting pitcher material, so he was included in the Mulder deal. I'm sure we'd like a mulligan on that one.

 

The difference is Reyes threw 13.1 great innings against ML competition (not a bunch of grocery baggers and minor leaguers) when hitters had their timing down.

 

Ponson hasn't done anything in the last year or two to just hand him the job b/c of a couple good innings against guys who haven't picked up a bat in months. How much more ready does Reyes need to be? The talent is there. he just got off slowly this spring.

 

It suits me just fine, as I'm a Cubs fan.

 

Hendry and Jocketty should talk trade. How's Rusch (I hear you guys like fat pitchers) for Reyes sound? We might even kick in a few bucks to offset the salary difference.

[indifferent]

My intent wasn't to start yet another Ponson v. Reyes thread. I think the article was complete BS. And what's with the whining about TLR puts players on his team that he thinks can help him win a World Series? Yeah, and? I don't think LaRussa or the organization is any more reluctant to play youth than any other team in their position (in contention). He's played numerous rookies in high profile spots and otherwise.

[ManEatingTarp]

Pujols started when he was what? 21.

That's worked out pretty well.

 

Morris was a rookie in 96 wasn't he?

 

Molina?

 

These people that rag on Tony for crap like this are just picking nits.

6 playoffs in 10 years is what counts to me.

[karenmac]

As someone from Peoria, we've seen both Cardinal and Cub low-A teams over the last couple of years. I'm not sure if Nathan feels comfortable commenting on the differences he's seen day-to-day, but from the fan perspective, here are a couple of things I noticed:

 

1) the Cardinals didn't really seem to pay a lot of attention to the players they had in Peoria. I don't remember there being a lot of organizational roving instructors or management that came around all that often. With the Cubs, there were several folks down last year, and several of them multiple times. Maybe they came when the Cards were here and I just never heard about it (or I have a lousy memory)

 

2) the Cards didn't do a whole lot to make their players all that comfortable. Our Chiefs last year (as Cubs) got a meal after every home game, I think, where as our guys a couple of years ago as Cards had to spend a lot more on food when a homestand was on.

 

Certainly St. Louis has done a decent job bringing (some) talent up through the ranks (Pujols and Molina, for example), but I'm not sure how different their strategy is from the Cubs - getting veteran talent, because they can afford it, and using young talent to trade/compensate for it.

 

Just my 2 cents :)

Karen

[CaliforniaRaisin]

First of all, La Russa always goes with what he thinks is going to get him to the World Series. Good for the City of St. Louis, bad for young players with potential.

 

You don't know how bad those 2 sentences looks for the anti-TLR argument.

[vaball]

First of all, La Russa always goes with what he thinks is going to get him to the World Series. Good for the City of St. Louis, bad for young players with potential.

 

You don't know how bad those 2 sentences looks for the anti-TLR argument.

 

Seriously. There's a reason we have a AAA team. The major league club is about winning the world series, not letting marginal prospects develop. How many stud prospects have the Cardinals even had during TLR's tenure? Morris, Pujols, Molina, Ankiel, they all got their shot at the major league level. Wainwright has just made the bulllpen. I have no doubt that Reyes will get his shot before the season is over. So what if marginal talent like Gall and Duncan don't make the team out of spring training?

[wolf stansson]

So what if marginal talent like Gall and Duncan don't make the team out of spring training?

The problem is all the people who don't realize these guys are mediocre.

[radarluv1]

didnt wainright start last year? i'd be concerned about lack of innings in the cards pen, memphis might be better for him long term.

[jjgman21]

I think LaRussa has a legit claim to the reason Dusty uses to not play young players, and I think Dusty has a fairly good point. there haven't been a whole lot of players come up through the organizations they have managed. those that have come along and had enough talent to help their teams win have played. that is the price you pay of managing teams that are expected to contend.

 

I really don't know of any players that have been held down by either manager, then gone on to great success with another organization, or in the case of the Giants, once Dusty left. maybe Polanco.

[reggiemiller rules]

I think LaRussa has a legit claim to the reason Dusty uses to not play young players, and I think Dusty has a fairly good point. there haven't been a whole lot of players come up through the organizations they have managed. those that have come along and had enough talent to help their teams win have played. that is the price you pay of managing teams that are expected to contend.

 

I really don't know of any players that have been held down by either manager, then gone on to great success with another organization, or in the case of the Giants, once Dusty left. maybe Polanco.

 

Polanco played quite a bit at the end of his time with the Cards and then was traded for Rolen.

[jjgman21]

I think LaRussa has a legit claim to the reason Dusty uses to not play young players, and I think Dusty has a fairly good point. there haven't been a whole lot of players come up through the organizations they have managed. those that have come along and had enough talent to help their teams win have played. that is the price you pay of managing teams that are expected to contend.

 

I really don't know of any players that have been held down by either manager, then gone on to great success with another organization, or in the case of the Giants, once Dusty left. maybe Polanco.

 

Polanco played quite a bit at the end of his time with the Cards and then was traded for Rolen.

 

he should have had not-so-super Joe's PT in 1999 and Paquette's PT in 2000.

[K-Town]

I think LaRussa has a legit claim to the reason Dusty uses to not play young players, and I think Dusty has a fairly good point. there haven't been a whole lot of players come up through the organizations they have managed. those that have come along and had enough talent to help their teams win have played. that is the price you pay of managing teams that are expected to contend.

 

I really don't know of any players that have been held down by either manager, then gone on to great success with another organization, or in the case of the Giants, once Dusty left. maybe Polanco.

 

Polanco played quite a bit at the end of his time with the Cards and then was traded for Rolen.

 

 

 

he should have had not-so-super Joe's PT in 1999 and Paquette's PT in 2000.

 

 

Polanco was terrible in '99. Paquette was coming off of a pretty good year ('99), in 2000, and Polanco hadn't proven a thing yet. It's not surprising that Paquette got the majority of the playing time.

[jjgman21]

I think LaRussa has a legit claim to the reason Dusty uses to not play young players, and I think Dusty has a fairly good point. there haven't been a whole lot of players come up through the organizations they have managed. those that have come along and had enough talent to help their teams win have played. that is the price you pay of managing teams that are expected to contend.

 

I really don't know of any players that have been held down by either manager, then gone on to great success with another organization, or in the case of the Giants, once Dusty left. maybe Polanco.

 

Polanco played quite a bit at the end of his time with the Cards and then was traded for Rolen.

 

 

 

he should have had not-so-super Joe's PT in 1999 and Paquette's PT in 2000.

 

 

Polanco was terrible in '99. Paquette was coming off of a pretty good year ('99), in 2000, and Polanco hadn't proven a thing yet. It's not surprising that Paquette got the majority of the playing time.

 

can you put your homeristic defense of everything Cardinal aside for one post and keep your comments confined to the context of the conversation. the conversation is about managers not allowing young players to develop in favor of giving older, crappy players playing time and roster spots.

 

if Polanco was terrible in 1999, what was McEwing? Polanco caught and surpassed McEwing as a prosepect in 1997 when both played in AA. Polanco as a 21 year old and McEwing as a 24 year old. McEwing was always terrible and really stood no chance of ever being anything but terrible, and proved so by spending three years at the same level in the minors. so what would LaRussa have lost by giving the younger, better Polanco that PT instead of McEwing?

 

Paquette was ok in 99 with a very small sample size, and I think spent most of 98 in the minors. he certainly wasn't worthy of getting 385 ABs in 2000 when he absolutely sucked since LaRussa had Polanco, who was far better than Paquette in 2000, at his disposal.

[K-Town]

I think LaRussa has a legit claim to the reason Dusty uses to not play young players, and I think Dusty has a fairly good point. there haven't been a whole lot of players come up through the organizations they have managed. those that have come along and had enough talent to help their teams win have played. that is the price you pay of managing teams that are expected to contend.

 

I really don't know of any players that have been held down by either manager, then gone on to great success with another organization, or in the case of the Giants, once Dusty left. maybe Polanco.

 

Polanco played quite a bit at the end of his time with the Cards and then was traded for Rolen.

 

 

 

he should have had not-so-super Joe's PT in 1999 and Paquette's PT in 2000.

 

 

Polanco was terrible in '99. Paquette was coming off of a pretty good year ('99), in 2000, and Polanco hadn't proven a thing yet. It's not surprising that Paquette got the majority of the playing time.

 

can you put your homeristic defense of everything Cardinal aside for one post and keep your comments confined to the context of the conversation. the conversation is about managers not allowing young players to develop in favor of giving older, crappy players playing time and roster spots.

 

if Polanco was terrible in 1999, what was McEwing? Polanco caught and surpassed McEwing as a prosepect in 1997 when both played in AA. Polanco as a 21 year old and McEwing as a 24 year old. McEwing was always terrible and really stood no chance of ever being anything but terrible, and proved so by spending three years at the same level in the minors. so what would LaRussa have lost by giving the younger, better Polanco that PT instead of McEwing?

 

Paquette was ok in 99 with a very small sample size, and I think spent most of 98 in the minors. he certainly wasn't worthy of getting 385 ABs in 2000 when he absolutely sucked since LaRussa had Polanco, who was far better than Paquette in 2000, at his disposal.

 

Polanco got 323 at-bats in 2000, at age 24, so he wasn't exactly being "ignored" by Larussa. Paquette was just as good at the time. McEwing was better than Polanco in '99. Larussa was TRYING to field the team that he thought would help him win more games. At the same time, Polanco developed into a very good player under Larussa, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Polanco got 323 at-bats in 2000, at age 24, so he wasn't exactly being "ignored" by Larussa. Paquette was just as good at the time. McEwing was better than Polanco in '99. Larussa was TRYING to field the team that he thought would help him win more games. At the same time, Polanco developed into a very good player under Larussa, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.

 

Polanco went .316 .347 .418 in '00. Paquette never had a season that good in his entire career. He was certainly not as good at the time.

[K-Town]

 

Polanco got 323 at-bats in 2000, at age 24, so he wasn't exactly being "ignored" by Larussa. Paquette was just as good at the time. McEwing was better than Polanco in '99. Larussa was TRYING to field the team that he thought would help him win more games. At the same time, Polanco developed into a very good player under Larussa, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.

 

Polanco went .316 .347 .418 in '00. Paquette never had a season that good in his entire career. He was certainly not as good at the time.

 

Polanco had an OPS+ of 93 in 2000. Paquette was at 104 in '99, so he had earned the opportunity in 2000.

[jjgman21]

 

Polanco got 323 at-bats in 2000, at age 24, so he wasn't exactly being "ignored" by Larussa. Paquette was just as good at the time. McEwing was better than Polanco in '99. Larussa was TRYING to field the team that he thought would help him win more games. At the same time, Polanco developed into a very good player under Larussa, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.

 

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm all for LaRussa using inferior ballplayers and thinking those inferior ballplayers give him a better chance to win in both the short and long term.

 

you sure give an aweful lot of weight to Paquette's 157 ABs in 1999. in 2000, Polanco got 323 ABs, Paquette got more than that. why not give Polanco 500 and Paquette another 150? but you are right, LaRussa did give Polanco a shot in 2001...at the expense of giving Pujols a regular position.

 

yes, McEwing was marginally better than Polanco in 1999. marginally. but again you're missing the whole point, ie. the best thing for an organization isn't necessarily going with the marginally better older player when you can go with a younger guy who may develop into something solid, as Polanco did after moving to Philly and becoming the starting thirdbaseman.

 

my first comment in this thread was a defense of LaRussa, with a caveat about his handling of one player. I don't know if you refuse to recognize that defense or that you won't even concede the potential mishandling of a single player in the past decade by the Cardinals, but I do know your homerism on this board is very tired.

[K-Town]

 

Polanco got 323 at-bats in 2000, at age 24, so he wasn't exactly being "ignored" by Larussa. Paquette was just as good at the time. McEwing was better than Polanco in '99. Larussa was TRYING to field the team that he thought would help him win more games. At the same time, Polanco developed into a very good player under Larussa, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.

 

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm all for LaRussa using inferior ballplayers and thinking those inferior ballplayers give him a better chance to win in both the short and long term.

 

you sure give an aweful lot of weight to Paquette's 157 ABs in 1999. in 2000, Polanco got 323 ABs, Paquette got more than that. why not give Polanco 500 and Paquette another 150? but you are right, LaRussa did give Polanco a shot in 2001...at the expense of giving Pujols a regular position.

 

yes, McEwing was marginally better than Polanco in 1999. marginally. but again you're missing the whole point, ie. the best thing for an organization isn't necessarily going with the marginally better older player when you can go with a younger guy who may develop into something solid, as Polanco did after moving to Philly and becoming the starting thirdbaseman.

 

my first comment in this thread was a defense of LaRussa, with a caveat about his handling of one player. I don't know if you refuse to recognize that defense or that you won't even concede the potential mishandling of a single player in the past decade by the Cardinals, but I do know your homerism on this board is very tired.

 

Hindsight is brilliant. Polanco's best OPS in the minors was .709, in 1998. Prior to that he hadn't broken .700 at ANY level. It's not like he was busting the door down, demanding a shot. Considering his poor minor league performance, he was fortunate to get a shot AT ALL in 1998, but he did, and he didn't do very well with it (.634 OPS). Back at Memphis in '99, he put up a .621 OPS.

 

So what did he do to deserve alot of at-bats in '99?? And why should Larussa have thought that he'd be worthy of more than a utility role in 2000? As it turned out, he DID perform well in 2000, and was rewarded with 564 at-bats in 2001. How is that mis-handling him? I don't get it.

[Catman61]

Its simple K-Town, its called picking nits and blowing them up into giant flesh eating carnivores and thinking those make a definitive and irrefutable case. Unfortunately, its far from definitive and most assuredly not irrefutable.

[SouthSideRyan]

Its simple K-Town, its called picking nits and blowing them up into giant flesh eating carnivores and thinking those make a definitive and irrefutable case. Unfortunately, its far from definitive and most assuredly not irrefutable.

 

I don't think K-Town needs any explanation on how to do any of that.