Jehrico

Could this simply be a ploy to boost his trade value during the offseason? He's always had the ability to hit, but if we could show that he could play (he can't, but for arguments sake) an almost passable (as in D-) middle infield, 3b, corner OF, or emergency catcher, I would have to think it'd have a significant boost on his potential trade value.

They should have a chart on Dusty Bakers page showing all of the pitchers who have sustained major injuries while being managed by him.

If Dusty ran out of patience with Encarnacion (he's known for that ya know...running out of patience with young guys that is) and still has his fetish for vets, I hear Cueto has been slumping lately. Wonder what Dusty would think of Miles for Cueto? :thumbsup:

I'm lukewarm on Grabow. He doesn't have great road or day splits this year. Other than 2006, his day splits are always significantly worse than his night splits. On the other hand, he's been very good every month this year except May, as noted above. And in May, if you removed his worst appearance, his ERA for the month would go down from the mid 6s to the high threes. If you remove his three worst appearances over the year, he's got a 1.60 ERA over 45 innings.

Let me paint a hyperbolic example to illustrate my point...let's say team A has the 5 best starting pitchers in the league in it's rotation, with a good bull pen. There's 2-3 young guys in the minors that could be a #3 starter on most other teams to provide depth in case of injury. But the offense is middling. If they traded their best two offensive players for the best starter in the league that's not on their team, it'd be a stupid trade to make even if they got more than fair value for their players. Obviously the DeRo situation isn't off the scale of stupidity like that would be, but it was a stupid trade to make because it hurt the team during our window of opportunity. This whole conversation was about whether the DeRo trade was a good move by Hendry or not. When you state whether a trade was a stupid trade or a good trade, what you're doing is critiquing the judgement of the guy that made that trade. Hendry lapsed on that one, and making that trade should go down as a bad move for Hendry, even if all three of those pitchers are contributing well to our pen in four years. Evaluating the trade purely on the haul is equivalent to judging a trade of baseball cards. It's not just about getting fair value, it's about improving the organization, and Hendry hurt the organization when he made that decision. So, back to my original point, the worst two decisions made by Hendry with regards to trades were DeRo and Pierre. I never commented on the overall respective values of the trio of pitchers we got, present and future, compared to the overall present and future value of DeRosa. It was about whether this was a good trade for Hendry to make or not. If you still want to argue it's a good trade, then we'll just agree to disagree because we're talking apples and oranges.

DeRosa was traded to allow Fontenot to be a starter. Doesn't make much of a difference if he came from our bench or we signed him as a FA. DeRo was traded so someone else could have the job that shouldn't have had the job. Hendry's backup plan was Aaron Freaking Miles. You don't trade a quality starter without having a plan to improve the team. Our team is old, and our window for competing for the WS is waning. Getting a few pitching prospects who could be quality relievers in a few years after that window closes in exchange for a serious downgrade at 2B was a stupid move, even if the return was worth DeRo alone in the big picture. Getting equal value back later isn't worth taking a hit in our chances at the postseason now with this team. Hendry's job isn't to make a bunch of individual trades that are fair...it is to assemble a complete ballclub that can compete for a title. The DeRo trade completely undermined that principle, and thus, was a bad trade.

When you evaluate a trade, though, you shouldn't take into account following moves. Any moves made after a trade should be evaluated as they are - unless a trade is made specifically to make room for a player. There's been no indication that Hendry traded Miles for the express purpose of signing Miles. Absolutely you should. Stupid trades that necessitate more stupid trades can set back a franchise for years. Look at the aftermath of the Lee Smith trade back in the day that led us to trade Palmiero for Williams, etc...

I'll take that action It's rare the times when Hendry makes a bad trade. And when he does, it's pretty obvious the moment he does it....Pierre and DeRosa. Both were instantaneously hated. The DeRosa trade is actually looking like a decent deal at this point. It would have been nice to have him, but I think over the next five or more years we'll be happy to have Stevens, Archer and Gaub. That's only part of the equation. We spent a few million over TWO YEARS on Aaron freakin' Miles, money we wouldn't have spent had we kept DeRo, and he wouldn't have wound up with the Cards, for whom he's been killing the ball. Also, we wouldn't be pining for an upgrade at 2B right now either. Of course, you can't fault Hendry for not having the foresight on the Cards part, but you can tag him for Miles and Fontenot though.

Priorities? It's the BASEBALL Hall of Fame. Being a womanizer, a racist, a drunk, or having various other behavioral issues doesn't have any effect on what happens between the lines. If not being a douche was a prerequisite to getting into the HOF, you'd have about 20 guys in there. Well, I think it could be argued that scum like Cobb, Slaughter and others being so influential within the game probably had a direct impact on the exclusion of blacks from the game for so long. And being the case, it would have had an effect on what happened between the lines. And unintentionally would have helped themselves by promoting an all-white league, which would have kept the talent pool relatively shallow. Of course that isn't a direct (or even intentional) form of cheating like juicing, but if we're going to condemn players for taking part in an institutional problem like PED abuse, let's apply that logic to the institutional problem that was the racism of MLB. Furthermore, if we're going to celebrate the accomplishments of men like Jackie Robinson, let's condemn the actions of the men who made it so difficult for them. I mean, fair's fair. And guys like Cobb weren't simply douchebags, but pimples on humanity's collective arse. Great post. That's an interesting way of looking at it.

This is my big problem with the list from 2003. What all exactly did they test for? Did some of these guys turn up hot for using the same junk that got JC Romero busted when neither MLB nor the players union were warning players about those supplements? I think it's a damned valid question, and it should be answered before this witch hunt is allowed to continue.

I'll take that action It's rare the times when Hendry makes a bad trade. And when he does, it's pretty obvious the moment he does it....Pierre and DeRosa. Both were instantaneously hated.

Like the average ex-wife, he was the one that chose to leave, and now is bitter at his ex partner. Just like a bee-eye-you-know-what.

Marshall in the rotation instead of the pen won't be the difference to get us into the playoffs, but Marshall in the pen will be a huge asset during the playoffs the way he's going. I agree with the call...don't screw with him for the rest of the year. Work him back into the rotation next spring.

Jeez n crimeny...leave it to ESPN to ride a dead horse.

Here's the thing with Rich in my view...he supposedly had a problem before he sucked for us last year and didn't disclose it until after he sucked, to the detriment of the team. Apparently, he didn't learn his lesson, and did it again this year. So, either he's being incredibly selfish and throwing when he knows he his problems are beyond the threshold where he can effectively play through the pain. Either that, or he has recently developed the problem, and is using it a crutch to explain his previous crappiness. Either way, good riddance on our part.

Hard to call a 24 year old with a 90+ RBI season under his belt already a bust. I think he'll get there eventually, but he shouldn't be on that list yet. Not until he's at least 27 or 28, imo.

Soto starts his rehab assignment later this week. NOW WE NEED A COMPETENT 8 HITTER!! Zambrano? (every 5th day anyways...)

Depends. By excellent CF defense, are you talking Grady Sizemore quality CF defense, or Andruw Jones in his prime caliber defense? And by bad LF defense, are you talking Adam Dunn bad, or Juan Pierre bad (when LA plays him in left instead of center)? You can't just attempt to put a value on the difference between "excellent" defense at one position and "bad" at another, because one excellent defendender can be worth alot more than another excellent defender at the same position (same with the bad defenders). You can't put a hard numerical value on some subjective concepts that aren't well defined.

He did K, but Bradley stole 2nd. I thought he k'd, but when I went to check since my recollection was in question, sportsline's play by play had him grounding out to third that play. I guess they messed that one up. Ahhh my mistake, different AB. That one was a lazy chopper to 3rd(that probably hit Soriano's foot). Bradley advanced to 2nd on the grounder. Oh, the one that hit his foot. I remember now. I was struggling to stay awake by that part of the game.

He did K, but Bradley stole 2nd. I thought he k'd, but when I went to check since my recollection was in question, sportsline's play by play had him grounding out to third that play. I guess they messed that one up.

Absolutely stupid on the Astros' part. Streaky as he is and as bad as his night was the guy's numbers over the last 2+ weeks are scalding hot. I dont think it was a terrible decision. Load the base for the forse out at home. Sori had already struck out 3 times, and the other time hit a weak grounder to 3rd. Also, no matter how hot Sori is, hes a huge strikeout candidate. I'm not arguing that...I was just surprised by how much they were disrespecting him. If you recall his previous at bat, they pitched to him with one out (and he k'd), then they walked Fox. They were treating him like he was a backup catcher. Soriano batted with a man on 1st. Fox came up with a man on 2nd and the pitcher spot after him. My memory was off...I thought I remember him K'ing, so I thought Fox was up with Bradley still on first..

I've got a buddy in Iraq right now, he's a die hard Cardinal fan, and grew up in St. Louis. He's about as big of a St Louis homer as there is. He went there earlier this year before going back to Iraq, it was his first time there in about 5 years or so. He was pretty adamant that he thought that it's a great city to visit, but no way in hell he'd want to raise his kids there.

Absolutely stupid on the Astros' part. Streaky as he is and as bad as his night was the guy's numbers over the last 2+ weeks are scalding hot. I dont think it was a terrible decision. Load the base for the forse out at home. Sori had already struck out 3 times, and the other time hit a weak grounder to 3rd. Also, no matter how hot Sori is, hes a huge strikeout candidate. I'm not arguing that...I was just surprised by how much they were disrespecting him. If you recall his previous at bat, they pitched to him with one out (and he k'd), then they walked Fox. They were treating him like he was a backup catcher.

I don't see the correlation there. The roid guys aren't banned, and would still have to get voted in. They're separate issues. It would affect Shoeless Joe, but so what. You're right. They're not banned, and I should have clarified: There will be ENDLESS debate in the press about "You let Rose in. Now you have to vote (insert steroid-era great player here) in!" I don't think that the decision should be based upon how we'll be inundated with ignorant media articles that wrongly link Rose and roiders, regardless of how you feel about Rose.