Future Redbirds

Let’s review some articles today shall we.

Starting off: Kary Boohner with a discussion of Pop Warner’s success

The wins have come by the truckload lately, the count at 50 heading into the weekend, and the calendar shows there are still seven weeks remaining in the regular season.

Again, we’ve got this whole trees for the forest dilemma.  I imagine it’s a blast to be playing in Springfield right now.  They’ve got a solid starting rotation with Boggs, Garcia, Daniels and Haberer.  Those four have combined for a 3.80 ERA in 328 innings.  They’ve struck out 6.5+ batters per 9 innings and walked 3.75/9IP.  A bullpen that is fantastic including Perez, Motte, Scherer, Webber and new-comer McClellan.  They’ve combined for 160 innings of 2.53 ERA ball.  What’s really crazy is the strikeouts.  A touch over 10K/9IP against 4.21BB/9IP makes them an exceptional relief corp.  They get solid production from Rasmus, Anderson, Richardson and Hamilton but their offense isn’t as dynamic as the pitching.  I bet this bunch of 20-somethings has fun when they go out on the field everynight.

In fact, as the baseball season moves deeper into the summer, Warner continues to enhance his reputation as a manager who understands how and when to employ his flotilla of bullpen arms.

Now, Pop Warner is probably a fine manager.  But realistically the impact that a manager has on a team’s performance in games isn’t that significant.  Please delay the intangible leadership barbs.  I’m not saying that having a good manager isn’t important but when we talk about a team sinking or swimming, it’s more about the players than the manager.  And honestly, how can Warner go wrong with this bullpen?  Having released Kevin Ool, demoted Michael Cooper and with Rauschenberger in the rotation, where is the bad arm in the bullpen that Pop could be misusing?  It isn’t there.  That bullpen is steady all the way through.  Give him the 2003 Cardinal’s bullpen and then let’s see how he does.  Also, how does a 38-year-old get the name “Pop”.

It’s a key part of Warner’s development as a manager [...] Many in baseball believe that, in order to manage effectively in the big leagues, it’s best to hone their craft in the minor leagues as a manager, particularly when it comes to learning the pitching.

I praised Kary for his writing the last time but this kind of vague “people like things” talk is balooney.  There’s a deluge of things that people in baseball believe that are wrong.  One of my favorite managers in baseball, Bobby Cox, currently believes that Bob Wickman is still the best candidate to close for the Braves — that doesn’t make it true (see Soriano, Rafeal).  Ned Coletti thought Juan Pierre was worth 55M dollars — anyone want to make a case for that being a good idea? The only way this is relevant is if some group of GMs believes this (the importance of managing in the minors) and thus it ups Warner’s chances of managing at the major league level.  Maybe that’s the implication but the actual writing is so vague as to force a real leap in logic to make it relevant.  It’s the equivalent of me saying, “Some people in New York read the New York Times.”  They probably do, but so what? 

“People will say managing in the big leagues, it’s more about handling people and handling the press. I disagree,” said Jim Riggleman, who managed the San Diego Padres and Chicago Cubs in the 1990s and is currently St. Louis’ minor league field coordinator. “(Handling pitchers) is the challenge. That’s where you can separate the good ones from the bad ones.”

Bullpen deployment and playing time with regards to platoon splits are, imo, where you see managers separate themselves from the rank and file.

Warner must divvy up innings [...] and yet adhere to St. Louis’ guideline that calls for two consecutive days of rest for a reliever who is used three days in a row.

That’s a fantastic rule and I’m glad to hear that the organization has rules in place that at least make the effort to protect bullpen arms from being abused.

Pitching is a top priority with Warner, who works closely with pitching coach Blaise Ilsley before and during games.

Best pitching coach name ever?

Next up, did you know that Derrick Goold is doing a postcard blog everyday now?  Today’s snipet that you should read is this:

Q: The initial press reaction to the Cardinals 2007 draft was very negative.  Now that the combined record of Batavia and Johnson City is 15-33 and the Muckdogs had a perfect game tossed against them has a little bit of the shine on Jeff Luhnow’s star begun to fade? Or will Peter Kozma rescue this class? Any chance Kyle Russell will sign?

– Jerry Heath

DG: I may be wrong on this, but I don’t read too much about a draft class from the standings. And I don’t think you should expect Peter Kozma to come in an elevate whatever team he plays on to a championship. Just having him signed and playing would be a step in the right direction now, with exactly one month to go before the new deadline.

Oh, but you wrote “rescue this class” … well … a few years from now his success and advancement will be the signature on this class. Rescuing the class from public perception would fall to Kyle Russell, I suppose. Nabbing the NCAA home run leader could someday be a fourth-round steal if he shows he can hit with a wood bat and with reliable power to offset the strikeouts. [...] The shine on Jeff Luhnow’s star still has its glimmer because his first draft class is coming into view and starting to bloom. The only thing in the immediate future that could alter his luster is if Kozma isn’t a Cardinal on August 16. He’ll share that trait with Rick Porcello.

I wouldn’t read anything from the standings either.  The Batavia club has been awful (just my gut reaction) and I don’t think you should read that as the draft being bad.  There are plenty of reasons to dislike the draft all by itself!  Goold hits it right on the head with saving our (or at least my) perception of the draft: Kyle Russell.  I think I still want Kozma to sign but I’m continually perturbed by the delay with that situation — whatever it’s cause. 

The line I want to single out is the one about Luhnow.  His first draft class is coming into fruition and it looks like a dandy with Rasmus, Anderson and Garcia.  But what’s odd is that the last two drafts have deviated from the success of 2005.  It’s too early to draw any sweeping generalizations of Luhnow from three drafts (one just over) but it seems like there’s been a shift back to the college projectable player rather than the high-ceiling HS talents.  The shine may be there for the moment but if prospects don’t pan out from these last two drafts, Luhnow shine may dull slightly.