[Update 3/6/08 - 10:00am]
Matthew Leach followed up on the comment that I had a focal seizure reading from Goold’s Birdland below. He offers some clarification that I find reassuring and as I often will vocally object when I disagree with TLR, I want to offer some mild applause for what he’s saying now. From Leach:
A few days back, maybe even a couple weeks ago by now, TLR made some comments that got a lot of people in a tizzy regarding Colby Rasmus.
That would be me having the tizzy. I’d like to point out, however, that it was a justified tizzy. TLR says this about Rasmus:
“But the key thing is in this place, it would be a situation where he would play a lot. He needs to play at this point in his career.”
Right answer. Not only does he need to play. He needs to get 400+ at bats. He needs to be getting at least what you’ve offered Aaron Miles the last 2 years. He needs to play centerfield on a regular basis. He needs to bat against left-handed pitching on a regular basis. These are all things that are difficult to do if Rasmus were to be a pure bench player. Frankly, Brian Barton is better suited for that role and he has to be on the roster for us to keep him anyway.
TLR says as much later on as Leach probes further. Players who have options lose ties. I’d even go on to say that players who are close but could still progress in the minors should lose to less talented but more developed players. It just makes so much sense for Colby to start in Memphis because:
- The Cardinals can then use that roster spot for Barton.
- There’s an everyday position available at AAA.
- It delays his arbitration clock (a cynical but astute business reason).
- It allows Rasmus to develop in a less stressful environment, which would seem to be a good thing at this point.
So kudos to TLR if he really means what Leach has him quoted as. The Rasmus era will begin soon enough — no reason to force it.
[/end update]
[Originally posted February 23rd]
In Goold’s latest Birdland entry there’s this quote from La Russa:
“If Colby can help us win and at the end of the year have 250 at-bats, and somebody would argue that it would be better for him to have 500, there’s a hell of a chance he’ll be with us if he can give us a better chance to win,” La Russa said. ”If he gives us the same chance to win and he gets 250, then you send him to the minor leagues.”
Could there be a more short sighted view than what he’s expressing here? If Rasmus makes the Cardinals a better team, it’s ok to reduce his playing time in order to win more. I don’t have a problem with this view in and of itself but rather with the continued inability to recognize the fact that this team, as currently constructed, isn’t a realistic contender. The marginal upgrades of having Rasmus rather than Duncan/Ankiel/Ludwick/Skip in the outfield for 250 at bats would be what 5 to 10 runs? Maybe?
The point being that Rasmus needs at bats. He needs as many as he can get because he’s the future of the outfield. Improving the team on the order of a win or so doesn’t make the slightest amount of sense unless TLR truly believes that win could be the difference between watching baseball in October and playing baseball in October.
Let’s assume that Rasmus takes 250 at-bats from Schumaker. There’s probably no marginal upgrade on defense since Skippy is an above average defender. Over the course of 600 PA, PECOTA predicts Skip to be worth around 7 runs. Let’s round down and call it 5. Rasmus is projected at under 20 for 600 PAs but we’ll round up. So the difference of 600 PAs is 15 runs. Over 300 PAs (250 ABs) it’s somewhere between 5 and 10 like I guessed earlier.
Again, this seems reflective of a manager who remains in win-now mode rather than one with a perspective that maximizes both the long and short term well-being of the club. At the end of the day, I’m not sure I trust Tony to make the right choice in this circumstance. I hope I’m wrong.
Filed under: Colby Rasmus
erik
azruavatar
fewgoodcards
roarke49
theredbaaron
I am right there with you when I read the story the first time. But after going back for a second look, I think the main point was that the Cardinals are going to stay with Colby either at AAA or with the big club.
Personally, I feel this is the right call because the Memphis-St.Louis train gets a little old. Say for instance they pencil Rasmus in as the everyday center fielder…he plays well for a month, then struggles in May. Instead of shipping him back down, I think LaRussa is putting out there that they really want to see how the young guys do this year. At least I WANT to believe that.
Because the Cardinals are lacking a true lead-off hitter, my heart says the time is now for Rasmus, but my gut says Colby spends the summer making Memphis competitive.
Does anyone else get the feeling TLR and the Cards front office arent exactly on the same page.
He is acting and managing like its a win now at all costs type of stuff, bringing in old, steroid linked guys and wanting Bonds.
The Cards holding off investing anymore then they have to in 2008 and looking at 2009 as the turning year.
Now add this Rasmus thing…I just think what TLR signed on for and expected isnt the Cards long term or even short term planning.
TLR has been speaking out lately…I wonder how long until he turns the attention to Mo and the front office?
I do not see the problem here, TLR is telling that if they need him and he deserves, he’ll play, otherwise he’ll have the time to play an additional half year in the minors, saving one year of minimum salary and lettimg him grow with less pressure. The pivotal year, for the organization, is 2009, but you cannot forget that this is a 100M$ team, so you cannot avoid to try to compete.
GO CARDS!!!
I had the same thought as you when I read that blurb, Az.
What I don’t get is, under exactly what circumstances does Tony feel Rasmus is going to somehow be good enough to improve the team, yet not good enough to earn a starting job? If he’s a good enough option for 250 abs, how is he a bad option for 600? He doesn’t have a huge platoon split, he’s well above average with the glove, what is going to limit him, yet still allow him to be an asset?
I’m really, really confused, and really, really disheartened by this.
I don’t see the front office letting TLR have Colby in the majors as a reserve the entire year, at the very least due to the money situation and starting his arbitration clock. It would be idiotic to start his arbitration clock to use him as a reserve.
that was a disheartening quote, but more and more I’m not taking TLR very seriously. It sounds like the FO isn’t quite listening to him either, shooting down his crazy Bonds idea.Of course, that idea would’ve cost quite a bit of scratch. I think they would have something to say about this, just as I have hope they wouldn’t let TLR basically return Barton to the Indians in favor of Juan Gonzalez. Maybe I’m being naive, we’ll see.
Barton best atribute currently is that he is going to be on the DL for part of the season and then get an extended rehab. For the most part he is Larussa-proof and that is the quality I most want to see from any young player right now.
I wonder how much of this isn’t Tony trying to keep the kid hungry.
Not entirely unrelated, but Goold has posted the lineup for today’s game against SLU.
1. Colby Rasmus, CF
2. Brian Barton, DH
3. Joe Mather, RF
4. Josh Phelps, 1B
5. Cody Hearther, LF
6. David Freese, 3B
7. Brian Barden, SS
8. Matt Pagnozzi, C
9. Jarrett Hoffpauir, 2B
Starting pitcher: RHP Mitchell Boggs. Pitching plan: Boggs (2 innings); RHP P.J. Walters (2); RHP Clayton Mortensen (2); LHP Jaime Garcia (2); RHP Chris Perez (1).
The only surprise for me is Pagnozzi starting at catcher. I figured that would be Anderson. Great to see games are back though.
I see it as a matter of what do “YOU” think is best for Colby.
Not all many young players are like Albert Pujols in that they come up their first year of MLB service and play 161 games while getting 590 at bats. Most players generally have a season where they get limited major league AB’s. Now the main question is what does Colby need, and it is hard to tell until he gets put in the situation. Now some guys would benefit from just getting the most AB’s they can. Some guys benefit more from getting the most MLB AB’s even if that means they only get 300 AB’s. 300 MLB AB’s may be more beneficial to Colby than 600 minor league AB’s. Now I think it’s stupid to discuss starting the arb clock early. If Colby is as good as you think he is the Cards will offer him a large contract similar to Albert. They will not wait until he is a FA to try to sign him. So I think the Arb argument is frankly stupid.
Barton-
He will be 26 in April. He is dangerously close to not being a prospect anymore. He had surgery in Sept, but from what I can tell from microfracture knee surgery the time out is 7-12 months. So he could be out until September basically meaning he would miss this whole season. At that point he will be 27 next year and is a 27 year old a prospect? I would like to see what he can do, but I wonder if he will be fully healthy this season? Why make him push it to prove what he has. If he is good put him on the DL all year, no need to hurt him worse to see what he has. It would seem he struggles when he is not healty like many MLB players. I just dont’ know what type of prospect I see this Barton being. Don’t get me wrong I want to see this guy do well as it sounds like he has some good tools, but I am not as optimistic as many. I have seen people saying he should bat lead off and start in CF?? what has he done to be this high on a guy.
I’ve read tha quote from Tony now several times…and I’m still not sure what exactly his point is. D.GOOCH
Yeah, I’m just having trouble parsing that in general.
How many head coaches/managers, etc. in the majors or at the college level don’t try to win now? I understand this obsession with “building for the future” but that isn’t the job of the field manager, head coach, etc. It is THEIR job to win games and compete for championships.
If they don’t have that goal then they aren’t a good leader/coach. This youth movement/going young thing can be completely overdone. Tony wants to win. That is what drives him. I would expect nothing less from my manager. I don’t want to hear from him about “building for the future” or “playing for 2009″.
That kind of thing is up to the GM, player personnel people, etc. Not the manager.
I second what icbirdfan said.
I would like to add that the goal of baseball is to win games. That is what Tony was hired for, to win games. The kids also need how to learn to win. Look at what happened to that young Brewers team last year. This is a team sport. I like what Tony said. IT was very poilitical. He didn’tcommit either way but still gave the writers something to talk about.
I agree 100% with what bret said. TLR’s job is to win games at the major league level. That is what every manager is hired to do. Thats his responsibility. The GM is in charge of keeping the organization running with a long-term outlook. TLR and his coaches can decide if Rasmus is ready to play, let the GM know, and then the GM and his scouts can decide if that would be a good situation for Rasmus or not.
Maybe my reading comprehension skills suck (yay cold medicine) but I read that quote as “he’s not making the team unless he can get 500 at bats”.
Re-reading, I dunno. TLR just keeps getting more and more incoherent in his monologues this off-season; I’m afraid we’re going to see some weird stuff on the field this year and especially next year.
What is the exact date Colby can be brought up without losing a year of major league control over him. I read somewhere he would only need to stay in Memphis for the first couple weeks - that doesn’t seem like it would be right. Could someone direct me to the rule?
Thanks.
Addressing Barton’s health:
He hit a homer his first time up vs. SLU, with Colby on base in front of him.
Marti subbed for him in the 4th and hit a grand slam.
Granted, the two of them are probably a collective 15 years older than anyone on the SLU roster, but hey, it’s still baseball, right?
Did Marti use a bat when he hit his grand-slam?
Are you talking about his bat, or his “bat”, if you know what I’m saying??
Call me illiterate but I find no more meaning in that statement than a Zen koan or a Casey Stengel speech. I really don’t know what he’s talking about and I’m surprised that Goold would find enough sense in it to print it. It’s actually okay with me if the grim natured, authoritarian sob degenerates into a lovably inarticulate elder statesman for his last two years here. Not a great advertisement for vegetarianism but this kind of disjointed confabulation gives me warmer feelings for the man than I’ve previously experienced.
I am more and more coming over to the side that says Rasmus should start at AAA.
Also I wanna see Barton converted to 2B by next year.
I think his bat and athleticism would make him a perrenial All Star at the new position of 2B.
Most likely the original quote was taken out of context–the original quote in Goold’s Birdland entry was preceded by this: “For really the first time, LaRussa said Rasmus could see playing time in all three outfield spots, even though the organization sees him as an outfielder. It’s all about playing time, LaRussa said. The manager also allowed for the possibility that Rasmus could be an asset to the major-league club even if he’s not a starter.”
Honestly, it sounds like LaRussa was only explaining how Rasmus could help the team in that manner, not that this was how he wanted to approach Rasmus’ playing time. The fact Goold picks the term “also allowed’ tells me that he was asked that question directly, and that the 230 ABs as a bench player wasn’t his primary preference, only a possiblity in a certain situation. To me, this was all much ado about nothing, really, especially when LaRussa, before this statement, said that he’d actually play Rasmus in the other OF spots to give him as much playing time as possible. Goold simply chose to print the juicier quote, and presto, instant stress and migranes.
Forsch31 - It seems pretty clear to me from the original quote that TLR was saying if Rasmus gives them a better chance to win while only accruing 250 at-bats, there’s a real chance that they would chose that route. That’s just short-sighted and flawed. There’s no situation in which Rasmus would be appreciably improving the team but only get 250 at-bats. If he’s going to make the team better, he’s likely to be an upgrade over any of our outfielders right now. And why you’d play him anywhere other than CF, when he’s the best defensive OF short of Skip perhaps, doesn’t make sense.
I think TLR backed off of that statement somewhat from the quotes in Leach’s blog.
Obviously, I disagree. You can’t concentrate on and judge a quotation without considering the question asked beforehand that spurred it. Especially when in that paragraph, LaRussa says the *complete opposite* of giving him only 230 ABs–”It’s all about playing time.” In that light, wouldn’t his mention of Rasmus needing 500 ABs be his *own* preference? The 230 AB was just a BS rhetorical number he threw out there in the discussion.
A quote out of context is an accurately transcribed quotation whose meaning completely shifts when you cut out (edit) what was said before and after. Yeah, LaRussa said it, but it’s a quote that was part of a larger discussion and line of questioning; taken by itself, it says something completely different than what it’s speaker meant. And that’s probably what happened here.
And if Rasmus is the best defensive OF short of Skip, you play him everywhere so he can get the ABs to develop if he’s on a major league club with a glut of OFs, which is what LaRussa, as a manager, as to deal with. Because Rasmus is great defensively, it will not hurt him to give some games in right or left, while it would hurt somebody like Duncan, who’s still learning the position. Otherwise, Rasmus will just sit on the bench and miss valuable playing time while Ankiel, Duncan, Barton, and Ludwick get their turns at OF. It’s like the Lankford-Gilkey-Whiten-Jordan problem all over again.