Looking at our division

[MikeS21]

I agree the Cards will stay close enough for the the Reds to feel them nipping at the heels. They'll probably stay within five games of the Reds all season and will certainly be in contention for the Wild Card spot.

However, I am not ready to count out the Pirates. I am not as confident that they are not going to show this year. I watched them fade late last season, but if they win a few games in the division, they could be up within six or seven games out, as well. The Brewers will most likely finish 4th in the division, but they won't go quietly.

The Cubs will finish last, but the Reds are going to have to play them tough and make sure they treat the Cubs like a first place team playing a last place team. If the Reds can win 75%-80% of their season games against the Cubs, and win about 60% of their season ames against the Brewers, they can afford the luxury of splitting season games with the Pirates and Cards. But if they give away games to the Cubs and Brewers, it's gonna be a LONG summer.

[Mario-Rijo]

I still say LaRussa was the architect of those WS championship teams, not Walt. Sure Walt was the GM and was responsible for signing/dealing for the guys but IMO it's because LaRussa asked for specific players a vast majority of the time. And then LaRussa used them properly. 2013 will be the 1st year Walt as GM of the Reds will go into the season without a massive glaring hole on the roster IMO. People will argue his W-L record and so forth but the core of this team he isn't responsible for and those are the players largely responsible for the W-L record since his tenure began.

That's not to say he doesn't have any business being a GM or that he isn't a pretty good GM, in fact as far as GM responsibilities go I think he is extremely good in most every way but there is a spot or 2 that I think he is overrated in. Mozeliak seems to be doing a nice job himself however. So don't discount the Cards just yet, if nothing else they have a healthy dislike of the Reds which should motivate them to make life hard on us anyway.

[MikeThierry]

Mario, you bring up a good point about LaRussa. He was probably the most powerful manager in baseball for the past 15 or so years. His "advice" would influence how the team moved forward. He was the guy behind the scenes pulling the strings.

[Caveman Techie]

Why do people always want to take credit away from someone? Walt deserves a lot of the credit for the Cardinals' decade of dominance and a World Series championship. Some credit should go to him for the 2011 World Series since a large portion of that team was still his guys. To include the manager that you guys are trying to give the GM of the Year award to.

Mo has done a great job since Walt left and he deserves alot of credit for what he has done too. Giving credit to one doesn't take it away from the other.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by Caveman Techie

Why do people always want to take credit away from someone? Walt deserves a lot of the credit for the Cardinals' decade of dominance and a World Series championship. Some credit should go to him for the 2011 World Series since a large portion of that team was still his guys. To include the manager that you guys are trying to give the GM of the Year award to.

Mo has done a great job since Walt left and he deserves alot of credit for what he has done too. Giving credit to one doesn't take it away from the other.

Calling it like I see it. I think if someone is being called the architect they are in essence suggesting someone deserves the lions share of the credit, in this case I think someone else deserves the lions share of the credit. Walt certainly deserves some credit for their success as well but imo he gets too much whenever the subject arises.

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2

[Caveman Techie]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

Calling it like I see it. I think if someone is being called the architect they are in essence suggesting someone deserves the lions share of the credit, in this case I think someone else deserves the lions share of the credit. Walt certainly deserves some credit for their success as well but imo he gets too much whenever the subject arises.

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2

Fair enough, but as I said about the 2011 WS title, Walt deserved SOME credit for that, because a large portion of that team were still his guys (Pujols, Molina, Carpenter, Garcia, Jay, just off the top of my head). Mo does deserve most of the credit though cause he was the one who finished it off.

And when I say "credit" I mean GM credit. There are different kinds of credit, manager credit, player credit, bad credit...oh wait thats my credit score.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by Caveman Techie

Fair enough, but as I said about the 2011 WS title, Walt deserved SOME credit for that, because a large portion of that team were still his guys (Pujols, Molina, Carpenter, Garcia, Jay, just off the top of my head). Mo does deserve most of the credit though cause he was the one who finished it off.

And when I say "credit" I mean GM credit. There are different kinds of credit, manager credit, player credit, bad credit...oh wait thats my credit score.

I was looking at the roster for the 2011 team and I would say it was about 50/50 as it pertains to Walt players vs. Moseliak players. When talking about Pujols, I have always been kind of iffy on giving Walt credit on that one. Yes the Cardinals did draft him but that was kind of lucky almost. He lasted until the 13th round and it more looks like a pick that had nothing to do with actual skill but just taking a flyer on the guy. I know Walt drafted him and there's no denying that but, besides the Mike Piazza pick, the Albert Pujols draft selection may have been the luckiest draft pick in the history of the MLB draft. Picking up a so called washed up Chris Carpenter, Garcia, Jay, and Molina were solid well thought out moves that Walt should get full credit for.

[Homer Bailey]

Originally Posted by MikeThierry

I was looking at the roster for the 2011 team and I would say it was about 50/50 as it pertains to Walt players vs. Moseliak players. When talking about Pujols, I have always been kind of iffy on giving Walt credit on that one. Yes the Cardinals did draft him but that was kind of lucky almost. He lasted until the 13th round and it more looks like a pick that had nothing to do with actual skill but just taking a flyer on the guy. I know Walt drafted him and there's no denying that but, besides the Mike Piazza pick, the Albert Pujols draft selection may have been the luckiest draft pick in the history of the MLB draft. Picking up a so called washed up Chris Carpenter, Garcia, Jay, and Molina were solid well thought out moves that Walt should get full credit for.

What about signing Pujols to one of the most team friendly contracts in MLB history? Was that lucky?

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by Homer Bailey

What about signing Pujols to one of the most team friendly contracts in MLB history? Was that lucky?

It turned out that way, because of how good Pujols became. But they commited $100M back when it meant something, to a player who was 3 years from reaching FA. It wasn't considered an aoutomatic bargain at the time.

[757690]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

Calling the 2012 Cardinals "Jocketty's team" is akin to calling the 2012 Reds "Krivsky's team"...

Well, it was more Krivisky's and OBrien's team than it was Jocketty's.

[757690]

Originally Posted by MikeThierry

I never really got into him approving of sabermetrics or not. He was just angry that Luhnow, a guy who had nothing to do with baseball and a pencil pusher, was given top priority in the draft. Yes Jocketty did "approve" of those choices but it's not like he had any other options. He wasn't going to come back to ownership and say "nope, not signing any of these guys". I'm not trying to say Jocketty had no impact. He clearly was the architect of the Cardinals success since 1996. I just think you're giving him too much credit for the 2011 and 2012 teams and not giving Mozaliak enough credit. Even if you want to say that they were all Walt's teams, that doesn't mean the Cardinals are in bad hands now with Mozaliak. There's a reason why he was GM of the year two years ago.

Clearly, Mozaliak deserves a lot of credit and or blame for the current team.

My point was that the Cardinals are getting worse and worse every year since Jocketty left in terms of on the field talent. They gave averaged 88 wins since Jocketty left, and really have never been a true 90+ win team, let alone a 95-100 win team they were for a nice chunk of Jocketty's regime.

And the last two years they were one win, from many teams, from not even making the playoffs. The magic is running out.

[Homer Bailey]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

It turned out that way, because of how good Pujols became. But they commited $100M back when it meant something, to a player who was 3 years from reaching FA. It wasn't considered an aoutomatic bargain at the time.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. If it is, I'll take the bait, as I'm assuming it isn't.

Of course it wasn't an automatic bargain. But it turned out to be an incredible, incredible contract. Even if you consider Jocketty "lucky" for obtaining Pujols, can you really call this contract lucky? Or would you call it one of the savviest GM moves (contract wise) in baseball history? I know which one of the two I would call it. Compare that contract to A-Rod's contract at the time, when the two were already comparable players, and then can you even say it wasn't considered a great bargain at the time?

And Pujols didn't "become good". His OPS his first three years was 1.013, .955, and 1.106. And THEN Jocketty got that incredible deal for him.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by Homer Bailey

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. If it is, I'll take the bait, as I'm assuming it isn't.

Of course it wasn't an automatic bargain. But it turned out to be an incredible, incredible contract. Even if you consider Jocketty "lucky" for obtaining Pujols, can you really call this contract lucky? Or would you call it one of the savviest GM moves (contract wise) in baseball history? I know which one of the two I would call it. Compare that contract to A-Rod's contract at the time, when the two were already comparable players, and then can you even say it wasn't considered a great bargain at the time?

And Pujols didn't "become good". His OPS his first three years was 1.013, .955, and 1.106. And THEN Jocketty got that incredible deal for him.

It was not sarcasm.

It was not usual at the time to sign young players to such a large contract buying out 3 non-FA years. They gave Pujols $100M 3 years before they had too, and still allowed PUjols to end the contract in time to cash in.

Pujols gave up the opportunity to cash in in 3 years times, but assured himself of getting $100M of guaranteed money at a time when he could have been forced to go year to year. You have to give up some salary to get that type of insurance.

As I said, it turned out great. But I don`t beleive that at the time it was signed, it was universally lauded as a huge bargain.

[kaldaniels]

It seems so hard to assign credit and/or blame these days.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

It seems so hard to assign credit and/or blame these days.

Exactly. Nobody can decide on anything. I'll make it easy for everybody. All the credit goes to me, all the blame goes to Chris Carpenter. See, now everybody's happy.