Scott Rolen for Troy Glaus (Update: Finalized!)

[skmsw]

If in time we continue to see moves with apparently conflicting underlying motivations, then maybe I'll revisit my thoughts and ponder how much TLR and Dewitt are influencing Moz...

Hmmmm. I think you and I may have had this exact conversation already.

If we SAY "we need to get younger, rely on home-grown players," etc - but then sign Izturis, Pineiro, Miles, Jiminez, etc -- is there not the appearance of some underlying conflict?

If we ALSO say "we need to compete every year and think we can contend in 08" -- but then trade Edmonds, do not offer arb to Eck on a one-year deal, watch Tejada go to a rival for a ball of lint, etc -- is there not the apearance of some underlying conflict?

If we SAY "we need to stop accumulating dumpster dive pitching projects and post-surgery maybes," but then we sign Clement and pencil him right into the rotation -- is there not the appearance of some underlying conflict?

Maybe there is no conflict, just Moz saying whatever he thinks he is "supposed" to to fool other GMs, pacify fans, keep selling tickets, whatever. Or maybe things won't always be so pointed towards LaRussa/Duncan "type" of players, and this means nothing about the future. Or, maybe there is some not-yet-apparent, elegant tapestry in which that the inconsistent strategies actually all make sense, and work, and we DO compete in 2008, while simultaneously better-positioning ourselves for 09 and beyond. From the cheap seats I sit in, I have not seen it yet.

[jagtrader]

One of rolen's beefs when he wanted out of Philly was playing on the Turf at the Vet. He also had his beefs with Bowa. Now Rolen is waiving his NTC to go to Toronto and play on the Turf with his history of injuries? He nust really hate Tony LaRussa. Good Luck with John Gibbons Scott, He'll be a real Joy to play for.

Nore or less it look like Scott will be a DH eventually at Toronto if his back can't handle the turf at toronto

Rolen's a fool. With any kind of bounce back, he could have been one of the Cardinals legends playing out his career in front of a fan base that largely adored him. Instead, he's just another good player who passed through St. Louis and looks petty and immature on the way out.

What's the over-under on being disgruntled in Toronto? One year or two?

[EastonBlues22]

I haven't completely rationalized it yet...it all depends on what he does during the season.

What could be do? If Izturis is hitting .300/.330/.370 somehow at midseason, what are you going to get for a half season of him? Realistically, given his track record, not much at all. Wouldn't you be much better off seeing if Brendan Ryan can pull of a .350/.400 line for a little while? Then you've got something.

What if Pineiro has a nice start to his season? What then? He's still owed $7.5M in 2009. Are teams going to give up much of anything for him?

Why wait? What fan is he catering to? We'll (people here, and even the idiots at CT) pay attention either way. The other guy also shows up at the ballpark either way and checks to see how the roster looks in April. There are parts of both populations that pay attention based on the W/L record, and that's not going to look so hot.

We are talking about a LOT of money here. $18 million to pacify Tony or to supposedly keep up appearances that doesn't translate to wins and hurts the future. I find it shocking either way.

EDIT: Assume I'm addressing the last post as well here.

I was thinking that Miles/Izturis were more depth insurance in case Kennedy/Rolen rebounded and was tradeable. Pineiro (or Reyes, or Wellenmeyer, or Clement) might be moved, and who really cares about how little it is for? We had money to burn this offseason, and little in the way of real opportunitites to improve much for 2009+ through FA...why not take a few shots on guys who might be moveable during the season? If we can turn any of these guys into anything at all that might help our future (C prospect, whatever), then it wasn't a bad investment. If we can't, I don't see how the moves actively hurt the future. Maybe it was the best that could be done this offseason...we'll know more about the possible thought processes as we watch what Moz does during next season.

[EastonBlues22]

EDIT: Actually, I don't think that makes sense. Those signings won't go far at all in any fashion.

I'm hoping they're actually intended to fail. Just shiny enough to distract Mr Average Fan during the offseason, but guaranteed to suck enough to warrant the pursuit of significant roster movement (especially Izzy) during the season.

You can't be serious can you? You're just having fun right?

Nope, serious as death. I would personally rather have the team signing guys like that to pull of some big, far-fetched, conspiracy theory to improve the future of this team than to have the team sign guys like that thinking they were good enough to help this team seriously compete and win in 2008.

If the leadership is that off on their ability to judge the team's talent level, and the talent level of FA players, then this team is boned. I prefer well-intentioned deceit to incompetence any day.

[MrCrowesGarden]

Changed the title of my first post. Hope no one minds.

[EastonBlues22]

If in time we continue to see moves with apparently conflicting underlying motivations, then maybe I'll revisit my thoughts and ponder how much TLR and Dewitt are influencing Moz...

Hmmmm. I think you and I may have had this exact conversation already.

If we SAY "we need to get younger, rely on home-grown players," etc - but then sign Izturis, Pineiro, Miles, Jiminez, etc -- is there not the appearance of some underlying conflict?

If we ALSO say "we need to compete every year and think we can contend in 08" -- but then trade Edmonds, do not offer arb to Eck on a one-year deal, watch Tejada go to a rival for a ball of lint, etc -- is there not the apearance of some underlying conflict?

If we SAY "we need to stop accumulating dumpster dive pitching projects and post-surgery maybes," but then we sign Clement and pencil him right into the rotation -- is there not the appearance of some underlying conflict?

Maybe there is no conflict, just Moz saying whatever he thinks he is "supposed" to to fool other GMs, pacify fans, keep selling tickets, whatever. Or maybe things won't always be so pointed towards LaRussa/Duncan "type" of players, and this means nothing about the future. Or, maybe there is some not-yet-apparent, elegant tapestry in which that the inconsistent strategies actually all make sense, and work, and we DO compete in 2008, while simultaneously better-positioning ourselves for 09 and beyond. From the cheap seats I sit in, I have not seen it yet.

I meant an underlying conflict inherent in the moves themselves. I'm not huge on indexing roster moves against what a GM says...most of what they say is knee-jerk cliches anyway. The fact that almost every move can be seen as "TLR tinged" suggests to me that maybe Moz is just more like TLR than we originally thought. It's not like Luhnow has a say in FA signings... Isn't it possible that we simply (incorrectly) assumed the entire organization would become more SABR overnight, and now that we're finding out that it's not (at the MLB level, at least), we're blaming it on "interference from old-school TLR" or "meddlesome owner Dewitt." We simply assume that Moz wouldn't want to make a move like that.

But what if we're wrong in that assumption? It's quite possible that Moz's personal tendencies are simply more like the system that he was a product of than we originally thought, or were led to believe. While that would be very disappointing to me in its own way, he still deserves a shot now that he's here.

So far we've seen a lot of short-term "filler" moves for 2008 (which is essentially a throw-away season in the eyes of a lot of people) culled from a weak FA class, and very little action for 2009 and beyond (one year of Pineiro at $7.5 million, and now the addition of Glaus). In my opinion, that's not enough to judge the cohesiveness/ability of our leadership on. We need to at least see how much playing time various kids get during the season, and what options are explored throughout the season for improving the team 2009+ before we can start forming any solid conclusions.

Just my opinion.

[haltz]

I was thinking that Miles/Izturis were more depth insurance in case Kennedy/Rolen rebounded and was tradeable.

You know neither one of those guys is depth at 3B, and neither are very good middle infielders. Ryan, Hoffpauir, Barden and Spiezio do a fine job as insurance. Dallas McPherson and Adam Everett were non-tendered.

Pineiro (or Reyes, or Wellenmeyer, or Clement) might be moved, and who really cares about how little it is for?

I don't disagree with the Clement move. It was a reasonable gamble, especially given the option. But giving that much money to Pineiro because "who cares how little we might get" is a silly line of reasoning.

Edited to add Barden.

[tscards]

why can't we be competitive in '08? we have the best player on the planet (Pujols), and the best backup second-baseman on the planet (Miles)?

actually joking with Miles (hate him!), but I wouldn't be suprised if we were pretty competive this year - pitching is the biggest wildcard, in my mind. I think Glaus could fit in well!

[EastonBlues22]

I was thinking that Miles/Izturis were more depth insurance in case Kennedy/Rolen rebounded and was tradeable.

You know neither one of those guys is depth at 3B, and neither are very good middle infielders. Ryan, Hoffpauir, Barden and Spiezio do a fine job as insurance. Dallas McPherson and Adam Everett were non-tendered.

Pineiro (or Reyes, or Wellenmeyer, or Clement) might be moved, and who really cares about how little it is for?

I don't disagree with the Clement move. It was a reasonable gamble, especially given the option. But giving that much money to Pineiro because "who cares how little we might get" is a silly line of reasoning.

Edited to add Barden.

I'm really not interested in defending any of these moves...I've openly critiqued pretty much all of them along the same lines that you are from the moment they were passed down.

All I'm saying is that I can understand how the front office might think that signing Miles/Izturis/Piniero/etc. (for relatively little money, and relatively little committment) would portray a different image to the fans than immediately handing over the reigns to a bunch of unprovens and DFAs. If that's a factor for them, then sobeit...you and I may disagree, but I'm not at all convinced that our opinions are representative of those of the average fan.

And FWIW, I don't agree with giving a second year to Pineiro, but $7.5 million is a below average salary for a below average starter...it's not a big mis-step. If he pulls a league average year out of his butt in 2007, he's actually a decent value that can be moved. If not, the additional 2-3 million he's getting over whatever injured/suspect trash we would pick up instead isn't something worth losing sleep over.

[Richie Allen]

The problem with "getting younger" and "relying more on the system" is that it can't be done over night. Especially if the system isn't ready to be tapped. So there may be some moves that look conflicting, but I've yet to really see any. To me, a conflicting move would include continuing to move prospects in favor of long-term contracts for middle-aged players. Or spending huge amounts of money for free-agents. I haven't really seen any of that.

We do, on the other hand, have to field a team in 08. And we have money to spend. Fairly cheap, short-term contracts seem, to me, to be the way to go in the meantime, while we attempt to build (from a much greater standpoint) from within.