Jayson Stark's NL Central comments

[skmsw]

I think you might have missed my point, that our durability issues might contribute to our vulnerability.

I would expect that to be the case with any team though.

Of the Cards who are injured, I would only expect Edmonds and to a lesser extent Eckstein to be recurring problems.

--P--

OK. But if the Cards have four players struggling with injuries, and two key regulars that might be candidates for recurring problems, it seems to me that your disclaimer regarding remarks about our vulnerability are not muted much by your point about the injuries.

[Popeye_Card]

I think you might have missed my point, that our durability issues might contribute to our vulnerability.

I would expect that to be the case with any team though.

Of the Cards who are injured, I would only expect Edmonds and to a lesser extent Eckstein to be recurring problems.

--P--

OK. But if the Cards have four players struggling with injuries, and two key regulars that might be candidates for recurring problems, it seems to me that your disclaimer regarding remarks about our vulnerability are not muted much by your point about the injuries.

Let me clarify then.

It is silly to spread rumors that people think a team is "vulnerable" in part because 4 regulars are currently nursing injuries. That goes for the Cardinals, Cubs, Yankees, Royals, Indians, whoever. It's March. The season is still over a half month away from starting AND the season is 6 months long.

Are the Cardinals vulnerable in part because of injuries? Yes. Are most teams in MLB? Yes. Nearly every contender has 1 or 2 key players who are injury risks for the entire year, just like the Cardinals.

--P--

[skmsw]

I think you might have missed my point, that our durability issues might contribute to our vulnerability.

I would expect that to be the case with any team though.

Of the Cards who are injured, I would only expect Edmonds and to a lesser extent Eckstein to be recurring problems.

--P--

OK. But if the Cards have four players struggling with injuries, and two key regulars that might be candidates for recurring problems, it seems to me that your disclaimer regarding remarks about our vulnerability are not muted much by your point about the injuries.

Let me clarify then.

It is silly to spread rumors that people think a team is "vulnerable" in part because 4 regulars are currently nursing injuries. That goes for the Cardinals, Cubs, Yankees, Royals, Indians, whoever. It's March. The season is still over a half month away from starting AND the season is 6 months long.

Are the Cardinals vulnerable in part because of injuries? Yes. Are most teams in MLB? Yes. Nearly every contender has 1 or 2 key players who are injury risks for the entire year, just like the Cardinals.

--P--

I do not disagree with you, but it was not Stark who pointed out the absent regulars or the injuries. Stark just said that the Cards were as vulnerable as they've been in awhile. Do you disagree?

[Richie Allen]

I do not disagree with you, but it was not Stark who pointed out the absent regulars or the injuries. Stark just said that the Cards were as vulnerable as they've been in awhile. Do you disagree?

We've won the NL Central 6 out of 7 years (sorry, I don't accept a wildcard when we tie for first) and averaged 94 wins in those seven years. Pretty high standard to uphold. To say we're as vulnerable as we've been in awhile, in my mind, means nothing. We were vulnerable last year too. Everyone's vulnerable.

The way he said it, however, implied that he's been watching them closely, and watched them closely in all recent years, and he sees a glaring weakness that he hasn't seen in years past. I don't buy it.

[skmsw]

I do not disagree with you, but it was not Stark who pointed out the absent regulars or the injuries. Stark just said that the Cards were as vulnerable as they've been in awhile. Do you disagree?

We've won the NL Central 6 out of 7 years (sorry, I don't accept a wildcard when we tie for first) and averaged 94 wins in those seven years. Pretty high standard to uphold. To say we're as vulnerable as we've been in awhile, in my mind, means nothing. We were vulnerable last year too. Everyone's vulnerable.

The way he said it, however, implied that he's been watching them closely, and watched them closely in all recent years, and he sees a glaring weakness that he hasn't seen in years past. I don't buy it.

I was going to add that in order for us to be "as vulnerable as we've been in years" does not require much vulnerability.

But on the other hand, do you really not see us as more vulnerable than recent years? A questionmark at closer, four questionmarks in the rotation, a couple pretty weak spots in the lineup, one or two of our three elite players closer to good or very good than elite marginal additions in the off-season and competition that spent big . . . but not any more vulnerable than recent years?

[Richie Allen]

Without taking anything else into consideration, I agree that there are some potential weaknesses in our pending 25 man roster.

But I think that those question marks have induced management into a wait and see approach rather than the more typical stop-gap approach of signing free agents to fill every need. I'll be more pessimistic if our starting rotation fails consistently and we do nothing over the course of the year to correct it.

[Popeye_Card]

I do not disagree with you, but it was not Stark who pointed out the absent regulars or the injuries. Stark just said that the Cards were as vulnerable as they've been in awhile. Do you disagree?

Stark said, "Everyone who has seen the Cardinals this spring tells me they're as vulnerable as they've ever been."

I'm assuming that those "who have seen" the Cardinals are basing their opinion on their observations of them in Florida.

They have been observing a team devoid of 4 regulars.

So they are not observing what should be the Cardinal lineup for most of the year. Thus, what good is their opinion of how they look right now if they don't look like what they're going to look like 1 month from now?

--P--

[jagtrader]

Everyone who has seen the Cardinals this spring tells me they're as vulnerable as they've ever been.

Ouch!

This exact comment was made by Stark last spring. Sports writers take personal offense when teams don't spend ridiculous sums of money on mediocre free agents. I don't know why.

[planet planet]

Everyone who has seen the Cardinals this spring tells me they're as vulnerable as they've ever been.

Ouch!

This exact comment was made by Stark last spring. Sports writers take personal offense when teams don't spend ridiculous sums of money on mediocre free agents. I don't know why.

They're only campaigning on our (the little guy's) behalf, jag!

[mikechamp]

They're only campaigning on our (the little guy's) behalf, jag!

Why would they need to do that? I thought they were supposed to be objective.

Or did you forget to use the dark blue sarcasm font?