He was, yes. Mike Trout was selected six after Shelby Miller.
It will be a competitive summer, and the Cardinals don't need to win 95 wins to make it that way. They have a wider delta of outcomes than any recent Cardinals team that I can think of. Been saying that in the chat since the start of spring training. Right now they are running toward the one extreme, because this team also had the losing extreme in it if there was an injury, slow starts, or some of the lineup plans didn't happen for them and the bullpen was a mess. Oh, wait. They are defying these things and still winning. That bodes well for them in the long run, yes. But they're not going to get to beat up on the Reds all summer, and something tells me the Cubs are going to be better when next the Cardinals see them. They have a head start on 95, but they cannot keep this pace without help from the lineup and certainty in the bullpen because right now the help from opponents is covering over those flaws. That won't always be the case.
Agreed. But as long as he has options, he's going to be bouncing. Brebbia, too. It's not ideal for these players, but as long as it's allowed by rules, the Cardinals are going to take advantage.
They will, yes. We have plans for those.
This was explored in some detail earlier in the chat. I understand where you're coming from about the "Star" power and what Machado would bring. But you do have to take into account that it would be for a short stint. It would be for a few months, and then off he goes to free agency and away he goes to some market with gobs of money to throw at him. Philly, for example, is lying in wait, ready to unleash the Brinks on him. That has to be part of the equation. And it's not just the players who would move to Baltimore to make it happen. (Have to believe that Jedd Gyorko would be a part of that, no?) It has to do with the players who would be moved out of the lineup. Name recognition is great, but at some point the production also has to be part of the cost/benefit analysis. It is hard to connect the dots that would make this happen. The cost would turn off the Cardinals. The short-term nature of the move would turn off the Cardinals. And I get people don't want to hear that or read that because they just want the chat to dream along with them -- but, c'mon, that's the Cardinals' track record. You have to take into account the track record. Giving up a lot for a few months of a placeholder just hasn't been their style. Josh Donaldson would fall under this same umbrella, though we already have seen how the Orioles want the world (Hicks+) and the Jays and Cardinals can talk in reality.
There were quotes in the Post-Dispatch and other newspapers from the Cubs about their concern for Yadier Molina. At least one Cubs player was in contact with Molina as he went to the hospital and again as he waited to have surgery. Others intended to reach out. I have to imagine Jason Heyward did, though I cannot say for sure because I didn't have the chance to ask. I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
OK. We can have that talk. It may happen for him. But I don't think that's what the question was about. The question was about that Q-Rating superstar. You push us toward a good point: Name recognition ain't everything. Production is. I can imagine that there some eople who would make the argument that Yoenis Cespedes needs to be with the Cardinals to bring that star factor to the team, and I would counter that Marcell Ozuna is even better, even if he's not as well known. I bet you could probably tell me all about the "star" power of a few NL outfielders, but A.J. Pollock's performs like a household name and a star even if he isn't one.
I'm not sure he "justifies" so much as argues that Gyorko's role on the team has been to play when the matchups fit him best, and how that has been a part of his success. It's not anything different than Tony La Russa did with some of his bench players -- and he would often talk about trying to find that precise moment where "more is just right, and too much isn't so much that a player is exposed." For Gyorko, it does seem like the Cardinals are aware of keeping him stronger longer into the season -- and that he put in the work to make that happen in the winter so they don't want to burn him out early and not have him later. But the bigger drive here appears to be scoring him the best matchups for his best production.
Trick question. There is only one real possibility on this list unless the season goes upside down on the Cardinals. Is that what you're implying?
Yes, indeed. There was a time when players copied Babe Ruth and there will be times when players copy Mike Trout, and many copied Barry Bonds. This is how the game goes.
Players have the same protection that you or I have, and they are covered by the same laws. Teams must get the approval from the player to share medical details, and most players allow that. Some prefer vague terms. It is difficult to hide an injury when a player is not in a lineup or removed from a game, or skips a start. The team and player recognize that -- and also recognize the fact that people buy tickets to see them perform. So an explanation is needed. As far how a writer approaches it, the player always has control of his personal information, and so if a player talks about it and is willing to talk about it then that's the best way to go. That was the case with Chris Carpenter, who was willing to discuss his late-career recovery from a frustrating injury, and he then OK'd team officials to discuss it with me so that it was a clear, concise, and correct report on what he was dealing with -- and he was going to to try and recover from it. That's fairly common.
Pollock is legit. He's Eaton-plus.
I don't know if you're alone. But Shoeless Joe should be in the Hall. Followed by Pete Rose. And their transgressions should be on the plaque. Simple as that.
I do not. I am at the game to cover it for The Post-Dispatch not to have my thoughts about the game guided by what I hear from other media. That is a personal choice. It does not fit for everyone, and I know some reporters who prefer to listen to the coverage/broadcast. I also no broadcasters who don't read the paper for the same reason that I don't listen to the 'cast at games I'm attending.
Excellent question. Washington is the best fourth-place team in baseball and most likely to win that division.
Injuries have shredded that lineup.
That is what the Cardinals expect, that is what the Cardinals have been told, and that is how it has been explained to me by MLB officials. The plan is for interleague player to bring the AL West to the NL Central in 2019, and that having Pujols and the Angels visit St. Louis is a priority for the schedule. I don't know if that means two games where the Cardinals also visit LA, or if it will be Pujols Weekend in STL with a three-game visit. But all sides want this to happen, and the schedule is supposed to be balanced in a way where it will happen. That is what MLB says.
Yes. Both of those things are true.
Major League Baseball does. And now they're done with more input from computers. I'm not sure what you're issue is. But as stadiums are being used for more things than just baseball, that's a wrinkle that baseball has to take into account. Also, your example does not include the modern invention that makes all scheduling a little more tricky: interleague play.