Join Cardinals beat writer Derrick Goold for his live chat at 11 a.m. Monday
In this special edition of the chat, Derrick also takes questions about his Hall of Fame ballot.
-
-
-
-
This will come as a complete shock to you, I'm sure ... but they're split. Some don't want any hint of PED connections in the Hall where their plaques hang. Some believe there are already users in the Hall and aren't naive to the way the game has been played. Those are anecdotal examples because I have not taken a poll of all living Hall of Famers. I do know that Joe Morgan once spoke out against candidates from that era. But as new inductees and the peers of these players reach Cooperstown, the conversation, the tone changes, just as it does for the voting body.Earlier in the chat I mentioned talking to players, and I should point out that it's not just Hall of Famers that I mean. I mean talking to their peers to get insight from the competition at field level to go with the statistical research at our fingertips.
-
And I'm not advocating for Sosa to be in the HOF. Mr. Goold's WAR stat does shed some light on this. It's just that as a 62 year old cardinals fan who has an anal love for Baseball History/stats (as my wife claims), the whole PED effect on stats, etc leaves a sour taste for me. But Sosa was as feared a hitter in his good years (and there were many) than Ortiz, ARod, and Ramirez were. Definitely more than Sheffield. But Sosa just seems to not be included in either area. Only 20% in his 10th year is surprising. To me, if we're including PED players, he should be getting more credit. As McGwire should have.
-
-
It's a fair point. And maybe there's something to that ... McGwire and Sosa are so linked by the 1998 season, their home run chase, and the feel we have for that now that maybe that's swaying some pens, too. I don't know. They're candidacies will become intriguing when the veterans' committee gets a change to chime in.
-
-
Ask me one. I don't answer questions that include vulgarity, vile descriptions of players or writers, or are based on factually absurd hogwash. I also don't answer questions that insult my colleagues or threaten/belittle my family members.But if you've got a controversial question, bring it, Jake.
-
Can you help me understand the player's union dynamics? Is everyone on the 40 man for all the teams a member of the MLBPA? I am all for the players getting their cut, but it seems that the MLBPA is much more worried about the top 5-10% of players and how they do financially than the median player. Why don't the 25 lowest paid players on each 40 man force the union to prioritize getting paid better earlier in their career? What percent of MLB players ever reach 6 year free agency?
-
Players who are on the 40-man roster or had a major-league deal in the previous season (because we're in an offseason) are in the union. What you're seeing this year is exactly what you're talking about. They are prioritizing getting younger players paid more. In the past, the union has focused on maximizing the potential to earn in the open market. That makes sense. That's what Flood wanted, and what players sought, and what brought rise to free agency. Let the players make what the market is willing to play. Viva open market! Now, the six-year period to earn free agency and the arbitration process had a role in that by not flooding the market every year with all of the players and thus suppressing the salaries they could seek. The union wanted to meter the talent reaching the open market to influence supply and demand and the owners wanted a system where they could control/shape salary for several years. That was the win-win that brought about arbitration and control years. Since those salaries were governed by that system, the union obviously wanted to argue and fight and preserve the free market so that it would grow.The percentage of players who reach free agency through the six-year approach is limited, you're right. There are more who reach free agency through that and other means -- release, minor-league free agency -- and that does increase the size of the pool.What you're seeing over the past two years is the shift that you're asking about and that's in direct response to how teams are managing their rosters -- using younger, control players in roles that used to be filled by aging veterans who cost more. Teams are making the value play. They would rather turn a middle relief role over a composite of young players making the minimum and get 80% of the production than pay four times as much to get the best veteran for that role. An example of this that you've seen in real time is the shift the Cardinals have made in the bullpen from a decade or so ago relying on a player like Cal Eldred to now turning that role over to, say, Jake Woodford.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Happy New Year, Derrick. I asked The Commish this last week, but would like your informed opinion as well. The Cardinals preach and preach tradition, honoring their "legends"/ organizational guys that instill the Cardinal Way, yada yada. I'm not advocating for Carp/Shildt to have had absolute power, but the organization has come off as petty with both their decision to dismiss them and the odd, unprofessional handling of it. Is DeWitt concerned at all with Mozeliak alienating alumni of the organization?
-
I understand why you would ask, especially when you mention Chris Carpenter. That did frustrate many people internally and externally. The firing of Shildt was not something that DeWitt enjoyed at all. That was clear in the press conference, and it should have been clear based on past reporting and comments he's made about the value of continuity and culture they want to create/maintain/respect. There isn't a pressing concern about alienating alumni, not from what I can tell. There are still alumni who are active around the team, or on the peripheral. Not bringing back Chris Carpenter or Ryan Franklin, as another example, did lead to some concern, but more on the individual case than a widespread alarm.
-
Derrick, if you became BBWAA president again, what's one rule change you'd like to make on HOF balloting? To me, I'd lessen the requirement of how long someone needs to cover baseball. Plus, I'd do some purging for those that haven't covered the game in a while. I know a few representatives here in Peoria have a ballot and haven't covered the game regularly in a long time.
-
A couple thoughts on this:-- When I was president, the BBWAA voted overwhelmingly to make all Hall of Fame ballots public after the announcement of the vote. That is something that I worked with the Hall to implement because it was the vote of the membership. We arrived at the compromise that is the box on the ballot that allows for the ballot to go public, and complete public ballots will be a discussion in the coming years based on the percentage of those boxes check and how close that gets to 100%.-- The Hall does monitor voters to make sure they are actively covering the game or actively around the game. That is a yearly process, and it did lead to a reduction of the ballots several years ago.-- I have proposed the yes/no ballot the BBWAA and the Hall. The BBWAA attempted to increase the total max vote to 12. The Hall declined.-- I have no issue with it taking 10 years to receive a Hall of Fame ballot. It took me several tries to become a member of the BBWAA, so by the time I got a ballot, I had covered Major League Baseball in some capacity in parts of four, five years before becoming a member. I don't want others to have that same experience. I just offer it as an example.
-
-
Tom Holland. He best captures all the aspects of Peter Parker. Just like the best Batman isn't the one who plays Batman the best -- it's who captures Bruce Wayne the best.Though -- are we past the point of spoilers? -- what an absolutely delight it was to see Andrew Garfield get to be the Spider-Man he deserved. He even got to acknowledge what happened to his character in his movies (and, yeah, that had to do with how he played Peter Parker), and the got the redemptive turn as Spider-Man he deserved for how much that character means to him. That was so good to see.
-
I am not a baseball writer. I have not put in the time and effort to and sacrifice to earn a right to vote. I understand that my opinion does not matter. But I will give it anyway.... I cannot imagine voting for Bonds and ever being able to look Ken Griffey Junior in the eye afterward. What a ... slight? Insult is not the right word. These two men whose careers followed similar arcs. Who were 1A and 1B. And then one played the game the right way. Loved the game. Aged in the game as he had always played it; with grace and dignity. The other became a cartoon of a human obsessed with more.... what? What did he want, really? Was it the records? The attention? I don't care. It saddens me that people are so eager to be seen as "enlightened" that they would allow a man who willingly chose to throw away his pass to Cooperstown in search of self-glorification to stand shoulder to shoulder with someone who played at the same time, had the same options, and chose not to cheat... I don't know. I kind of feel like everything those guys touch is tarnished. Cooperstown included.
-
-
-
-
-
Bobby Abreu and the sum of his career is the one that comes to mind. That was a year or so ago, and it had to grow on my through research and conversation and comparison. I remember sitting out in the right-field aux press box as he bombarded those seats with baseballs during the Home Run Derby, but looking at the scope of his career gave me a greater appreciation for it, as my ballot suggests.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jason Benettis is a fantastic broadcaster. I enjoy White Sox games so much because he's calling them, candidly. I did not get a chance to catch the Stat-based call of the game, as you can imagine. I also enjoy Perez -- especially when I've had the chances to talk to him in person before he calls game.
-
-
-