Mozeliak said the rotation is full in his estimation, but if they could identify some swingmen -- as detailed below -- they would look to add if there isn't the option internally. McHugh would be an outside example of that move that would count as a starter add, depending on you view.
Interesting perspective. The one thing I always wondered is what kind of career would a player like John Mabry and players in his class who were blocked at various levels. I'm not talking about Hall of Fame. I'm talking about career stability, career earning, career not bouncing around from position to position, team to team, and so on. I think there's a group of players that could have had some steady, stronger, well-paid careers but elected not to use.
Let's have some fun: Dylan Carlson.
I cannot at the moment, no.
Take the 26th man on a roster it's a good best he's the best on a Class A roster, not just a HS team. But you're right about that. It speaks to how challenging the sport is, how challenging the high level of any endeavor can be, and how competitive it is to keep that kind of job, not to mention how much time it takes away from the workplace, away from the time you're being paid, to stay ahead in competitive fields.
Have not heard his name come up. That could be because the presumption is he'll head back to the Dodgers and it will be Joe Kelly that is the LA reliever on the move. Now you want an interesting Hall of Fame question? Let's talk Kenley Jansen, especially as Wagner's support grows.
For a DH? Would be interesting, for sure. Absolutely. No other spot for him. Not a name that I've heard come up when asking around before the lockout, but definitely an intriguing name for some team to snag as a DH if the Washington Nationals are listening.
I don't see any different between a first-ballot Hall of Fame or third-ballot Hall of Famer. Ken Griffey Jr. signs the same HOF after his name that Tim Raines or Lee Smith do, and once you're in you're in, they don't ask at the door if you were a first-timer, they don't order the plaques by first-timer or not. That is a construct that I don't comprehend. And so I have a hard time making the leap to maybe. Commit. And over time if that commitment changes, cool. Fine. I get that. But commit.
Jake, I outlined some of the reasons why I won't answer questions in hopes that you would reshape your question. Not because it's controversial, but because, again, I don't feel it's right to launch a question that could be seen as disrespectful to my colleagues (or peers) or one that has some of its basis on a false premise or falsehoods. I don't mind talking about journalism. I try to be as transparent as I can be here about my work, my process, my role, my position, and my failings without offering commentary on others without their permission.
He will be signing a major-league contract. That's why.
Sure. It's possible. Times change. Politics change. The judges making the decision change. Congress could change it. I could see it for sure.
Correct. And then they had a similar result when they added Happ/Lester. There is a clear comparison between what the Braves did twice with their outfield and the Cardinals only did once with their rotation. Atlanta is also another example of the Just Get In notion. Just get in. See what happens in October, but you've got to get there first.
I make my own. There are many places where scorebooks are for sale though. There are some places where you can by the BBWAA style, or close to it. There's 7-2 Double Play's Square scorebook. Bob Carpenter, the Nationals broadcaster and former Cardinals' broadcaster, has a popular scorebook that he sells and that many writers use.
I'm really concerned with that, honestly. If players choose not to talk to me because of how I cover the news, that's their choice. It wouldn't be the first time. I do my best to approach both sides professionally and fairly, and I think it is both professional and fair to point out that in recent years the owners, front offices, GMs and the like have had a larger, louder say in things and that hearing more from the players and more about the players' view is necessary to keep the coverage fair. Since the front offices aren't talking and the players are, it's really the first time to hear from them. Whether you agree with their view is entirely different than wishing to share their view and seeking to better explain their arguments.
Fair point. Baseball is in a precarious spot because it's usually been there to unite the country, and when next the country needs that bond, that community, that chance to gather for a ballgame or to sit over a conversation about the previous day's game, when the country needs that comfort of the ubiquity of baseball and ball talk -- if it's not there. Yikes.
That is definitely a pro-owner point of view. I think it's absurd to suggest that players have absolutely "no risk." A young player just in the majors whipping fastballs trying to get to that arbitration right at Year 3 has a lot of risk riding on that ligament that could blow after he's given the team three incredibly strong years, not earned a guaranteed contract, and sees his career earning potential evaporate because he's not re-signed for that year he's on rehab and never the same ... Any sporting endeavor with a risk of injury means the player takes risk, too. Throw in the kinds of life/career altering injuries in pro sports, and goodness is there risk.
To me, they've been pretty clear. I urge you to read the coverage, if not at StlToday.com then somewhere else that you trust.
That continues to be on the table. At last check, it was "under study." They still have time to explore it and get it implemented before the season, though there was a trend toward not making the leap for 2022, when last I had a chance to ask.