Join Cardinals beat writer Derrick Goold for his live end-of-season chat at 11 a.m. Monday

Join Cardinals beat writer Derrick Goold for his live end-of-season chat at 11 a.m. Monday

Bring your Cards questions and comments to Monday’s 11 a.m. live chat.

    All the "angst" is over a MLB player struggling to hit for multiple years now and still being talked about as a possible DH! You could find many a minor leaguers who could hit .200 in The Show. The angst is over how we keep playing guys or moving guys around who are unproductive. That's all.
    I am at a loss as to what to do. It's almost as if full explanations and sentences of why I brought up DeJong as a potential DH fit aren't being read. This is a difficult medium to wrestle with when explanations are given and only two words are seen and the rest assumed.
    What do you make of the notion that two top of the order starters will be needed this offseason? How would you receive news from the front office that they're prioritizing two pitchers before/instead of adding a SS or DH bat?
    Two top of the order -- as in lineup? -- starters, or as in rotation? Neither seems like the direction the Cardinals need to go. If they go for a leadoff hitter, OK. Goldschmidt at No. 2 or Carlson eventually at No. 2, they have options there for No. 2. With Flaherty, Hudson, and Wainwright all coming back the Cardinals have the spearhead for a rotation, and they need depth like those three and Mikolas can provide, but will need more of, as we've seen over and over and over again. A lefty in the mix would also be welcome and make sense. If they're prioritizing those spots ahead of SS/DH/position player it would certainly be fair to read that as an indication of how much they don't want to spend, but I'm open to hearing their explanation and if that's not the case.
    There is a Paul DeJong fan who is putting the same statement over and over and over again the chat, and K.C. I would welcome the chance to print your opinion, but there's a lot going on in your writing and some of it is the word choice that I just cannot figure out if I can print it. Please try repositioning your opinion and your argument so I can share it. Thank you.
    You ever miss writing about hockey?
    I haven't covered the Blues in more than 17 years. The beat is in good hands. It does not miss me.
    I just wanted to make sure it got theough
  • It got through. Some 30+ times. But I cannot reprint some of what's said, sorry.
    through I wanted to be heard & know why, thanx for your chats
    I welcome the chance to share your point, I do. But if you could reduce the name-calling and maybe shift some of the language to words I can reprint, then we're golden. Thank you.
    Last one, did anyone question Shildt about not bunting with Molina and Carlson on 1st I believe it was the top of the 8th. Classis case to do so.
    I don't believe that came up, no. There was a hit-and-run they appeared to try. I'm sure you saw that. That's more of Molina's speed than the bunt, as you know.
    My mistake - clarifying my previous question. I was specifically thinking two top of the rotation starting pitchers over any hitter. Seems like our rotation couldn't possibly have too many arms, and while our depth has pitched serviceably before, we will eventually need to beat a Brewers team with 3 cy young candidates in the playoffs. I'm taking more top end pitching over another bat for this team all offseason long.
    I see where you're coming from. Might I suggest that going into the season there wasn't many people -- were there any people? -- who though the Brewers would have three Cy Young candidates. That performance came with a team that identified its talent atop the rotation, built depth in behind it, and had health all year with those three. It's impossible to know what could happen if the Cardinals had health all year, but there's evidence Flaherty and Wainwright would have both received Cy Young votes. They just didn't have health, well one of them didn't. So, the front of the rotation is strong, given health. But even given health, the depth of the rotation is fair to question and address.
    You mentioned resigning Garcia,but ,he's pushing 35?,right? And,he won't come cheap,will he? Can't they find someone in house to do that job?
  • They could. But ... why not ask? Mid-30s, middle relievers, not breaking the bank, and his sinker plays here with this defense. Seems like a move to try and make.
  • NL Central now 0-27 with RISP in these playoffs!
    New meaning to fly-over country?
    DG did anybody ever talk about Sosa leading off? If you look at his OBP after the AS break, he was one of the best on the team? Plus he has some speed and other draws for it right?
    Did not come up after spring training much, mostly because that spot was cast. You bring up an interesting thought. It's more of a conversation today than it was six months ago given the performance of Sosa in the majors -- where he really had not hit like that before.

    I completely understand what you're saying about are saying if we go a different direction at SS, then we could keep him around and be a guy who gets time at SS, 3B, 2B, DH, etc. and is still valuable to have, especially considering his glove and versatility. Right?

    I am not disputing that. What I am saying is he shouldn't be the de facto DH of we get a new SS. This club deserves a real DH that can hit, not rotating .200-hitting Paul eJong through that spot. Leave him as a utility IF if you want, but he doesn't deserve to be the de facto DH or even a real DH option.
    Does that make sense?

    No one said he would be. Just that would be an option available to the team. There's no reason for the team to get hung up on who plays where other than first base, third base, and catcher. From there, the world is their oyster to make a call. If they could find a center fielder who does damage, then consider him for DH and let the good-glove of Bader handle the position most days while that new CF moves around the outfield and into DH. Same theory, different spot.
    Mr Goold: When the Cardinals make an unpopular decision, you seem to give them a pass because baseball is, after all, a business. So why doesn't Sinclair get the same pass for their very unwise business decision of not having the broadcasters travel?
    If they were honest about their reasoning, that would be welcome, Bruce. Also, I speak from a media perspective and I know what the decision has led to, not just with the broadcasts, but also what it's meant to the other media outlets covering the team and the added cost placed on them.
    Hello sir! I feel strongly that the team has a real chance of being something special next year when we hope to see the overall outfield improve (especially Carlson). It seems like the easiest way to make this a division winning team is to add a high quality starting pitcher and a SS bat.

    I could be convinced that what this team really needs is another ground-ball pitcher like we had after the trade deadline this year--but I shan't be moved from the need of a bat, I tell you! SHAN'T!

    Anyway, what do you feel is a realistic expectation for fans this offseason. We can all hope, but what is the stiff reality that we should start mentally preparing for?
  • Your use of Shan't, like your point, is well-received and impressive. If the NL is adding a bat to the lineup it sure makes sense for a team in the NL to add a bat to its lineup.
    Please guide me through some (unscientific) pitching/defensive trends. Is there a reason, before pitchers had to get 3 outs, that there were such positions as LOOGY and not ROOGY? Why was it more likely for a right-handed reliever to pitch to lefties than left-handed pitchers to righties?

    Also, is the shift employed more for lefties than righties, or is it pretty similar, especially if the batter is more likely to pull the ball no matter which side he is hitting from? If lefties get the shift more, why is that?
    I think I can do this. So the LOOGY -- Lefty One Out Guy -- rose from the specialization of relievers who could eliminate the lefthanded slugger, whether that hitter is Reggie Jackson or Adam Dunn or Joey Votto or Paul O'Neill ... As the late Chris Duncan once reminded me: There are relievers paid millions specifically to get him out. And that made sense for the game because as bullpens became more prominent, starters pitched less, and the "save" became the most significant late-game stat when it came to judging relievers and, more importantly, paying relievers the LOOGY had a role to neutralize the lefty and it allowed for lefthanded pitchers to take on greater value, especially if they had that one absolutely sinister, disappear-pitch. Andrew Miller radically changed how that position, once so specialized, came to be used and we've seen it evolve to the point it is now. The ROOGY was less of a popular spot. That righthanded reliever geared toward facing righthanded hitters. We saw that somewhat in 2011 when Octavio Dotel's job was to retire Ryan Braun. And he did. He was the ROOGY, but really the Righthanded Braun Out Guy. So it was all based on left-left right-right matchups which are the trickiest for hitters usually because of the dominant eye ... which if you want the science of it, that's the place to start.
    The shift has been traditionally more utilized for lefties than righties. It gained popularity against Ted Williams, a lefty, as a way to reduce his success pulling singles to the tune of a .400 average, and the Cardinals partially won a World Series because of how they approached Williams (and the shift!). But it's not just used for lefties. And we're seeing righties face it more as the shift gains acceptance in the game, just as we're seeing closers/best relievers come in early in the game. Takes some time for taboos to break. And the shift to the right (longer throw for 2B, less range for SS) is getting over some, not all. That does have something to do with teams seeing the fielders on the left side of the infield as the superior infielders and thus more range, etc.
    So there are two reasons why lefties are shifted on more:
    -- First and foremost, they work.
    -- Down the list some, they've been accepted more readily than the right shift for some of the reasons mentioned above about the defensive positioning and who goes where.
    I'll give you an example, though, of how righthanded shifts have been around for while, they've just been subtle. When Jhonny Peralta joined the Cardinals, he was flummoxed by the Pirates and Brewers -- why? Well, they would position a infielder behind second base. He once said that he had a single up the middle every time he hit a ball there, until he came to the Cardinals and those became outs. The shift did that. To a righthanded hitter. And it just was more subtle than Manny Machado standing in right field.
    If the Cardinals decide the fences need to be adjusted....will can this be accomplished before April 2022
    Yes. Mets, Padres, and other teams have been able to do it season to season.
    I’d love either Bryant or Seager hitting 5 or 1 but doubt either is a real possibility. Who else besides Schwarber, Pedersen might be realistic for the Cardinals?
    If you're going to eliminate two possibilities and offer two others, I'm sorry I don't know your frame of reference and thus don't know the answer you will accept. Put me in a tough spot.
    I hate the shift. I wouldn’t hate the shift if you had to stay on the infield dirt and not be able to play short right field. You say the game needs more action, more base runners. Wouldn’t that be a start?
    No. I don't think eliminating something as savvy as the shift will have the desired effect. I think doing so is incongruous with the spirit of baseball, of competition, and that the shift should be permitted and hitters have to adjust. But that's just me, maybe. Either way, it wouldn't get more balls in play. You'd either be telling the hitters they're doing it right and the defense must adjust to them, or you'd be limiting the number of fielders who can get to many more plays and thus prolonging the game by putting more hits in play, not more balls in play.
    I haven’t had a chance to read though everything since I just got home and I apologize if this has been answered. If Gallegos fingernail split couldn’t they have still decoyed to get the matchup and they used an injury to warm up whom ever for however long they wanted saving the inevitable outcome with Reyes. Thanks for another great year of chats
    It depends on the timing of it. At some point he was going to have the pitch, and they did get some extra time for who was close to warm. Starting someone from scratch? Maybe. They could have pointed to the injury and then just left the mound open for warming up. They did say that was a situation (runner on base) they wanted to avoid with Flaherty and hustle warmup they likely wanted to avoid with Hudson. I don't think they could have bought much time to get the situation they wanted for them. That's based on how they've presented it. There is still an argument that Hudson should be in that spot.
    If they have one of the bottom 3 worst parks for offense they should fix that. I like the idea of being a run suppression and athleticism team, but you can have a park that's at the 20-25th percentile for hitter-friendliness and still use that strategy. But if your park is an extreme outlier it perturbs your entire organization and makes it hard get the best out of your talent. Stars don't want to play for you, young players struggle to buy into what you're preaching. Might even hurt your ability to get good coaches as you're limited to guys who can coach players to play an odd style.
    There is no "if" about it. They do have a bottom three ballpark for offense. That's true over the past year, over the past two years, and over the past three years. It's been consistent since then.
    Great chat today. Even better than usual and that’s saying a lot. Is 5 years for Max total of $175 a realistic market for him? Would the Cards consider an offer like that front loaded ($125 in first 3) with an opt out after 3?
    For Scherzer? Fewer years, but high AAV, like you've said. It's my understanding he recognizes that shorter-term of the deal he's likely to get and will get the more the money per year which has been established in that $35m-$40m range (yikes, just typing that feels like a lot). Your inclusion of the opt-out clauses is fascinating, but appealing to the player -- not a team taking all of the risk on this one. Need more give back if the savings is only that much.
    Speaking as some who is also fairly pragmatic, I do not find yours boring in the least. Personally, I find it refreshing. It can be exciting to have a realistic expectation of what’s possible, because there’s still the potential for excitement in that realism. I know I sound overly clinical and a little boring, but I’d rather get excited about something that’s possible than be disappointed at something that isn’t.
    From looking back isn't Jeff Suppan the last Cardinals SP with 3 years of control than didn't have major arm injuries? We acquired him as a FA.
  • Lance Lynn went four full years, five total in the majors, without arm troubles. I'm not sure if that's the point you meant to make.
    Always a pleasure, DG. Glad you, too, think I'm correct. I can add you to my Paper Lions signature line on VEB. LOL.

    As far as the bat for next season, I'm a big fan of Semien as well. It's along the same thought process as your Bryant offering, but potentially a bit cheaper and one that could play MIF too. A LH bat would, indeed, be welcomed but a bat such as Bryant or Semien should not be counted out based on handedness.

    In my mind, I think I'd like for Mo to target Stroman for about 5/100 since I don't think he'll approach the Wheeler contract from 2019 (5/118). I don't think I'm comfortable with counting on anyone in the rotation giving us more than 25 starts (4 rotation members * 25 starts * 6 innings per start = 600 innings), meaning we'll need another 300 innings, or so (162 * 6 innings = 972 innings). Now, another guy who is reasonably reliable to cover 150+ innings, like Stroman, would make it much easier to backfill those last 150 with Reyes/Libby/Oviedo/Woodford plus any bonus innings from Jack, Huddy, Mikolas, and/or Waino.

    Maybe it's a reaction to the depth concerns this season, in which everything that could go wrong seemed to do exactly that, but I'd much rather Libby and Oviedo break into the majors with some cushion instead of throwing them into the fire right off the bat. And, I have a hard time believing Woody or Reyes can hold up to a full season of starting responsibilities.

    Is there any traction with this line of thinking in the front office, or will they target a lower cost rotation piece?
    These are excellent names and reasons for those players to be considered. Stroman hits a lot of the things that the Cardinals sought in their scramble for pitching, and there's an appeal for what he could do in front of a superb defense. Semien had a tremendous year, and there is definitely a DH/UT talent there who could also and has also played shortstop. And you're right, he's coming off of a massive year, but I don't yet have a feel for what that market will be for him. 
    Agreed, handedness should be a tiebreaker, a leaning, not an eliminator of options.
    It sure seems like they'll aim for shorter-commitment starting pitchers, if not lower cost. There was talent to be had at the one-year, $9-million level starter this past year, and there could be again. The Braves upped the price by signing Morton to one-year, $20-million, and the Cardinals had to follow with their offer to Wainwright, who is only older than Morton and a few mph off his fastball, but no less valuable. So, you could see how the market (given current CBA structure) would inch those offers up from $9m. Still, the commitment is low. And that's where the Cardinals could add depth so they have seasoned, established choices ahead of using young players under duress. That way the young player arrives when his performance insists it, not need.
    Thank you for an excellent chat to close the year on. There were some real strong and pointed and welcome questions in here, and some topics that I didn't expect to discussion -- that I'm glad we got a chance to do. I recognize the chat can sometimes just be a deluge of words, so I appreciate those who dove in and waded around and took in some of the answers. The thought and time chatters give to reading the answers and crafting their questions is always appreciated, and I could do better to reduce the filibusters, eh? 
    Offseason goals.
    As always, even when the seasons ends the coverage continues. We'll have ongoing Cardinals coverage for weeks and months to come, and the chat will continue into the offseason, too. The Post-Dispatch will be bringing exclusive coverage from the World Series, regardless of the teams who are in it, because a baseball town always has an interest in baseball coverage, especially if we can provide quality baseball coverage.
    I'm going to sneak off the grid for a few days. Others will be manning the keyboard for news and chats, giving you a break from my sentence structure. Maybe I'll read the new Franzen book. Maybe catch up on expenses. I've been told there's a show or seven on Netflix I need to see.
    There is also postseason baseball to watch. 
    I hope even with the Cardinals absent from it, you still have a chance to enjoy it.
    I mean, Tony La Russa is managing in October. Albert Pujols is on the Dodgers and in the Dodgers' lineup for Monday night's game. Drama is never hard to find this time of year.
    Stay tuned. Stay informed. Please, stay healthy. 
Powered by Platform for Live Reporting, Events, and Social Engagement