In over a decade of writing professionally about baseball, I have never stooped so low as to write a “trade deadline winners and losers” piece. Normally, I run from a cliché like the Wehrmacht withdrew from a battle, attacking even as I back away. This is probably why I have never been invited to many parties. Normally, the July 31 non-waiver trading deadline is such a violent anticlimax that there isn’t much to say, making it acceptable to dismiss it as if it were a guest-star on Downton Abbey, issuing no more than a single word, a hostile glance, and a pregnant pause. The 2011 trading deadline was so active it demands a more thorough going-over. Today winners, tomorrow losers, and Wednesday I will be invited to the King’s Charity Ball (but no one will tell me it isn't a costume party).
Winners
Atlanta Braves
Between injuries and disappointing performances, the Braves were being strangled by their outfield. The unit as a whole has done less hitting than that of any team in the league except the Padres. Center field was a particularly sore point, as it has been for a number of years—in 2008, Braves center fielders ranked eighth in the NL in True Average, then dropped to 13th in 2009, 15th last year and again this year. Bourn isn’t Ty Cobb, but should represent a serious upgrade for the Braves in the center-field line, as he ranks fourth among all NL center fielders in TAv (250 PA and up department). Braves leadoff hitters have also been among the worst in the league, having hit .254/.306/.365 overall. Weird stat alert: In 57 plate appearances at Turner Field, Bourn has never drawn a walk. Having hit only .218/.289/.348 against southpaws to date, the Braves needed a right-handed bat and didn’t get one, but Bourn’s value should hardly be dismissed in light of that. They gave up two solid pitching prospects, a third that should be rated a throw-in, as well as an outfielder that has proved he can’t play in the majors, at least for them. That’s not a bad deal for a part they needed so badly and who also remains under contract.
Baltimore Orioles
Unlike some rebuilders who pretended they had no need to sell (hellooooo, Cubs!), the Orioles got something, moving the underrated Koji Uehera and the superannuated Derrek Lee in separate deals. The returns aren’t particularly special. Chris Davis will give the lineup the left-handed power it has been missing all year, but potentially nothing else—he’s arbitration-eligible after the season and has a strike zone wider than a rhino’s buttocks. Tommy Hunter pitches to contact and thus will be undermined by the league’s worst defense. Aaron Baker is a 23-year-old first baseman in High-A ball, which likely means we will never hear his name again. Nevertheless, a roll of the dice is better than standing pat with decayed assets.
Boston Red Sox
Theo Epstein got off to a shaky start, giving up future Generic Second Baseman Yamico Navarro and a Standard Model Reliever for Mike Aviles, which seems like a high price to pay for a 30-year-old defense-second infielder who has hit .222/.261/.395 this year. Given Jed Lowrie’s shoulder injury, Kevin Youkilis’ frequent day-to-dayness, and Marco Scutaro being, well, Marco Scutaro, it’s understandable that they felt they needed more depth, having already been forced to resort to Drew Sutton and an ahead-of-schedule Jose Iglesias. Still, Aviles is a sneeze away from being out of the league altogether, whereas Navarro has some long-term value.
Things got better with the trade for Erik Bedard, who, if he remains ambulatory for more than two starts in a row, should provide some desperately-needed insurance to a rotation that looked to have to batter its way through any playoff series after Game Two. With the second-best offense since 1950, perhaps they could have done it, but better not to try, especially since the deal cost them four prospects they are highly unlikely to miss.
Cleveland Indians
To be honest, I’m not sure if the Indians should be listed under winners or losers. They added Kosuke Fukudome to a depleted outfield and Ubaldo Jimenez to a short rotation while also getting more than a hamster for Orlando Cabrera. This is all probably too little too late, but Ubaldo is just 27 and is signed through 2014. Even if he can’t help the Indians find the handle on the division again, this is the starter with ace stuff that they have been missing since CC Sabathia blew town. No insult to Cliff Lee or Justin Masterson intended, but Jimenez struck out 214 batters last year and 198 the year before and has averaged 8.5 strikeouts per nine innings over the last three seasons. The last Indians pitcher to strike out 200 batters in a season was Sabathia back in 2007, and to find the previous example you have to go back to Bartolo Colon in 2000 and 2001—Colon also whiffed 10.1 per nine in 188 innings in the former season, a long, long time ago.
That said, they sure spent a whole lot of the future to get him, and there isn’t much left on the shelf. Since getting something of even meager value for players who are the equivalent of spoiled milk, all credit to the Tribe for getting an outfielder for Orlando Cabrera, which is (a) one body more than one might have expected them to get and (b) something they desperately need even with the addition of Fukudome. Thomas Neal’s .295/.351/.409 at Fresno doesn’t translate into anything special, and the decay in his walk rate is troubling, but at least he’s breathing and owns the correct glove.
Houston Astros
Ed Wade is a much-derided GM about to preside over a 110-loss season, something that only 13 other modern-era team architects have done before (there have been 15 teams that had 110 or more losses, but George Weiss got to preside over three of them—Weiss is in the Hall of Fame, so there’s still hope for Wade); no doubt he intended to build a historic club, but this probably wasn’t what he had in mind. Despite this, when you take an organization’s top two prospects for a player as basically decent as Hunter Pence is, you deserve credit. Wade also deserves kudos for long being a believer in Michael Bourn, who was drafted on his watch in Philadelphia, acquired by him for Houston, and patiently nurtured through a .229/.288/.300 season in his first year as a regular. Bourn rewarded Wade over the last three years, and now he rewards the Astros by returning four players. Perhaps Wade could have extracted more from the Braves and held out for one of their best prospects. Even if he had been able to do that, it would have cost the Astros desperately-needed volume. Just because the players coming in weren’t the Braves’ top prospects doesn’t mean they aren’t among the Astros’ top prospects. No one player can cure the Astros; competence at multiple positions will bring them back to respectability faster than having one Superman on the team.
St. Louis Cardinals
Bitch about what Colby Rasmus could have been to the Cardinals all you want, say that they gave up a great talent to satisfy a manager’s vanity. Forget it: Rasmus wasn’t going to be that guy with this team, so the point is moot. However Rasmus became disgruntled with the Cardinals and vice-versa, the fixing-it ship had sailed, and who was in the right or wrong is totally irrelevant at this stage. Further, as even as good as Rasmus was last year, he went through great hot streaks and deep slumps, and if the Cardinals felt the aggregate wasn't worth putting up with, we own that opinion at least cursory respect given that they have to live with the guy and his old man and we don't. In trading him, St. Louis picked up the additional starting pitcher it needed and manufactured what should be an effective bullpen out of thin air. Jon Jay gives them the depth to survive the move, and if he isn’t Tris Speaker in center field, neither was Rasmus. As an encore, they spent a very minor prospect on Rafael Furcal, who doesn’t have to be Furcal-the-two-time-All-Star, but Furcal-who-is-just-a-little-better-than-Ryan-Theriot. Jon Mozeliak made absolutely the right moves at the deadline, moves that give the Cardinals a far better chance of making the playoffs than they had before. Anyone who downplays that in favor of mourning Rasmus is shedding tears over something wholly imaginary.
San Francisco Giants
We haven’t seen a repeat World Series winner since the 1998-2000 Yankees, and Brian Sabean’s bid to join them is worthy of overspending on a rental—and it’s not clear that he did overspend. Sure, he gave up a very good pitching prospect, but a lot can happen between High-A and the majors. He also chose to pin his meager hopes of improved production at shortstop on the husk of Orlando Cabrera, which would normally be another example of Sabean’s fetish for vets, but in this case sort-of makes sense given that Giants shortstops have hit .208/.273/.304 to date and all Cabrera has to do is hit better than that while not passing out during routine fielding chances. Value is relative, and in this very limited instance, Cabrera is an upgrade.
Seattle Mariners
Doug Fister fit Safeco Field, but you can say that about a lot of pitchers. In his short career he has an ERA of 3.42 at home, 4.40 on the road. He had good control and pitched to contact. The M’s turned him into four players. Casper Wells is limited in that his conception of the strike zone is about as egalitarian as a Woody Guthrie song, but he has slugged .505 at Triple-A and .490 in the majors. The M’s can use some of that. Charlie Forbush not only reminds us old-timers of one of Stan Lee’s in-jokes, he could prove to be the greatest player born in Maine since George Gore (okay, Bob Stanley) if his good control and deceptive delivery play up in the Emerald City’s pitcher’s paradise. Seattle is up a bit even if prospective third baseman Francisco Martinez doesn’t pan out and the player to be named actually is Irving Forbush.
Texas Rangers
Even with Neftali Feliz looking a bit on the shaky side of late, Texas now has one of the deepest bullpens in the game with Koji Uehara and Mike Adams in the fold. This year’s team video may be titled, “While the Angels Slept,” because the Halos did nothing to close the gap with the defending pennant-winners, while the Rangers likely made up for any shortcomings they had in the starting rotation vs. their division rivals by creating a relief corps so impregnable it could be called “Fort Apache: The Lead.” Actually, even if they hadn’t, the difference between Mike Napoli and Jeff “Bill Bergen” Mathis was probably enough to send the Rangers into October for another year. Irony is such a bitch.
Toronto Blue Jays
In the final analysis, they dealt a pile of fungible players—Corey Patterson’s picture is in the dictionary next to “fungible”—and just one prospect, Zach Stewart, to get Colby Rasmus, who at 24 is still young enough to be a prospect himself and won’t be eligible for free agency until 2015. Although he had fallen out of favor with Tony La Russa (he was seemingly never in favor), if Rasmus can find the stroke he displayed last year, the Jays will have added an all-star. In exchange for bullpen parts that, with the exception of Mark Rzepcynski, were all on the wrong side of 30 (Jason Frasor, Octavio Dotel). Alex Anthopoulos, take one giant step backward and miss a turn for having to choke down a year and change of Mark Teahen in the process, but on the whole, still a very good series of moves.
Washington Nationals
Washington got depth in Zach Walters and Erik Komatsu. These are hardly top-level prospects, but the Nationals weren’t dealing Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig either. Jason Marquis and Jerry Hairston were just passing through. If being a general manager is an art, then it is the art of turning today’s dross into tomorrow’s hope—however thin. As for their failure to acquire Denard Span or B.J. Upton, (a) it's not clear why that was a priority anyway, and (b) there will be plenty of time for that over the winter.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
And finally, apparently the deal with Detroit includes one more prospect to be selected from among the top three 2010 Tiger draft picks. All in all, a pretty good haul for what they gave up.
As a Jays fan, I'm thrilled about the Rasmus trade. Toronto can be a good place for a player to get his career back on track (see, for example, Bautista, Escobar and Morrow). Colby doesn't have to become an all-star to make this trade worthwhile. Considering who he's replacing (Corey Patterson and Rajai Davis), solid-average would be a major upgrade.
As a comparison:
Alex Rodriguez had 434.
Barry Bonds had 186.
Manny Ramirez had 129.
The only person somewhat similar was Ken Griffey Jr, who had 17 plate appearances but also had his father on the major league roster.
Not many managers promote from A ball to the majors, no matter how good their spring training looked.
Remember, Pujols was not slated to break camp with the team his rookie year. He made the roster because a washed up Bobby Bonilla was hurt. Given his druthers, Larussa wanted to send Albert back down.
However, it's that type of thinking that leads LaRussa to believe he and his dugout braintrust can manage through anything, which is reckless, arrogant and dangerous to the team's success. Making Jared Schumaker an everyday 2B and making McClellan a fifth starter and resurrecting Ryan Theriot as everyday SS and a whole lot more are laughably bad decisions unless you're on a $40 million salary budget. If he'd done the right thing and began the year with McClellan in the bullpen and Lance Lynn in the rotation, the need for a starter at the deadline may not have been a need at all. If Brendan Ryan had not failed to be a Tony Guy he may not have been shipped out on the heels of the Theriot "improvement" at SS. If Rasmus had been a Tony Guy and if the guy who taught Rasmus his swing had been embraced pr at least generously tolerated in lieu of villified, Rasmus might still be a Cardinal, and a very very productive one.
If we're going to give Mozeliak credit for improving the bullpen (and I get that this article is about deadline deals) it bears keeping in mind how badly LaRussa screwed it up to start the year by making McClellan a starter and breaking camp with Batista and Augustein instead of Salas and Sanchez.
How do these trades NOT help their long-term plans?
That has to be worth something.
... So much so, that I'll step into the discussion. Betemit, Fister, and Pauley do fill holes on a team with a tight two game division lead with several other teams still in contention (you can't count out Minnesota). Detroit certainly is a trade deadline winner. They didn't give up anybody they needed for this stretch. Perhaps - and only perhaps, in the long run Francisco Martinez & company is a bigger deal than Fister & Pauley. We all know those ex-Mariner pitchers aren't as good as their current ERAs, but don't you think Dave Dombrowski knows that, too? Can't that deal be a win-win?
I also remembered Whitey Herzog, and how he worked hard to extract maximum value from players other teams saw as difficult to get along with or as headcases. Ozzie Smith fought with management in San Diego but flourished working with Whitey. Andujar was a well know for aggravating managers and for being difficult to deal with, but Whitey realized how to work with him and Andujar succeeded. Whitey seemed to respond with wisdom and flexibility when working with players of various personalities. I could go on.
I always appreciated this approach....
1996-2011 LaRussa had 44 of the former and 27 of the latter. In 50% more seasons managing LaRussa had over 100% more very good to great seasons. The second best hitting year under Herzog was Jack Clark's 149 OPS+ in 1985. That would be the 19th best hitting season as a Cardinal from 1996-2011.
LaRussa has had a much higher level of talent on his roster than Herzog had, and therein lies your 12 points of winning percentage and then some.
Herzog's 1985 Cardinals won 101 games without a lot of pop--they sported a barely-over-NL-average SLG. They also had a below-average # of sac bunts. And led the NL in runs scored by over a third of a run per game. TLR on the other hand this year has an offensive juggernaut that is blowing away the rest of the NL in OPS+, yet he's fighting for the league lead in outs given away via sac bunts, and is likely leading the game in outs given away on busted hit-and-runs. Like Herzog 26 years ago, these Cardinals lead the NL in runs. But the margin between them and the fifth-best run-scoring team this year is smaller than the gap between the 1985 Cardinals and the second-best.
Herzog never had a Pujols, a McGwire, a Edmonds, a Rolen, a Lankford or a Holliday at their peaks. Jack Clark was the only really great power hitter Herzog had to work with, and Clark was only there a very short time and was not as good as at least five of those six.
As a Cubs fan, I would've traded Dusty Baker for either one.
Ultimately, I think anymore Larussa wants a team of 25 players as obsessively intense as he is.
Whitey seemed much less interested in a certain personality, and more in extracting value from players when he could, adapting his game and approach as needed. He wasn't perfect--he mishandled Van Slyke, for example. But many players, with a variety of types, personalities, and approaches, had career years for him.
Again, I have tremendous respect for Larussa and Duncan, but I question if they are still as good as they used to be.
J.D. Drew was a Cardinal for six years and had his best OPS year and second best OPS+ career in a Cardinal uniform. (Best was with LAD for two years). Most WARP as a Cardinal too.
Scott Rolen was a Cardinal for five years and had his best OPS+ year and best OPS+ career in a Cardinal uniform. Rolen did accumulate more WARP (wish it was easier to add up on BP) as a Phillie, mostly due to injuries while he was a Cardinal.
Note that Edmonds and Rolen's numbers came past age 28, theoretically their post-prime seasons. So, I would argue that, whether you look at rate stats like OPS+ or counting stats like WARP, the people you say Larussa wanted to drive out had long careers as Cardinals and their time with the Cardinals, under Larussa's watch, was the most productive of their career.
I never said that these players were not productive for Larussa. So I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. You beat that straw up pretty good, though.
Larussa did not like Drew as a player because he was not intense enough. Regardless of his numbers. That was my point. I'm not sure what OPS has to due with Larussa not liking Drew's lack of ferocity.
Rolen and Edmonds both got injured, and Larussa saw their injuries as character flaws and drove them out of town.
I think the medical community believes concussions are not a character flaw.
#1 "As I watched the Rasumus drama play out, I remembered all of the players who Tony Larussa ultimately could not get along with, including Jim Edmonds, Scott Rolen, JD Drew, and Brendan Ryan.
I also remembered Whitey Herzog, and how he worked hard to extract maximum value from players other teams saw as difficult to get along with or as headcases."
and
#2 "Larussa and Duncan seem to get a lot out of certain types of players, ones with certain personalities and approaches to play. They seem to have little interest in players who do not meet their standards of a "tough" attitude, including a willingness to play through serious injuries. People who don't display the proper attitude are ridiculed and driven out, including people like Edmonds, Rolen, and Drew."
#3 "Whitey could get productive years out of people that Larussa can't."
My argument:
With the exception of Ryan who does not have non-Cardinal data to compare against, the exact players you thought Larussa didn't mesh with for a lack of toughness, he got more production out of than when they weren't Cardinals.
Thus, I suggest that Larussa extracted "maximum" value from Drew/Edmonds/Rolen and I do not see any specific evidence that Whitey would've gotten much different production than Larussa did with Rasmus, nor Drew, Edmonds or Rolen.
Or, in summation, I'm sorry you don't like Larussa but there's no evidence besides amorphous anecdotes about chemistry that Whitey would've done any better.
Now would be a good time to have a look at the J.D. Drew player page and explain why only 2 of his top 9 WARP seasons were in St. Louis, and neither of his two best were.
Or take a visit to the Scott Rolen player page and note that while his best year by WARP (at age 29, when he's supposed to be peaking) was in STL, years #2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 were elsewhere. Injuries plagued him, sure, but 3 of his 6 least productive years were in St. Louis.
Edmonds sure did have great years in St. Louis at an age when he should have been past his prime. Man, LaRussa must have shown Edmonds how to Perform Elegantly Despite his age and father time.
So you say I should note that three of Rolen's 6 least productive years were in St. Louis yet dismiss that three of his seven most productive years were in St. Louis?
So you should say that I should toss out any stats about Edmonds just because you assume he got PED from Larussa?
So where does that leave this discussion? You're going to believe what you want to believe, which is that Larussa runs people out of town or dopes them up or generally isn't as good as people think he is... but Whitey would magically somehow turn things around. And basically, no stat I could cite showing Larussa's effectiveness (and there's been little statistical discussion about WHitey) would make you _believe_ otherwise.
Larussa has had good and bad years in St. Louis. From 2000-2005 he had a heck of a peak. I give him plenty of credit for that.
But from 2006 on, despite playing in one of the weakest divisions of baseball, despite sporting one of the best players in baseball, along with supporting stars and frequent Cy Young contenders, Larussa and his Cardinals have sported a .525 winning percentage. The last post season game they won was in 2006. After stumbling into winning the World Series with an 83-win team in 2006, they haven't really done much of anything.
This season, I see a team--one whose roster he has a great deal of influence over--locked in battle with the Pittsburgh Pirates for 3rd place in one of the worst divisions in baseball. I think it is safe to say that someone, somewhere, is not perfect.
LaRussa also managed the neat trick of having a 105-57 team with a +196 run differential somehow get swept in the World Series without ever even having a lead for a single inning and the next year failed to reach the WS with a 100-62 club despite nobody else in the league being good enough to win more than 90.
At least the first two of those moves were defensible based on off-the-field issues. The Cardinals have always needed to run a tight ship -- "needed" because their success hinges on drawing large crowds from a small but fanatical fan base. Contrary to some of what is written, St. Louis is definitely NOT a large-market team; anything but. Guys with Templeton's behavioral issues, and Hernandez' drug problems, were a threat to that connection with the fans.
The defenestration of Simmons, however, is evidence that Whitey too had "his guys." That's only to be expected; every manager in baseball does, except for the ones that every player hates equally (can you say Vern Rapp, while we're on the subject of Cardinals managers?). The only real issue is whether TLR has too many of them for the team's good, and deals with them counterproductively. I think the jury is still out on that one.
Whitey built his teams around fast guys who made a lot of contact and played + defense. He liked young guys. Hendrick, Porter, Ozzie were about the only position player regulars on his STL teams for any length of time after their 30th birthdays, and Ozzie was a holdover from his younger days.
Tony likes guys with multi-positional utility, who are not particularly good at any of those positions--Schumaker, Miles, Theriot, DeRosa, etc etc etc.--and with little regard to how well they play defensively or how well they get on base. Tony Guys are typically over 30, not terribly athletic, and in their decline, unlike Whitey Guys.
Whitey would not tolerate drug use on his teams. Players on drugs were told to stop or get traded. Hernandez would not stop. He got traded.
Simmons was a poor catcher. Whitey wanted a better defensive catcher. Simmons did not want to move off catcher. So Whitey cut him. After the trade, Simmons only caught 100 games in a season once more in his career--it wasn't just Whitey that thought Simmons was not an every day catcher.
Running Simmons out because he wouldn't switch off of a position he was terrible at is a bit different than driving JD Drew away because he didn't seem intense enough while playing excellent baseball.
Yes, Whitey always had a couple of questionable guys in scrub roles on the team. He did not, however, make his pet tweener fourth outfielder a starting second basemen.
I bet Steve puts them in the middle- not quite a winner, not quite a loser. I bet most of BP would have wanted them to trade Reyes, however.
The only bias at BP is against poorly run organizations. I'm not sure which side of that line the Mets stand at the moment.
As for alienating the fan base, that's already been done. Having Reyes at short while Izzy walks the bases loaded and Turner tosses the ball into the stands for a loss, isn't going to make it hurt less. I suppose there would be a few fewer tickets sold for the rest of the season, but it's not a few tickets that are going to be what resigns Jose. The factors will be a good ballclub and a truck load of dollars.
Schafer was a top prospect only two years ago, remember. He didn't get fleeced.
I just pointed out that Mets could/should be considered winners if teams like Houston - which arguably got crushed on one of their deals - are "winners".
Herzog was certainly an unreasonable man.
Oh, and did somebody actually defend 'Daddie Dearest'?? Goodness gracious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI8l87uyDXM
I'm sorry if you hate LaRussa. I'm sorry if you have Rasmus on your dynasty fantasy team. Letting that blind you as to Pujols calling Rasmus out (did Albert ever call out Rolen, or Drew, or Edmonds?), or the incredible immaturity of Rasmus - obviously taking after his father there - well ...
Now if you want to argue that the Astros might just as well have hung onto Bourn and tried again next trade deadline, well, that I can see, and quite possibly agree with.
Not only a huge win for the Phillies in 2011, but a great maneuver for the 2012 and 2013 seasons as well. The Astros didn't get Domonic Brown? The catcher-starved Houston team didn't get Sebastian Valle? The worst-team in baseball didn't get Brody Colvin (who actually IS the Phillies best pitching prospect)? How big is Steven Goldman's thumb that he could sway the balance on that deal?
Actually, you have it backwards. It is more difficult now to win a league pennant than in Herzog's day because there are more teams to compete against. Having more play-off berths only makes it easier for a team to luck into a pennant, because more play-off rounds gives more chances for the strongest team to lose a short series.
Furthermore, it is a brazen form of lying with statistics to make the claim that LaRussa is a poor manager for doing poorly in the World Series in a year his team was 105-57, while ignoring the fact that his team won the World Series in a year when their record was 83-78! (... not that the results of a couple of World Series is much proof of managerial prowess, anyway.)
That was precisely my point. Herzog didn't have the option of lucking into a pennant as LaRussa's 2006 team did. Herzog's only means was to finish first under a more difficult regular-season set-up.
Never claimed TLR was a poor manager because of losing that one World Series, just that's it certainly one of several noteworthy and embarrassing losses under his stewardship. If you want to give him credit for winning with a 83-78 team, the credit lies just as much with Selig's format as it does with LaRussa.
Facts don't make value judgments, they simply are. In this case, the facts are that in his career LaRussa has lost the World Series three times with teams that won at least 103 games. Two of those losses were to clearly inferior opponents. He also had other teams of 100 and 99 wins that couldn't reach the World Series, at least one of which lost to a clearly inferior opponent. He is one of just two managers who has been swept in the World Series twice. Of the two World Series he has won, he had a clearly superior team once and--as you said--lucked into the other victory with a clearly inferior team thanks in part to a watered-down postseason format.
Sorry, I just can't call that a great track record. Not a bad one, but also nothing that moves mountains.
You misstated what the difference in the postseason format then vs now is. Reaching the playoffs at all was far more difficult in Herzog's era. However, actually winning the pennant once you got there was easier because it required beating just one opponent rather than two. That is a tradeoff by definition.
In addition, it's interesting to note that during LaRussa's time managing under the old postseason format in Chicago and Oakland he managed more seasons than Herzog, yet won exactly the same number of pennants (3) and World Series (1) despite having superior talent during the Oakland tenure than anything Herzog ever had.
LaRussa gets no credit for building/managing the three 103 win teams but does get dinged for losing the World Series with them.
LaRussa gets no credit for winning the World Series with a 83 win team.
LaRussa gets dinged for "several noteworthy and embarrassing losses under his stewardship".
Thus, since you give LaRussa no credit for doing anything well, but apply the dings in full, Larussa is not a good manager.
Wait a sec... I think I made this argument recently.. hmm...
Why some of you are getting defensive about pointing out his shortcomings is hard to understand.
You don't like Larussa, you don't like Cox now? What's he done wrong besides somehow manage to get to the postseason in the post-Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz era with barely an offense?
What does "liking" LaRussa or Cox have to do with this conversation? I've been in the game 17 years and never crossed paths with either man. However, it is germane and perhaps not coincidental to note that they both have similar postseason legacies far beneath their regular-season accomplishments. Those are facts, not value judgments.
I'm curious as to where it stems from, tho'. On football boards I find an incredible amount of hatred of Peyton Manning, which I fully understand. It's substantially his first name. 'Pay-Tun', which connotes being born very rich. So the same people who used to boo when 'Money Incorporated' entered the wrestling ring hate Peyton Manning, too.
With LaRussa, is it maybe his being a lawyer? Perhaps the Glenn Beck thing figures in some?
Using the minus is like boo-ing. It is very rude to boo someone who has taken the trouble to write a well thought out comment - even if you disagree with its conclusions or find a flaw in its logic. If you disagree, it is better to state why and produce a healthy dialougue. A minus says alsmost nothing except nastiness and produces only bitterness and bewilderment, because a minus could have many different intentions.
I made a tangental observation on John Perrotto's column today.
By the way drawbb: no, I have no personal affection for LaRussa - he's never managed a team I've rooted for in particular, etc. This is about you making some comments that I thought were highly misguided or out and out incorrect and I was trying to point out the flaws in your arguments. We are seeking truth here along with our entertainment.
Some of you were mentioning his history of regular season success. All I did was point out that for every piece of evidence you could offer in support, there is probably an equally valid counterargument of detraction. If you're truly seeking truth along with entertainment, then you must be willing to accept and examine the warts, too.
So, instead of spending time rehashing various things said in this thread, and since you've been "in the game" for so long, why don't you come up with a system for ranking _current_ managers based on statistics? Seriously, I want to know where Cox and Larussa rank among _current_ managers on your statistics-driven list and who ranks higher/lower.
This site has been one of the pioneers challenging the conventional wisdom that managers can make a difference. BP's default setting has been that managers don't make much difference or that--if they do--it's too small or too undetectable to be captured.
While the industry mostly doesn't agree with that, I happen to think the reality is probably closer to what BP has suggested. However, analysis of that subject is necessarily going to take a more subjective discussion-based approach.
Toward that end, while you and some others highlighted positive accomplishments of LaRussa (and Cox) I wanted to proffer some other bullet points that could be considered negatives. That isn't "picking apart" managers without having standards set, it's having the discussion.
Maybe having the open and honest examination of the ups and downs will help us arrive at a set of standards for which there currently is none. I do know this: Automatically getting defensive about LaRussa and Cox just because I brought up their bad sides isn't going to get us anywhere.
After all, if I really had an agenda and was just interested in slamming them I could've mentioned the personal troubles of both men. The fact that I didn't indicates I'm only interested in questioning the legitimate topic of whether they are really as valuable on the field as many have assumed.
I and others have argued they are among the best current MLB managers. You seem to think otherwise by diminishing/dismissing anything they accomplish as luck and ding them when they are unlucky. So then, I ask, "If you think, based on the facts, that Cox and Larussa are not good managers, who is better and why?"
You critique without having standards to measure managers. Since you don't have standards on what is a good manager, you can pick apart any statistic in a vaccuum since you are refusing to compare managers statistically, and in addition, get dismissive of others' attempts to use facts.
The basis of your argument is "Larussa's success is based on his luck in having good teams but Herzog would win more playoffs because he was better at chemistry"
I've still seen no real reason based in fact on why you think Herzog (or anyone else) would get more production out of Larussa's Cardinal teams than Larussa did.
And you refuse to provide it.
That's basically what miffs me about this whole conversation. I'm not a huge Larussa or Cox fan so I don't get automatically defensive about them. But when people put _real_ effort to do some research into their comments, others throw it out the window with amorphous arguments about personality or chemistry or luck holier-than-thou hocus pocus without any basis (or effort/research of their own) to back up their own claims that personality/chemistry/luck would've made any difference. It's kind of like discussing the theory of evolution and someone says "The Bible says you're wrong" without properly reviewing the evidence presented or adding supporting evidence.