Odds & Ends: Gaston, Cardinals, Rays

That arguement for the Cardinals is sooo weak...they aren't a small market team. What about teams like the Twins or Athletics making the postseason multiple times in the decade while having a much smaller payroll than the Cardinals? Or what about the Marlins winning the World Series with a much smaller payroll? I'm sorry, but the team of the decade is not about cost efficiency, it's about who was the best team over the 10 years. If the Yankees win the World Series this year, they are deserving of the claim. If the Phillies win, the Red Sox should be considered the team of the decade, with the Phillies in second place (along with the claim of most dominant team in their peak).

I was kinda thinking the same thing brian.

I think the Twins should be the team that gets organization of the decade.

They've had even smaller payrolls than the Cards yet won the Central what, 6 times this decade and tied once?

They traded away arguably the best pitcher in the game (at the time) in Santana and tie for the divion then win it hte next year?

THAT is the sign of a great organization. Yes, they've made some mistakes (young for garz, not getting enough for Santana), but remember when they drafted Mauer over Mark Prior and 99% of people ripped on them for being dumb?

GENIUSES!

According the the US. Census Bureau. Stl has roughly 300k more people than Minneapolis, MN... I dont know what you consider a large market team but I wouldnt consider STL one at all. Also how many WS have the twins been too? Cards traded away a great pitcher as well... his name is Dan Haren. So QQ more please. The cards payroll is middle of the road not low or high and they are consistant with it.

BF,FYI larussa already resigned with the cardinals so he will not be in the Hot stove.

Heard the argument recently on the radio by some sports radio talker that the Twins aren't a small market team, contrary to popular belief. The Twin Cities is/are a thriving community and X number of Fortune 500 companies are HQ'd there.

"The 2010 managerial hot stove is going to be interesting with a possibility of Cox, Torre, LaRussa, and Gaston walking away from the game along with whomever may get fired."

Lou Pinella's contract is up after 2010 as well.

if the rays trade bartlett/ crawford i will never watch the rays as long as i can see....

I can understand having favorite players, but if you are a fan of the team, I think you need to recognize that sometimes it is the right thing to trade players at their peak.

The best GMs recognize that it is important to keep rotating their talent to strengthen and deepen their roster. It is a balancing act since the idea is to remain competitive as long as possible and not to trade a player who might put you over the top.

But if you evaluate correctly, and can replace the production of a present star with someone as productive, or at least nearly so, while adding to your roster elsewhere, you have to do it.

I am guessing that either Bartlett or Brignac will be gone before the 2010 season, and if Brignac can supply production at SS while Bartlett can bring back more value in a trade, then the Rays have to trade him.

I doubt Crawford will be traded early, or at all if the Rays are contending, but again, should the Rays slip by the trade deadline, it will probably be the right thing to do to trade him too.

Um, ok, random, but nice come back?

If the Cubs played in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox (and to a lesser extent, the Rays), I would think their chances in the next 15 years are worse than their current outlook over the next 15 years. The Cubs could actually be a dynasty by year 15, since they have the money to buy good players. I could care less either way.

I'm not overlooking the value of prospects. Guess who else has prospects? Yankees and Red Sox.

You can fill your roster with 15 can't miss prospects, half will either get injured, or never approach their potential, the other half will, one or two become superstars, and you have, as you put it, a window to compete. If everything goes right for a couple years, you are looking at a nice solid third place in the AL East, assuming the Rays have a bad year.

Sure there is risk with signing free agents, but what happens when they don't pan out? There is a new class of free agents the following year.

Then again, maybe they'll add a salary cap in the next 15 years, and that would change things.

"Wow. Just wow. That is a thing of beauty right there. For Mark Mulder, the Athletics originally received Dan Haren, Kiko Calero, and Daric Barton, but they eventually received another 10 player if you follow the trade strings to their current state."

I'm not really getting that part of the article. They didn't get 3 prospects, and then 'another 10 player'. They got three, traded away two of them, and at the end of it all, they netter out 9 prospects. And the writer didn't even mention that part of the reason why they got some of the prospects is that they gave up Street, who had considerable value. It worked out really well for Oakland, but there is no reason to make it out to be more than it is.