No time to waste with this week’s roundtable, we need to get it finished before Jack McKeon falls asleep or starts playing with the Twitter thing…
Strike 1: Are the Cardinals in serious trouble with the Albert Pujols injury and will there be any ripple effect to later contract negotiations with the team if the season goes south?
Garrett Wilson: Anytime you lose the best player in baseball, yeah, it’s going to hurt a little bit, especially when most every injury expert has suggested that the 4-6 week prognosis for Pujols’ return is decidedly optimistic. If it becomes clear that he is going to miss much more time than six weeks, it could well be time for the Cards to consider just blowing the whole thing up given that Pujols could leave in free agency and Tony LaRussa could retire at the end of the year. Of course, it all hinges on Albert’s free agency, which is now not so clear. On one hand, St. Louis could try and use this injury time to rekindle extension talks with Pujols, but they’d be taking a risk that his wrist may not heal quickly or properly. Conversely, Pujols might use this time to get a true sense of just how good St. Louis is without him. If this team tanks because he misses a few weeks, that is certainly going to make him think twice about re-upping with the Cards for the rest of his career.
Pat Lackey: They still have Berkman, they still have Holliday, they still have Rasmus and Molina and a strong bullpen and a decent rotation. I guess the point is this: the Pittsburgh Pirates have stayed approximately in contention in the NL Central with a lineup that’s quite a bit worse than the Cardinals sans Pujols. They might not be in first place when Pujols comes back, but I’d be shocked if they were completely out of contention. As for an effect on the negotiations, well, the Cardinals’ point from the beginning has been that Pujols is a great hitter, but that he’s also 31 and that no one stays young forever. I feel like their point is being made for them by Pujols this season between his early-season slump and now his injury. I’ve always thought he’d end up back in St. Louis next year and now I think the chances of some club significantly overpaying him and prying him away is even lower.
Mark Smith: They’re in trouble, but they’re not in too much trouble. Losing their best player for a month and a half is never a good sign, but that does leave 4.5 months of Albert in a season in which the Brewers and Reds, while good, are not elite. In regard to the negotiations, I don’t think it will have much of an effect as an isolated incident. It wasn’t ligament damage or an injury to a joint, so it seems like a “fluke” injury. If he comes back and hits, the injury will be a non-factor in negotiations and the slow start will be nothing more than a slow start.
Joe Lucia: I think the Cardinals can survive. If he’s only out four to six weeks they can keep their heads above water in the pillow fight that is the NL Central for long enough to be able to make a charge once he comes back. If he’s going to be gone any longer than that, there could be an issue. The drop off from Pujols to John Jay is a lot more magnified over an 8-10 week period than 4-6 weeks. The Cardinals have been hit hard with injuries, first with Adam Wainwright, now with Albert Pujols. They survived Wainwright, I think they can survive Pujols.
Strike 2: How much longer can the White Sox endure the antics of Ozzie Guillen?
Joe: I just wrote about this topic a couple days ago, but let me expand upon things. The White Sox have turned things around after an awful April, and the AL Central looks like it’s anyone’s game right now. Guillen has a history of success on the South Side and I think he’ll stick around until the team has a couple bad seasons in a row. THat hasn’t happened yet.
Pat: Here’s the thing: managers don’t really do anything, especially in the American League. Ozzie Guillen is good for business. The fans love him, he keeps the White Sox prominent in everyone’s mind, and I’d be willing to guess that the players don’t hate him (if they did, Ozzie probably would be fired already). So what would firing him really accomplish besides lowering Kenny Williams’ Advil tab? I’m not saying they won’t fire him, just that he might be on a longer leash than people expect.
Garrett: I’ve always said that the White Sox will put up with Guillen as long as he wins. Right now, that doesn’t bode well for Ozzie’s future in Chicago, although the team has shown signs of life lately. But barring a surge into the post-season, I’m guessing he and the White Sox agree to mutually part ways at the end of the season so that he can take over the Marlins who have long pined to bring Guillen to Miami to energize the team and their large Latino fan base.
Mark: I think it all depends on whether or not he wins. When the White Sox wins, he’s a lovable guy who just says crazy things. When they lose, he’s causing problems. It just makes it easier to rationalize firing him if they’re losing, but if they’re winning, I don’t expect a change at season’s end.
Strike 3: With Jack McKeon’s hiring, if you could bring back any manager over 60 currently out of the game, who would it be and why?
Pat: Billy Heywood. That kid knew strategy. Honestly, I don’t care; you can probably tell from my answer to the Guillen question that I don’t have a terribly high opinion of the effect of managers.
Garrett: That’s a tough one, but I’d probably have to go with Tommy Lasorda. I grew up in LA and Lasorda was an institution when I grew up. I even think that even with his age, he’d still be a pretty effective manager since he was fiery enough to be considered “old school” but also had big enough personality and charisma to get through to some of the younger stars in the game. Plus, he made all those great Slim Fast commercials, who wouldn’t want more of that?
Joe: As a Braves fan, I’m stuck with the charade that Fredi Gonzalez calls managing every night. With that said, I’d kill to have Bobby Cox back in the dugout. Not only did he have a pulse, but he did things competently instead of just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what stuck.
Mark: I have a similar disinterest in managers as Pat. But I’d love to see Tom Hanks manage, if we’re going with imaginary managerial candidates.
