Ever since the Cubs should have made the World Series in 2003 but blew it, every World Series winner has been in one way or another a kick in the teeth for Cubs fans.
2003: Marlins win. I ended up rooting for the Marlins since I hate the Yankees so much, but to have a ten-year-old team win its second World Series, and with the way the Cubs lost to them... ugh.
2004: Red Sox win and are no longer our partners in "curses" (though at least they beat the Cardinals and Yankees on the way).
2005: White Sox win and are (a) the White Sox and (b) another team breaking a very long streak of not winning.
2006: Cardinals win, and with a horrible 83-win team no less.
2007: Red Sox win again, and in just a handful of years go from being our "twin" franchise to looking more like a modern dynasty.
2008: Phillies, the only pre-expansion team with fewer World Series titles than the Cubs, win their second World Series to equal the Cubs.
2009: Yankees win. Ordinarily whatever, I doubt most Cubs fans hate the Yankees as much as I do, but the icing on the cake was how all the Yankees players talked about how it had been so long for their fans since their last World Series win in 2000. FUCK Yankees fans.
2010: Giants win, ending the third-longest title drought in MLB and leaving only the Cubs and Indians as the last pre-expansion teams not to have won a title in the expansion era.
2011: Cardinals win a-fucking-gain. The icing on this one? The fact that Ryan Theriot was hitting leadoff for the Cardinals in the clinching Game Seven. Ryan Theriot shouldn't be hitting leadoff for anyone at any time, least of all a team that's winning the World Series. What a joke. Also, it's the fucking Cardinals.
Your move, Theo.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Scared Miklasz
There are two types of rivalry in the sports world: the kind that spring up between two great teams - Lakers/Celtics in the NBA, for one key example - and the kind that spring up for simple reasons of geography and playing each other a lot. Yankees/Red Sox is perhaps the key example of the form - it only turned into more in the last decade or so, really - but Cubs/Cardinals is perhaps an even better illustration. The two teams have been in the same division since the Cardinals (then the St. Louis Browns) joined the National League in 1892. But post World War II, as the Cubs' fortunes dropped, that aspect of the rivalry tailed off. For two decades, between 1925 and 1945, the Cardinals and Cubs were perhaps the two most dominant franchises in the National League. The Cardinals played in eight World Series and won five. The Cubs didn't win any but represented their league in the Fall Classic fully five times in that span. Between 1942 and 1946, the Cardinals won four pennants; the one they didn't, in 1945, was won by the Cubs. (To be fair, those WWII years were a bit goofy.)
Obviously, however, the rivalry has been a bit different since then. It's more about a rivalry between two major Midwestern cities, and two teams that simply go back a long way and have played each other well over two thousand times. The Cardinals have won nine more pennants and four more World Series since 1946; they could add a fifth World Series this year. The Cubs, I don't need to tell you, have won none of either.
But this is clearly still a rivalry. And what's more, it's clearly still a rivalry that matters even to the more successful team in it. Why else would Bernie Miklasz, long-time columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch write a column - during the World Series that his team is playing in! - like, well, this?
The St. Louis Cardinals have been so dominant in the NL Central, it looks like the rival Chicago Cubs are hiring two general managers in a desperate attempt to topple their rivals.
I just got done enumerating how much more successful the Cardinals have been over the last 65 years. However, ten points for answering the following question: in the last five years, who has won more NL Central titles, the Cubs or the Cardinals?
Of course, the answer is the Cubs, who won in 2007 and 2008. The Cardinals won in 2009 but finished second to the Reds in 2010 and to the Brewers this year. Really, over the last five years, the Brewers have at least as good a claim to NL Central "dominance" as the Cardinals. I know the Cardinals are in the World Series having beaten the Brewers, but this is about the division, right?
Anyway, this is a stupid argument regardless. Aside from the fact that the announcement of Theo Epstein's hiring happens to have come during the playoffs, and that the Cubs simply would have to do better than the Cardinals to win a division title, what do the Cubs' moves have to do with St. Louis that they don't have to do with "it's been 103 years since we won the World Series and we would like to win one at some point in the not too distant future"? Get a hold of yourself, Bernie.
The boy wonder, Theo Epstein, is defecting from Boston to take over the Cubs. He'll be given the title of team president and $18.5 million over five years. According to media reports, Epstein is hiring his buddy, Jed Hoyer, away from the San Diego Padres. If and when that becomes official, Hoyer will leave the GM post in San Diego for the GM title with the Cubs.
Adorably pejorative use of the term "boy wonder." Epstein does have two World Series teams under his belt, at least. It's not like he has Billy Beane's track record, say.
The Cubs are obviously desperate to win a World Series. They haven't played in one since 1945, or won one since 1908. The Cardinals, currently competing in their 18th World Series, have been in three of the last eight Fall Classics.
Yes, I'm sure the Cubs would rather have the Cardinals' record. So would a lot of teams. Even the Yankees haven't played in three of the last eight World Series.
Since Bill DeWitt Jr. bought the franchise in 1996, which is also the same year Tony La Russa arrived as manager, the Cardinals have qualified for the postseason nine times.
They won the NL Central five times in seven years between 2000 and 2006, which is pretty impressive, although since then, as mentioned, they've only won it once in the last five years. But yes. They've been fairly successful the last 15 years.
Going into Game 3 of the World Series on Saturday night at Rangers Ballpark, the Cardinals have won 11 postseason series and 47 postseason games during the La Russa Era.
The other five teams in the NL Central, combined, have won only five postseason series and 27 postseason games while competing against La Russa.
The other NL Central teams don't tend to compete against LaRussa in the postseason, this year notwithstanding. The Cardinals certainly have had more success than their NL Central counterparts in the playoffs - in the seven seasons since 1996 that they won the division, the Cardinals won at least one playoff series in six of them (a 2009 NLDS loss to the Dodgers the exception) and made the World Series twice. The combined power of the teams that won the NL Central in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011, meanwhile, yielded exactly zero trips to the World Series and seven first-round losses out of nine (the 2003 Cubs and this year's Brewers were the only ones to make it as far as the NLCS).
So, yes. Job well done. The Cardinals are currently playing in the World Series, you know. Did you really need to whip their dick out and ask the other teams in the division if anyone wants to compare lengths?
The Cubs obviously believe that Epstein, 37, can break the many curses in Chicago, whether it be the Billy Goat, the black cat, or Bartman. To attain success, Epstein must also break the Cardinals' firm hold on the NL Central.
One division title in the last five years. And the Cubs could easily finish second to the Cardinals and still win the World Series as a wild card, as Epstein's Red Sox did in 2004 and as the Cardinals themselves are attempting to do this year. But yes, it is likely that in order to do well, the Cubs will have to be better than the Cardinals in the long term.
After all, Epstein put an end to the curse — and cursing — in Boston by guiding the Red Sox to World Series championships in 2004 and 2007. The Red Sox had gone 86 years without capturing a World Series until Epstein ended the torment.
Factual statement. Although is anyone else getting the feeling that Miklasz legitimately believes in "curses"? What a maroon.
In the AL East, Boston ownership cast the New York Yankees as the "Evil Empire" that had to be taken down. The Cardinals are to the Cubs what the Yankees are to the Red Sox. So Epstein's hiring should increase the competitive intensity of a Cubs-Cardinals rivalry that's turned into a baseball-and-beer happy hour.
Pretty much what I said earlier. Although the Cardinals definitely do not have the Yankees' money, which is likely to prove one big difference should the Cubs succeed in righting their operational ship.
Mozeliak respects Epstein and thinks the Cubs have made an impressive hire. But it's not as if the Cubs are the first team to step up and take aim at the Cardinals.
Houston had a positive run between 1997 and 2005. Milwaukee GM Doug Melvin won the division this year and has led the Brewers to two postseason berths in the last four years. The Pittsburgh Pirates are improving. And former Cardinals GM Walt Jocketty revived the Cincinnati Reds, at least for a season (2010). The Cubs won the division in 2007 and 2008.
I see one big similarity between the Yankees and Cardinals - they both feel like it's divine right that they win the division every year. Houston had a "positive run" between 1997 and 2005? Hey, if you just want to completely discount nine-year stretches, what say we ignore everything between 2000 and 2008? Now the Cardinals have just two division titles to their credit and a single WS appearance. And of course if you correctly parse that last paragraph, you can see what Miklasz is obviously avoiding but what I already pointed out: the Cardinals have won the division once in the last five years. That is not a stranglehold. Aside from Albert Pujols and Chris Carpenter, there is almost no resemblance between the current team and even the 2006 Cardinals, the last year of their most dominant stretch between 2000 and 2006 when they made the playoffs six out of seven years and won a World Series.
Cardinals fans have seen this before; his name was Andy MacPhail. Remember that? MacPhail was the young GM behind the Minnesota Twins' two World Series titles, in 1987 and 1991. The Cubs hired MacPhail to lead them out of the poison ivy. How did that work out? Other baseball saviors included Dusty Baker and Lou Piniella.
"Hey, I know my team's in the World Series, but what if I wrote a piece just making fun of the Cubs? Now that's serious journalism."
The Cardinals will have to work harder, and be even better, to ward off challengers. And the franchise must confront a major issue — the future of free-agent Albert Pujols in a matter of weeks.
Will Pujols stay, or will he go?
Either way, Mozeliak is confident of maintaining the winning tradition.
Replace Pujols with a replacement player and the Cardinals aren't in the playoffs this year, nor in most years. I would expect he's probably not going anywhere, though, if only because I can't imagine other teams lining up to pay him what he wants, and if he's not going to get a massive contract, he'll probably stay in St. Louis for a merely very large contract.
It starts with a 2012 rotation that will feature the return of Adam Wainwright from elbow surgery. He'll join his co-ace Chris Carpenter, promising lefthander Jaime Garcia, Kyle Lohse, Jake Westbrook and a couple of intriguing rotation candidates in Lance Lynn and Marc Rzepczynski.
"There's definitely going to be the Pujols factor. But putting that aside, I like what we have in place," Mozeliak said before Game 3. "When you look in our rotation for next year, you can see the quality there, and the depth. On the pitching side, we have a very positive outlook for 2012."
Re-signing corner outfielder Lance Berkman to a one-year deal for 2012 provides a backup plan should Pujols depart. And if Pujols leaves, that would create an opportunity for Allen Craig to receive hundreds of additional at-bats. If Pujols goes, the Cardinals would have some money to spend on other free agents. But Mozeliak certainly will make an effort to sign Pujols.
"When we look at our everyday lineup, obviously we have a question mark with Albert, and at shortstop," Mozeliak said. "And if we can fill those in the offseason, and re-sign Albert, the St. Louis Cardinals have a very bright future."
There's also a chance of La Russa deciding to retire at the end of the season, but the internal expectation is that La Russa will return in 2012.
Wow, you actually talked about the Cardinals for a while! Congratulations. I love the idea that Pujols leaving could be okay because at least it would mean Allen Craig could get some more at-bats.
Could the Cubs emerge as a player in the Pujols sweepstakes? Media insiders in Chicago downgrade the possibility, insisting that Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts wants to rebuild through the draft, player development and an expanded scouting presence in the Dominican Republic.
The Cubs are still trying to get out from under some toxic contracts handed out to Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Zambrano and others. The Tribune Co., which sold the Cubs to Ricketts, pushed a win-now approach that turned Wrigley into a vast money pit, filled with wasted dollars.
Still, I wouldn't rule the Cubs out on Pujols.
"Could one plus one equal three? All evidence suggests that combining one and one will get you two. Still, I wouldn't rule out that one plus one could equal three."
The Cubs had a $125 million payroll this season, and for all of the hype over Epstein's sabermetric-based, value-driven philosophies, he developed expensive tastes in Boston. The Red Sox failed to make the playoffs in 2010 and 2011 despite spending $331 million in player payroll over the last two seasons. Epstein signed off on nonsensical free-agent contracts for pitcher John Lackey, left fielder Carl Crawford and setup reliever Bobby Jenks, among others.
While the entirety of the Crawford deal was pretty ludicrous, Crawford was worth between 7 and 8 wins in 2010. The fact that he played poorly in 2011 does not seem like something you can pin on Epstein. In addition, one of the reasons why Epstein "developed expensive tastes" in Boston was because it was DEMANDED by an ownership and fanbase that loved the rings and wanted more, and in the AL East the easiest way to compete with the Yankees is to splash the cash. (Yes, the Rays, but think about this: if the Rays had $100 million to play with, wouldn't they just win the division every year?) This year's and last year's Red Sox teams both had injury issues, and this year's team was the highest-scoring in the AL. Unforeseen things happen in baseball. It's easy to second-guess Epstein in hindsight, but if the Red Sox pull one more win out somewhere along the line, they could easily have found their way into the World Series (since it's not like great pitching has been a theme of this postseason), and then what would everyone be saying about Epstein?
How much credit should Epstein get for the two World Series titles in Boston? Obviously he made some good moves. He hit it big on some draft picks, including Dustin Pedroia, Jonathan Papelbob [sic], Jacoby Ellsbury and Clay Buchholz. But even with the second-highest payroll in baseball, Epstein's creation went sour.
No doubt all attributable to Epstein's presence.
Moreover, Epstein took over a 93-win team when he became Boston GM in 2003. His challenge in Chicago is more challenging, and vexing.
True for a number of reasons, almost none of which have anything to do with St. Louis, the team you cover that is in the World Series right now.
And the Cardinals aren't moving out of the division.
Well, I guess the Cubs will have to figure out a way to finish ahead of the Cardinals, like they did in 2007 and 2008, when they were winning more division titles in those two years than the Cardinals and their division stranglehold have won in the last five. I mean, honestly, I would expect this kind of arrogance from the Yankees, but the Cardinals haven't exactly earned it of late. Yeah, they won the World Series in 2006 and made it again this year, but in between those two they did exactly jack squat, making one playoffs and winning zero games in it.
Besides, if Epstein could survive in a division with the Yankees (and, for that matter, Tampa), do you think he's worried about the Cardinals? Once the organization is, hopefully, strengthened, if the Cubs have a strong front office AND more money than the Cardinals, don't you think the Cubs will have a pretty good chance to dominate? Which is why this reads, in the words of Hire Jim Essian's Bad Kermit, like "whistling past the graveyard." St. Louis has already lost the iron grip they held on the division from 2000 to 2006, and if the Cubs' organization can get its act in gear for the first time since World War II, that iron grip may just pass to the Cards' biggest rival. I'm not saying it's going to happen. But I'm saying it could happen, and Bernie Miklasz is clearly terrified that it will.
Obviously, however, the rivalry has been a bit different since then. It's more about a rivalry between two major Midwestern cities, and two teams that simply go back a long way and have played each other well over two thousand times. The Cardinals have won nine more pennants and four more World Series since 1946; they could add a fifth World Series this year. The Cubs, I don't need to tell you, have won none of either.
But this is clearly still a rivalry. And what's more, it's clearly still a rivalry that matters even to the more successful team in it. Why else would Bernie Miklasz, long-time columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch write a column - during the World Series that his team is playing in! - like, well, this?
The St. Louis Cardinals have been so dominant in the NL Central, it looks like the rival Chicago Cubs are hiring two general managers in a desperate attempt to topple their rivals.
I just got done enumerating how much more successful the Cardinals have been over the last 65 years. However, ten points for answering the following question: in the last five years, who has won more NL Central titles, the Cubs or the Cardinals?
Of course, the answer is the Cubs, who won in 2007 and 2008. The Cardinals won in 2009 but finished second to the Reds in 2010 and to the Brewers this year. Really, over the last five years, the Brewers have at least as good a claim to NL Central "dominance" as the Cardinals. I know the Cardinals are in the World Series having beaten the Brewers, but this is about the division, right?
Anyway, this is a stupid argument regardless. Aside from the fact that the announcement of Theo Epstein's hiring happens to have come during the playoffs, and that the Cubs simply would have to do better than the Cardinals to win a division title, what do the Cubs' moves have to do with St. Louis that they don't have to do with "it's been 103 years since we won the World Series and we would like to win one at some point in the not too distant future"? Get a hold of yourself, Bernie.
The boy wonder, Theo Epstein, is defecting from Boston to take over the Cubs. He'll be given the title of team president and $18.5 million over five years. According to media reports, Epstein is hiring his buddy, Jed Hoyer, away from the San Diego Padres. If and when that becomes official, Hoyer will leave the GM post in San Diego for the GM title with the Cubs.
Adorably pejorative use of the term "boy wonder." Epstein does have two World Series teams under his belt, at least. It's not like he has Billy Beane's track record, say.
The Cubs are obviously desperate to win a World Series. They haven't played in one since 1945, or won one since 1908. The Cardinals, currently competing in their 18th World Series, have been in three of the last eight Fall Classics.
Yes, I'm sure the Cubs would rather have the Cardinals' record. So would a lot of teams. Even the Yankees haven't played in three of the last eight World Series.
Since Bill DeWitt Jr. bought the franchise in 1996, which is also the same year Tony La Russa arrived as manager, the Cardinals have qualified for the postseason nine times.
They won the NL Central five times in seven years between 2000 and 2006, which is pretty impressive, although since then, as mentioned, they've only won it once in the last five years. But yes. They've been fairly successful the last 15 years.
Going into Game 3 of the World Series on Saturday night at Rangers Ballpark, the Cardinals have won 11 postseason series and 47 postseason games during the La Russa Era.
The other five teams in the NL Central, combined, have won only five postseason series and 27 postseason games while competing against La Russa.
The other NL Central teams don't tend to compete against LaRussa in the postseason, this year notwithstanding. The Cardinals certainly have had more success than their NL Central counterparts in the playoffs - in the seven seasons since 1996 that they won the division, the Cardinals won at least one playoff series in six of them (a 2009 NLDS loss to the Dodgers the exception) and made the World Series twice. The combined power of the teams that won the NL Central in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011, meanwhile, yielded exactly zero trips to the World Series and seven first-round losses out of nine (the 2003 Cubs and this year's Brewers were the only ones to make it as far as the NLCS).
So, yes. Job well done. The Cardinals are currently playing in the World Series, you know. Did you really need to whip their dick out and ask the other teams in the division if anyone wants to compare lengths?
The Cubs obviously believe that Epstein, 37, can break the many curses in Chicago, whether it be the Billy Goat, the black cat, or Bartman. To attain success, Epstein must also break the Cardinals' firm hold on the NL Central.
One division title in the last five years. And the Cubs could easily finish second to the Cardinals and still win the World Series as a wild card, as Epstein's Red Sox did in 2004 and as the Cardinals themselves are attempting to do this year. But yes, it is likely that in order to do well, the Cubs will have to be better than the Cardinals in the long term.
After all, Epstein put an end to the curse — and cursing — in Boston by guiding the Red Sox to World Series championships in 2004 and 2007. The Red Sox had gone 86 years without capturing a World Series until Epstein ended the torment.
Factual statement. Although is anyone else getting the feeling that Miklasz legitimately believes in "curses"? What a maroon.
In the AL East, Boston ownership cast the New York Yankees as the "Evil Empire" that had to be taken down. The Cardinals are to the Cubs what the Yankees are to the Red Sox. So Epstein's hiring should increase the competitive intensity of a Cubs-Cardinals rivalry that's turned into a baseball-and-beer happy hour.
Pretty much what I said earlier. Although the Cardinals definitely do not have the Yankees' money, which is likely to prove one big difference should the Cubs succeed in righting their operational ship.
Mozeliak respects Epstein and thinks the Cubs have made an impressive hire. But it's not as if the Cubs are the first team to step up and take aim at the Cardinals.
Houston had a positive run between 1997 and 2005. Milwaukee GM Doug Melvin won the division this year and has led the Brewers to two postseason berths in the last four years. The Pittsburgh Pirates are improving. And former Cardinals GM Walt Jocketty revived the Cincinnati Reds, at least for a season (2010). The Cubs won the division in 2007 and 2008.
I see one big similarity between the Yankees and Cardinals - they both feel like it's divine right that they win the division every year. Houston had a "positive run" between 1997 and 2005? Hey, if you just want to completely discount nine-year stretches, what say we ignore everything between 2000 and 2008? Now the Cardinals have just two division titles to their credit and a single WS appearance. And of course if you correctly parse that last paragraph, you can see what Miklasz is obviously avoiding but what I already pointed out: the Cardinals have won the division once in the last five years. That is not a stranglehold. Aside from Albert Pujols and Chris Carpenter, there is almost no resemblance between the current team and even the 2006 Cardinals, the last year of their most dominant stretch between 2000 and 2006 when they made the playoffs six out of seven years and won a World Series.
Cardinals fans have seen this before; his name was Andy MacPhail. Remember that? MacPhail was the young GM behind the Minnesota Twins' two World Series titles, in 1987 and 1991. The Cubs hired MacPhail to lead them out of the poison ivy. How did that work out? Other baseball saviors included Dusty Baker and Lou Piniella.
"Hey, I know my team's in the World Series, but what if I wrote a piece just making fun of the Cubs? Now that's serious journalism."
The Cardinals will have to work harder, and be even better, to ward off challengers. And the franchise must confront a major issue — the future of free-agent Albert Pujols in a matter of weeks.
Will Pujols stay, or will he go?
Either way, Mozeliak is confident of maintaining the winning tradition.
Replace Pujols with a replacement player and the Cardinals aren't in the playoffs this year, nor in most years. I would expect he's probably not going anywhere, though, if only because I can't imagine other teams lining up to pay him what he wants, and if he's not going to get a massive contract, he'll probably stay in St. Louis for a merely very large contract.
It starts with a 2012 rotation that will feature the return of Adam Wainwright from elbow surgery. He'll join his co-ace Chris Carpenter, promising lefthander Jaime Garcia, Kyle Lohse, Jake Westbrook and a couple of intriguing rotation candidates in Lance Lynn and Marc Rzepczynski.
"There's definitely going to be the Pujols factor. But putting that aside, I like what we have in place," Mozeliak said before Game 3. "When you look in our rotation for next year, you can see the quality there, and the depth. On the pitching side, we have a very positive outlook for 2012."
Re-signing corner outfielder Lance Berkman to a one-year deal for 2012 provides a backup plan should Pujols depart. And if Pujols leaves, that would create an opportunity for Allen Craig to receive hundreds of additional at-bats. If Pujols goes, the Cardinals would have some money to spend on other free agents. But Mozeliak certainly will make an effort to sign Pujols.
"When we look at our everyday lineup, obviously we have a question mark with Albert, and at shortstop," Mozeliak said. "And if we can fill those in the offseason, and re-sign Albert, the St. Louis Cardinals have a very bright future."
There's also a chance of La Russa deciding to retire at the end of the season, but the internal expectation is that La Russa will return in 2012.
Wow, you actually talked about the Cardinals for a while! Congratulations. I love the idea that Pujols leaving could be okay because at least it would mean Allen Craig could get some more at-bats.
Could the Cubs emerge as a player in the Pujols sweepstakes? Media insiders in Chicago downgrade the possibility, insisting that Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts wants to rebuild through the draft, player development and an expanded scouting presence in the Dominican Republic.
The Cubs are still trying to get out from under some toxic contracts handed out to Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Zambrano and others. The Tribune Co., which sold the Cubs to Ricketts, pushed a win-now approach that turned Wrigley into a vast money pit, filled with wasted dollars.
Still, I wouldn't rule the Cubs out on Pujols.
"Could one plus one equal three? All evidence suggests that combining one and one will get you two. Still, I wouldn't rule out that one plus one could equal three."
The Cubs had a $125 million payroll this season, and for all of the hype over Epstein's sabermetric-based, value-driven philosophies, he developed expensive tastes in Boston. The Red Sox failed to make the playoffs in 2010 and 2011 despite spending $331 million in player payroll over the last two seasons. Epstein signed off on nonsensical free-agent contracts for pitcher John Lackey, left fielder Carl Crawford and setup reliever Bobby Jenks, among others.
While the entirety of the Crawford deal was pretty ludicrous, Crawford was worth between 7 and 8 wins in 2010. The fact that he played poorly in 2011 does not seem like something you can pin on Epstein. In addition, one of the reasons why Epstein "developed expensive tastes" in Boston was because it was DEMANDED by an ownership and fanbase that loved the rings and wanted more, and in the AL East the easiest way to compete with the Yankees is to splash the cash. (Yes, the Rays, but think about this: if the Rays had $100 million to play with, wouldn't they just win the division every year?) This year's and last year's Red Sox teams both had injury issues, and this year's team was the highest-scoring in the AL. Unforeseen things happen in baseball. It's easy to second-guess Epstein in hindsight, but if the Red Sox pull one more win out somewhere along the line, they could easily have found their way into the World Series (since it's not like great pitching has been a theme of this postseason), and then what would everyone be saying about Epstein?
How much credit should Epstein get for the two World Series titles in Boston? Obviously he made some good moves. He hit it big on some draft picks, including Dustin Pedroia, Jonathan Papelbob [sic], Jacoby Ellsbury and Clay Buchholz. But even with the second-highest payroll in baseball, Epstein's creation went sour.
No doubt all attributable to Epstein's presence.
Moreover, Epstein took over a 93-win team when he became Boston GM in 2003. His challenge in Chicago is more challenging, and vexing.
True for a number of reasons, almost none of which have anything to do with St. Louis, the team you cover that is in the World Series right now.
And the Cardinals aren't moving out of the division.
Well, I guess the Cubs will have to figure out a way to finish ahead of the Cardinals, like they did in 2007 and 2008, when they were winning more division titles in those two years than the Cardinals and their division stranglehold have won in the last five. I mean, honestly, I would expect this kind of arrogance from the Yankees, but the Cardinals haven't exactly earned it of late. Yeah, they won the World Series in 2006 and made it again this year, but in between those two they did exactly jack squat, making one playoffs and winning zero games in it.
Besides, if Epstein could survive in a division with the Yankees (and, for that matter, Tampa), do you think he's worried about the Cardinals? Once the organization is, hopefully, strengthened, if the Cubs have a strong front office AND more money than the Cardinals, don't you think the Cubs will have a pretty good chance to dominate? Which is why this reads, in the words of Hire Jim Essian's Bad Kermit, like "whistling past the graveyard." St. Louis has already lost the iron grip they held on the division from 2000 to 2006, and if the Cubs' organization can get its act in gear for the first time since World War II, that iron grip may just pass to the Cards' biggest rival. I'm not saying it's going to happen. But I'm saying it could happen, and Bernie Miklasz is clearly terrified that it will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)