So, how about a slightly harder GM to critique?

by craig3410 on Dec 17, 2005 7:25 PM EST Comment 8 comments

I'm thinking Walt Jocketty.

Now, he's a bit harder, because IMO, his pro and cons are:

I'm thinking Walt Jocketty.

Now, he's a bit harder, because IMO, his pro and cons are:

Pro:

-Not one to go out and randomly sign the biggest FAs to exorbitant deals; the Cardinals really don't have an albatross contract (Pujols is far and away the best player, and give me a reason why he's not worth 15 mil a year)
-Seemingly year in and year out, turns random AAAA-players into multiple-time All-Stars via trades (Jim Edmonds, Larry Walker)

Cons:
-Really, the only one I could think of was the inane salary caps set this year: we can afford to pay Looper more than Grudzielanek?

But, I'm a Cards fan, so I might be wearing rose-colored glasses. :)

Critique Jocketty!

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Edmonds and Walker

I don't know how you can say Edmonds and Walker were AAAA-types before they became Cardinals. Walker won an MVP and multiple batting titles in Colorado and Edmonds was among the top CF's in the league with the Angels.

by dasperp on Dec 17, 2005 8:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

AAAA

He must mean what Jocketty gave up to acquire those players. Like Kent Bottenfield.

starring Alfonso Soriano as Vinny C in RFK part deux

by natsfan2005 on Dec 17, 2005 8:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha...

I can see how he misinterpreted that when he read it and I would have definitely done the same thing. Pretty funny when you think about it.

by templeUsox on Dec 17, 2005 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My Mistake

I see now. I was wondering how anyone could have made that type of comment.

by dasperp on Dec 18, 2005 3:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Jockety is a much more interesting person to critique. Has some of his success been because he uses the fan base as a negotiating point. Has he sacrificed a world series ring for years of consistent play. I am curious about the cardinal vs the marlins model of team management. In baseball today it seems like it take an inordinate amount of resources to keep a contender together year after year as the cardinals have done. Since the cardinals last won the world series the marlins have won it twice by not being consitent at all. (win a world series -- have a fire sale/build through trades and high draft picks -- win another world series -- have a fire sale) It looks to me that the marlins will be in a better position to win another world series two years from now than the cardinals.

by cassoubon on Dec 17, 2005 11:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hardball Times

Funny you should mention Jocketty. He's the GM the THT chose to profile in the new annual. It's a pretty interesting piece.

by Azteca on Dec 18, 2005 12:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The GM I'd like to see people's opinions on

I know we've talked about the Rockies and what they can do on this site, but I would like to see what people think of Dan O'Dowd. I think there would be a lot of vitriol in that one, but not so much as say, Omar Minaya.

by sasquatch83 on Dec 18, 2005 12:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Your 'Con'

is that really a tried and true con of his body of work? I agree that he overpaid for Looper (I'm a Met fan...let me get this out of my system now...hahahahahaha, okay), but the reliever market is spiraling out of control. I don't think he has the trait of consistently overpaying for players.

A signing he didn't make, but I think should have, was retaining Matt Morris for 3yrs/25 mill. That guy is an excellent number 2/ number 3 type of starter. I'd even consider him an ace, if fully healthy.

by akk99 on Dec 18, 2005 5:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs