Comments on: I couldn’t disagree more . . . until Matthew Leach clarifies things

By: Forsch31

Forsch31 — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:34:18 +0000

Obviously, I disagree. You can’t concentrate on and judge a quotation without considering the question asked beforehand that spurred it. Especially when in that paragraph, LaRussa says the *complete opposite* of giving him only 230 ABs–”It’s all about playing time.” In that light, wouldn’t his mention of Rasmus needing 500 ABs be his *own* preference? The 230 AB was just a BS rhetorical number he threw out there in the discussion.

A quote out of context is an accurately transcribed quotation whose meaning completely shifts when you cut out (edit) what was said before and after. Yeah, LaRussa said it, but it’s a quote that was part of a larger discussion and line of questioning; taken by itself, it says something completely different than what it’s speaker meant. And that’s probably what happened here.

And if Rasmus is the best defensive OF short of Skip, you play him everywhere so he can get the ABs to develop if he’s on a major league club with a glut of OFs, which is what LaRussa, as a manager, as to deal with. Because Rasmus is great defensively, it will not hurt him to give some games in right or left, while it would hurt somebody like Duncan, who’s still learning the position. Otherwise, Rasmus will just sit on the bench and miss valuable playing time while Ankiel, Duncan, Barton, and Ludwick get their turns at OF. It’s like the Lankford-Gilkey-Whiten-Jordan problem all over again.

By: azruavatar

azruavatar — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:05:07 +0000

Forsch31 - It seems pretty clear to me from the original quote that TLR was saying if Rasmus gives them a better chance to win while only accruing 250 at-bats, there’s a real chance that they would chose that route. That’s just short-sighted and flawed. There’s no situation in which Rasmus would be appreciably improving the team but only get 250 at-bats. If he’s going to make the team better, he’s likely to be an upgrade over any of our outfielders right now. And why you’d play him anywhere other than CF, when he’s the best defensive OF short of Skip perhaps, doesn’t make sense.

I think TLR backed off of that statement somewhat from the quotes in Leach’s blog.

By: Forsch31

Forsch31 — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:55:41 +0000

Most likely the original quote was taken out of context–the original quote in Goold’s Birdland entry was preceded by this: “For really the first time, LaRussa said Rasmus could see playing time in all three outfield spots, even though the organization sees him as an outfielder. It’s all about playing time, LaRussa said. The manager also allowed for the possibility that Rasmus could be an asset to the major-league club even if he’s not a starter.”

Honestly, it sounds like LaRussa was only explaining how Rasmus could help the team in that manner, not that this was how he wanted to approach Rasmus’ playing time. The fact Goold picks the term “also allowed’ tells me that he was asked that question directly, and that the 230 ABs as a bench player wasn’t his primary preference, only a possiblity in a certain situation. To me, this was all much ado about nothing, really, especially when LaRussa, before this statement, said that he’d actually play Rasmus in the other OF spots to give him as much playing time as possible. Goold simply chose to print the juicier quote, and presto, instant stress and migranes.

By: Red Blazer

Red Blazer — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:30:44 +0000

I am more and more coming over to the side that says Rasmus should start at AAA.

Also I wanna see Barton converted to 2B by next year.

I think his bat and athleticism would make him a perrenial All Star at the new position of 2B.

By: easy

easy — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:39:15 +0000

Call me illiterate but I find no more meaning in that statement than a Zen koan or a Casey Stengel speech. I really don’t know what he’s talking about and I’m surprised that Goold would find enough sense in it to print it. It’s actually okay with me if the grim natured, authoritarian sob degenerates into a lovably inarticulate elder statesman for his last two years here. Not a great advertisement for vegetarianism but this kind of disjointed confabulation gives me warmer feelings for the man than I’ve previously experienced.

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:34:13 +0000

Are you talking about his bat, or his “bat”, if you know what I’m saying??

By: bret

bret — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:11:26 +0000

Did Marti use a bat when he hit his grand-slam?

By: Lou Schuler

Lou Schuler — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:08:20 +0000

Addressing Barton’s health:

He hit a homer his first time up vs. SLU, with Colby on base in front of him.

Marti subbed for him in the 4th and hit a grand slam.

Granted, the two of them are probably a collective 15 years older than anyone on the SLU roster, but hey, it’s still baseball, right?

By: Todd

Todd — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:33:13 +0000

What is the exact date Colby can be brought up without losing a year of major league control over him. I read somewhere he would only need to stay in Memphis for the first couple weeks - that doesn’t seem like it would be right. Could someone direct me to the rule?

Thanks.

By: SleepyCA

SleepyCA — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:07:42 +0000

Maybe my reading comprehension skills suck (yay cold medicine) but I read that quote as “he’s not making the team unless he can get 500 at bats”.

Re-reading, I dunno. TLR just keeps getting more and more incoherent in his monologues this off-season; I’m afraid we’re going to see some weird stuff on the field this year and especially next year.