Andy Van Slyke Really Dislikes Colby Rasmus
Posted on August 2nd, 2011 by azruavatar in Colby Rasmus, tags: Andy Van Slyke, Colby RasmusI’m not certain if Colby Rasmus had a run in with Andy Van Slyke’s son A.J. in the minors or if Rasmus forked Van Slyke’s yard. In any event, Van Slyke has made it a point, yet again, to trash Colby Rasmus in the media with some specious arguments. Don’t forget, we’ve been here before when Van Slyke misportrayed a series of things related to the junior Rasmus.
He’s at it again with Rick Hummel this time.
The first thing I have to take issue with is Hummel’s characterization of Van Slyke’s career. Van Slyke was a quality player in the majors but we need to be realistic about what he was relative to others. To wit:
What set Van Slyke apart from the others was his defensive excellence, but the three players [Ray Lankford, Andy Van Slyke, J.D. Drew) roughly have had the same offensive careers.
Let’s start with the latter half of that statement because Hummel is making a big assertion that he asks you to accept at face value. Did Lankford, Drew & Van Slyke have roughly the same offensive careers? Not really, unless you mean very roughly. Van Slyke was the worst hitter of the three posting a career .355 wOBA. That is still above average and by no means poor but it’s also clearly the worst performance of the three individuals. Lankford comes next with a career .366 wOBA and Drew is in first with a career .378 wOBA.
A .378 wOBA is 2010 Adrian Gonzalez compared to a .355 wOBA, which is the 2010 version of Alfonso Soriano. That’s a whopping 15 run difference over the full course of a season. So in a single season, I don’t think you’d characterize those two wOBA’s as “roughly the same”.
But take it a step further. Van Slyke compiled that .355 over 1658 PAs. Drew has compiled his over 1562 PAs. Even with 100 extra trips to the plate, Van Slyke was worth 88 FEWER runs at the plate (using fangraphs wRC as a comparison). As a rate stat, Van Slyke doesn’t measure up and that holds equally true as a counting stat. Adjusting for league and park, Drew still comes out well ahead of Van Slyke. Again, Van Slyke’s career is nothing to sniff at but let’s give Drew his due. Except that the press didn’t like Drew so, you know, roughly the same offensive career as the player who is a full win worse than him in a given season.
“According to what I read, he’s never been happier (being traded) since he’s been a Cardinal,” Van Slyke said. “How can you be happy being traded from the St Louis Cardinals? It’s the most nonsensical thing I could ever imagine.
Here is where Van Slyke gets down to business. The faux bafflement at how Colby Rasmus who has obvious and public disagreements with his manager could possibly want to be somewhere else. Van Slyke’s pandering to the crowd here as it is very easy to imagine how any employee would want to be somewhere else if they didn’t get along with their boss.
The comparisons of their skill sets may be valid, but Van Slyke, 50 years old now, said he could see no comparison on an emotional level.
He said Rasmus’ apparent happiness at being traded “shows you how totally emotionally different a player he is than I was. He’s going from a potential playoff team to a team that hasn’t won anything in 20 years.
Please ignore those back-to-back world series titles that the Blue Jays won in 1992-1993. Those were more than 20 years ago … er, wait. Van Slyke once again plays loose and dirty with the facts much as when he stated that his son was on a team with Rasmus for three years (untrue). Setting aside Van Slyke’s poor baseball memory, who cares that Rasmus is different emotionally from Van Slyke? This is a bait and switch where Van Slyke relies on the readers positive impression of his baseball career to then connect that in a negative way with Rasmus’s future baseball career since Rasmus is different. Different is not a guarantee to be better or worse especially in the inane context of “emotional levels”.
“If he stays where he is emotionally, he’s going to be the same player he is right how. His whole game is derived from emotion. He doesn’t use his intellectual mind; he uses his emotional mind.
“No wonder he’s never performed the way he should have.
There you go. Since Rasmus sleeps with his teddy bear at night, he’ll never be able to hit a baseball. Please disregard 2010 where Rasmus hit at Ray Lankford levels (aka better than Van Slyke) because Rasmus is supposedly emotionally stunted. This continues along the same bizarre, armchair psychology as other Van Slyke comments and is somewhat baffling. Baseball’s history, indeed it’s hall of fame, is full of literally awful human beings who exhibited alcoholism, drug abuse, racism, bigotry and a myriad of other failings. It’s not that the mental aspect of the game doesn’t matter; it’s that it is impossible for Van Slyke to know that one alleged character flaw is going to hold Rasmus back.
Also, what level does Van Slyke expect him to perform at? Again, apparently we should ignore all the progress and promise Rasmus showed in 2010 and assume that he’s just such an emotional mess that he can’t ever play that well again.
“He and his father think he’s still playing in high school. He continues to throw the ball to the wrong base and not break up double plays. You can’t do those things at the big-league level.
Does Tony Ramus teach players to throw to the wrong base in high school? Do you think Tony Rasmus, who has won quite a few games as an Alabama coach and gotten three of his sons drafted, just shrugs it off when one of his players fails at a fundamental task? I’ve got a lot of issues with Tony Rasmus, who obviously is incapable of keeping his mouth shut, but Van Slyke’s criticism is off base.
More than that though, why should I care if junior Rasmus doesn’t “break up double plays”? If that is his greatest failing, I’m willing to accept that. It’s reminiscent of the argument that Van Slyke made last time about Colby Rasmus being afraid of walls. It is both specious and irrelevant. If Van Slyke wants to criticize Rasmus, he should focus on the fact that Rasmus was hitting poorly or not making enough contact. Things that actually impact his value on the field in a substantial way. Van Slyke chooses to complain about some shrubbery that is burning in the midst of a forest fire.
“It’s up to the Toronto organization to keep him accountable, like Tony (La Russa) and his coaches tried to do.”
The saintly St. Louis coaches who can do no wrong. There’s plenty of blame in this situation. Colby Rasmus has aspects of his game he needs to improve. Tony Rasmus needed to keep his mouth shut. The St. Louis manager needed to find a way to build bridges to the junior Rasmus rather than torching the relationship publicly and often. John Mozeliak needed to do a better job of determining which personnel were important to the team’s long term success.
In all of this though, Andy Van Slyke needs to stop spouting factually incorrect personal attacks at a player he has nothing to do with. Van Slyke’s role in this is nothing more than a drive-by character assassination that exemplifies why Colby Rasmus never felt comfortable in the Cardinals’ organization. You’re not paranoid if they’re actually out to get you.
Entries (RSS)
For what its worth I work with a friend of Colby’s and he has told her how he is not happy being in toronto and would much rather be in st louis.
He’s there a week and not happy? How can you tell?
If this is true, would he have been happy anywhere?
I meant it as he was unhappy being traded to toronto. not that he is unhappy there. and i know this because he told my coworker this through text
Why wouldn’t you adjust for era as well? Van Slyke’s era produced much less offense than this one. Van Slyke’s career OPS+ (which does account for era) was 119. Drew’s is 125. Add in Van Slyke’s 245 stolen bases compared to Drew’s 89 and you actually do have a very close comparison. Of course, that’s just offensive production. There’s no comparison between Van Slyke’s defense and Drew’s.
One more thing: Your criticism of Van Slyke’s “mental” attack is a pure strawman. Van Slyke is talking about Rasmus’ poor mental makeup and how it will prevent him from reaching his potential. To reduce that to “he sleeps with a teddy bear” or “he’s a bad person” a la Ty Cobb is pretty specious in itself. That’s like saying a person is “strong” because he has big biceps even though he has beanpole legs too. Rasmus’ lack of mental toughness is pretty obvious to those who’ve watched his career unfold. I suspect you’re reacting emotionally to the loss of a prospect of which you expected great things yet got only one season of Jackson, Dotel and Patterson and a couple seasons of Rzepczynski.
I spent a lot of time editing this to make sure it was not an emotional reaction. The teddy bear comment may be flippant but it has as much basis in fact as the Van Slyke’s personal attacks on Rasmus. Rasmus’s lack of mental toughness is impossible to know. I think there’s an argument that he lacked focus at times (scuffling in the dirt on a wild pitch, bad reads on balls, etc) but toughness? Who knows. That’s more armchair psychology.
When I say “adjusting for league” that includes leagues across eras. wRC+ is calculated relative to the league average wOBA and accounts for overall fluctuations in league average offense.
I never spoke to Van Slyke’s defense as I don’t have a good frame of reference. Drew was a fine right fielder but Van Slyke was likely a better defender.
I agree witht eh armchair psychology. A lot of weird and eccentric people have become successfull and I think trying to determine a person’s personality based on ther inability to go back on fly balls is not a good way to measure it. I consider it a good way to measure their ability to stick at center, but not as a measure of a person. MAtt Holliday sucks at going back on fly balls, but I wouldn’t consider him mentally weak.
I agree that Van Slyke was the better defender. However, he played on turf. You can cover A LOT more ground on turf than grass. And balls skip at you much quicker making fielding and assits easier.
No doubt that its all armchair psychology. That’s really all any of us have to go on at this point. However, its pretty clear that, for whatever reason, Rasmus has been slow to pick up the fundamentals and he has been equally quick to go into long slumps. It seems like those problems come from a place above the neck. I’m not a psychologist nor do I play one on TV so I couldn’t say with any certainty what the real issue is. However, I can say that he has a lot of symptoms of being pretty weak mentally. The Cardinals have a lot of really experienced baseball men on their staff and there’s no doubt at this point that they see some problems with Rasmus’ make-up. That’s about as close as we’re going to get to a professional opinion on Rasmus’ psyche.
The problem with this argument is the total inconsistency of LaRussa’s logic. If Colby makes a mental mistake it’s because he’s weak and has serious issues. However if Skip or Theriot make one of their boneheaded plays it is never their fault. That is the worst part for me. I wouldn’t mind if he was hard on players when they lack fundamentals if he held all players to the same standard. Instead he shows ludicrous favoritism.
You are probably right.
But jut curious, how many times do you think skip and theriot repeat the same “boneheaded” plays? how many times do you think they make adjustments?
Um…”However if Skip or Theriot make one of their boneheaded plays it is never their fault.” How do you know this is “LaRussa’s logic”? Seems like your own bias peeking out.
What we do know is that Ryan Theriot was just replaced at SS by Furcal. Being benched and replaced is, in fact, holding players to a standard.
You’re right he is still holding Theriot to a standard… I just don’t think it’s the same standard. I think Theriot had a lot more room for error than other players… he was just so bad that even LaRussa finally had to do something.
And, yes, Theriot and Skip may never make a lot more visible adjustments than Colby did and that endears them to the coaches… it seems probable that they at least listen better than he did. So I guess it just comes down to talent vs. personality. And personally I’d rather have a team full of talented players than one full of guys that listen better. Obviously I’d rather that they had talent and listened to the coaches.
I’ve got my own issues with LaRussa, but I just want to point that no manager is going to have the same standards for different kinds of players at different points in their carriers. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to management, at least effective management.
In fact, I would argue that my issue with LaRussa is that he expects a specific make-up in players in their approach to the game, and when you have players who aren’t close to that make-up (Rasmus, Boog, Reyes), there are issues.
In those instances, I would prefer that he doesn’t hold players to the same standards.
Well put… I think in a round about way I was actually trying to say the same thing.
I think I’m mostly just getting fed up with all this ridiculous public drama that has come out of the organization in the last few years. TLR is not the only guilty party to be sure… but he has certainly been right in the middle of most of it.
I can’t stand Andy Van Slyke but his defense was pretty close to Edmonds. Not quite the range or dazzle of Jimmy Ballgame but an absolute cannon for an arm.
Colby has a chance to hit better than Van Slyke but his defense doesn’t even compare. That 10-cent head doesn’t help either.
Not sure why Andy wouldn’t have the credibility to critique Colby or even to comment on his mental toughness. Who would have a greater appreciation regarding his lack of mental toughness than a guy who played the game…and played it well?
I agree management could have done more. But at what point do you draw the line?
Earlier you mentioned an normal work situation and not get along with the boss. Lets go with that. If I have an employee is underperforming and not following/policy/instruction to change the underperforming behavior, at which point do you do something drastic.
I simply think Rasmus is in a bad siutation. However, he is 24 now. A man. Its obvious his father is a negative on his career at this point. He needs to suck it up and tell his dad to back off and shut up. Even in this off base criticism his dad is mentioned. Where is Colby’s agent in all of this. Why is this guy not involved in colby’s career. Why is his dad.
As far as your criticism of his criticism…18 years vs. 20 years….Not that big of a deal. That is splitting hairs.
Also, jsut curious but why woba?
wOBA should capture just the offense portion of their respective games. Plus, it is the foundation for wRC and wRC+ which allows for easy counting stats and adjusted stats to make accurate comparisons. (At least as accurate as any translated stat line can be.)
Just curious. Thanks.
I just don’t think their is an easy stat that translates well across the decades, especially the 70′s and 80′s. The parks were still big and turf changed the game.
ITs part of the reason Ozzie’s contribution doesn’t translate well. How do you measure right side ground balls and scoring from first? Why hit fly balls when you can “skip it in the gaps”
Of course the most foolish thing the Cardinal organization did was to get rid of Jocketty, promote Mo and keep TLR. While I’m sure Mo would have said anything to get his first GM gig. It just doesn’t seem logical hire a rookie GM and put him in charge of a baseball dinosaur like TLR. Of course there is going to be dysfunction.
Not sure I would agree with that.
But just curious. What has Mo done that is really bad to serve as proof it was a bad move?
And as great as Jocketty was, his drafting and development strategy was terrible. The fact that he refused to adapt is the reason he isn’t here. Its not like he seems to be doing much better in Cinci either. Chapman isn’t turning out the way they expected.
In fact, I don’t think Mo gets enough credit. That was an old, aging and expensive team he took over.
Mo was promoted because he was a Jocketty man who managed to keep the peace between the two factions in the organization. With the Cardinals putting a higher emphasis on their farm system and player development, Mo was seen as a bridge between Lunhow and the coaching staff in St. Louis (who DeWitt obviously still supports and greatly respects despite the organizations new emphasis).
The real problem isn’t Mo being a rookie GM; it’s the split message coming from ownership, which has allowed this disconnect to continue and force Mo to attempt to find compromises and deal with the fallout. It doesn’t matter if they got an experienced GM or not; I doubt that any person, coming from outside of the organization, would have had done much better than Mo has.
Agree.
Well said Forsch31. I get exasperated at times that JMo does not put his foot down when TLR is trashing one of our players in the press as part of a campaign to run him out of town (only to act wounded and hurt at the suggestion he acted as such after the player leaves). I would think management has JMo’s back to try and reign in TLR when he publicly disparages a player and thereby drives down that player’s trade value. All in all, I agree with your assessment that JMo has cleaned up the Tony fallout with reasonable success.
“Please ignore those back-to-back world series titles that the Blue Jays won in 1992-1993. Those were more than 20 years ago … er, wait.” Okay, that was really petty. 18-19 years ago compared 20 is NOT “loose and dirty with the facts” as you put it. If you want to be “loose and dirty with the facts” you ignore the eras. I’ll use WAR from fangraphs. Fangraphs has Van Slyke’s career WAR as 43.1, Ray Lankford as 41.8, and JD Drew as 48.1. So I think you were Cherry Picking some stats for your liking…or as you call it, being “loose and dirty with the facts”.
WAR includes a positional adjustment and defense, both of which operate against J.D. Drew. That wasn’t the argument as presented by Hummel.
So if I use offensive WAR from baseball-reference, would that be more relevant?
No. WAR as a framework includes non-offense components. wOBA, wRC and wRC+ are strickly offense. OPS & OPS+ would be the closest “traditional” statistic to capture just offense but it isn’t as accurate as wOBA.
Fine, we’ll go by your argument then. wOBA lays the foundation of wRC and wRC+. You used wRC in comparing, but why not wRC+? It is only fair to use wRC+. Eras due matter Looking at WRC+, lets compare. Van Slyke 122, Lankford 123, Drew 128. Definitely NOT the big difference you made it out to be.
Now you say that positional differences hurt Drew. Okay, they don’t hurt Lankford. So it is at least fair to compare Offensive WAR between Lankford and Van Slyke. 38.9 to 38.4 on Van Slyke’s favor. So implying that there is a huge difference is disingenuous. I noticed you chose not to use the wRC+ when it came to comparing stats. Why? It almost seems like you cherry picked your stats. If “that wasn’t the argument Hummel was making” is your retort. well, his argument was based on AVG, HR, and RBIs. I don’t like using those stats either, but if you’re going to use advanced stats, then we should use them more in context. I feel the “in context” stats didn’t support your theory as well, so you didn’t use them.
Then again, the part of the article that seriously bothered me was the petty “SEE! SEE! THEY WON 18 YEARS AGO SO THAT MEANS VAN SLYKE WAS LOOSE AND DIRTY WITH HIS FACTS!” Really, dude? There were points to be made, but whenever anyone does that style of argument, it totally turns me off.
“Adjusting for league and park, Drew still comes out well ahead of Van Slyke.”
A wRC+ of 128 vs. 122 over 1500+ PAs is pretty significant. That’s nearly 9 wins (88 runs) in Drews favor over the course of their careers. The Lankford comparison is apt. The Drew comparison is not. Not conincidentally, Drew is one of the players that was not well liked in StL.
If you don’t think Andy Van Slyke plays loose with the facts, then you should follow the link to the first round of attacks he made on Colby. Van Slyke consistently misrepresents facts by using generalities. You may not like my characterization of this specific point but Van Slyke has established a pattern of behavior with regards to Colby and the issues surrounding him.
Did not say that he wasn’t. I just said you were petty and wrong. This is about you being petty. This is about you almost destroying your point over someone rounding up. Don’t hide your pettiness behind some straw man. You’re better than that. (at least i thought you were)
Are you the type that corrects someone when they say something happened last night, but it happened at 12:30am? “YOU’RE BEING LOOSE WITH THE FACTS! THAT HAPPENED TODAY!
If I’m hiding behind anything, it is a technicality not a strawman! If we’re being technical about things that is.
You aren’t the only one to dislike my description of Andy Van Slyke’s poorly stated point. That’s fine. I can accept that. I stand behind the tone and structure of the rebuttal I posted to Hummel’s piece. I think Andy Van Slyke has a weird vendetta against Colby Rasmus. I think he has shown a tendency toward nitpicking irrelevant or minor aspects of Colby’s game and toward hyperbole or exaggeration of facts. Rasmus is an easy target this year; he hasn’t played well and yet Van Slyke still manages to miss the mark with his criticisms. I think I’ve shown a great willingness to accept correction and reader input on this site but I stand behind what I wrote. If you want to infer pettiness, then you are entitled to do that much in the same way that I am entitled to infer a vendetta behind Van Slyke’s odd Rasmus rants.
Ultimately, this site is still about the minor leagues with or without any single player. I want the site to provide the best minor league coverage we can and I’ll continue to drive toward that simple goal.
What this article does show me is how underrated lankford was.
Yep. Lankford will forever, in my mind, at least for the early part of his career, be associated with the transition period in club ownership. The Busch family had become less interested in the operation of the ball club, and the current ownership, and TLR, had not yet arrived.
Even after the beginning of the TLR era in St Louis, Lankford put up some really good offensive numbers. 1996 was a good year for Ray. 1998 was, too. But no one remembers his output or him much that year, because 1998 was all about the HR chase between Sosa and McGuire. All in all, Lankford comes from a bit of a transition era and has become a somewhat forgotten man.
kind of like Ted Simmons.
Yep. Now you’re gettin’ back in my era.
Some of the most wicked line drives I’ve ever seen (from both sides of the plate) came off that man’s bat…. Simba…
His hair looked like a stringy sort of lion’s mane, too. Tell you what, if we’d had Simba on the team and in the locker room in these days, he’d have sat Colby R down and “splained some stuff” to him, and we’d have all been on the same page from the get-go.
I always wished he could have been a field manager for St Louis. His career arc was always taking him elsewhere, though.
I know what you mean.
Could you imagine what Gibson would have done if Colby failed to back up a RF when he was pitching?
LOL I still remember, as a kid, watching regional (MO, KS, IL, IA, Kentucky, Arkansas) Sunday afternoon t.v. broadcasts of Cardinal games with Buck, Caray, and a dapper Jay Randolph. It would get to crunch time in a game (say around the 7th inning) that Gibson was pitching. McCarver would be beckoned by the dugout to go out to the mound to say something strategic to Gibson. Red was always easy goin’ that way. “You go talk to him, Tim.”
You could almost tell by McCarver’s body language that he didn’t want to go out there. And as soon as he got there, you didn’t have to be much of a lip reader to see, on the t.v. screen, Gibson growl, “GIVE ME THE DAMNED BALL.” And McCarver’d go shuffling back to the plate with the ankle portions of his shin guards flapping him back to the plate. So much for the damned strategy.
I enjoy it today. Today the kids have Chris Carpenter’s demeanor and competitive drive to admire and enjoy (and he’s a god one, too, believe me). Me??? I got to see something like Chris Carpenter’s attitude squared (maybe cubed) in Bob Gibson. Exponential. Chris Carpenter can look intense. Gibson was just down right NASTY—like his curve ball.
I rise to Van Slyke’s defense on this one.
As others have said, 1992/3 counts as “20 years ago” to the kind of precision required for a sound bite. Yes, “17 years and 9 months” would be more precise. It doesn’t invalidate the basic point that Toronto has been an also-ran franchise for a very long time now. (Of course, that’s why they wanted Raz.)
I don’t think it requires any deep psychoanalysis to say that Raz “uses his emotional mind” to play baseball now. For one thing, if he was using his “intellectual mind,” he wouldn’t have HAD those issues with TLR, because reason would have trumped emotion, he would have realized that those around him have more professional experience than he does, and he would have learned from them — not just baseball skills, but how to handle himself like a professional player. If he then succeeded in putting that learning to use, 90% of his reasons for conflict with TLR would have gone away. (Daddy Raz, of course, would not, but we all have our crosses to bear.) For another, body language is not a hard thing to read, and his has been about as clear as it can be.
Tony Rasmus may be a very good high-school coach; to all appearances, he is. But there is simply no way that ANY high-school program can inculcate in its players all of the baseball technique that needs to be automatic to a major leaguer — the “professionalism” of being a pro — and let’s face it, Raz has screwed up on a lot of those techniques. Indeed, appearances are, and statistics confirm, that Raz has lost ground on some of that stuff. He still has a big-time arm, but has become notorious for bad throws. He’s still lightning-fast, yet his baserunning has never become a weapon, and he makes bad decisions on the bases. Does that extend to take-out slides? I honestly don’t know, but I’m not going to jump all over Van Slyke for proposing it as a thing he could do better.
Finally, TLR and coaches definitely did try to hold Raz accountable, and in many regards, he WASN’T accountable. This doesn’t excuse the inexcusable way TLR then hung him out to dry in the media; there is no excuse for that. But if Raz had accepted the accountability and changed the things that he needed to change, the media crucifixion wouldn’t have happened.
Colby Rasmus’s makeup was never questioned in the minors. It was typically praised. Only when Tony La Russa became his direct coach did doubts about his makeup start to arise (mainly because of public statements TLR made). I don’t think that point is brought up enough. Rasmus was always considered eminently coach-able prior to this one coach. You can’t build a consistent narrative for Colby’s time in the organization without placing blame on Tony LaRussa. It simply isn’t possible.
I never heard it praised, either. All the talk was about his talent and five tools.
The problem with that reasoning is that we generally rarely hear about player make-up on prospects unless it’s a positive. The minors do not receive anywhere the same amount of media coverage, and generally, you’re never going to see a minor league director badmouth a prospect. It took two seasons of suckage for the talk about Daryl Jones’ make-up issues to surface, and he was never near the kind of prospect that Rasmus was.
If Colby was eminently coachable in the minors, why did he report to the majors so eminently unprepared?
The rumors were that the major league coaches tried to change his throwing style from the outfield with disastrous results and similar mixed messages from the minors. Remember that this was a transitional period between Jocketty and Luhnow’s front office war.
But look, don’t believe me. Here’s a quote from Pop Warner: “We can expect him to hold up to what everybody expects from him because he has the drive,” Springfield manager Pop Warner said. “I know he’s the kid who can handle it.” Does that sound like someone who was a problem for his coach?
No it doesn’t. But, the question is “did Pop demand excellence from Colby?” After all, the kid only played 90 games with 331 at bats and a line of .251 .346 .396 .742.
I won’t argue for a second that Tony was the guy to mentor this kid. Tony was undoubtedly one of the worst things that could happen to him….given Colby’s proclivities. That said, Colby needed to find a format that would work for him inside that environment. He didn’t.
I’m ready to toss Tony out with the bathwater. But, I think Van Slyke was dead on with Colby. He needed a Pop Warner kinda guy to be happy, but, whether he had the mental toughness to excel is another question.
I’m not sure why we are all so obsessed with Colby Rasmus. Yeah, the trade kinda sucked. Yeah, it could come back to haunt us…but the Colby Lovefest is funny to me. Everyone who loves him is so quick to point out anyone with a negative thought about the guy and label them “haters” or “unenlightened”…is there a chance Colby is just a plain old pain in the butt who doesn’t work hard, isn’t smart and hasn’t improved? I’m guessing, like always, the truth is in the middle.
Let it go. He aint coming back. Last time I checked our current CF, who is having a better year than Colby, is also a product of our beloved farm system. Why not focus on that?
This is the first post on Rasmus since the trade was made. I don’t think anyone is even arguing the trade was a bad one so I’m not certain how your point applies.
Well, since the leviathan thread announcing the Rasmus trade. Bret’s post simply could be a reaction to the continued talk in the comments (hence, the “we are all obsessed”).
Correct Forsch. And azru, you have made quite a few comments on Twitter, etc. Certainly your right. I’m personally not sold it was a bad trade. Anyone who judges any trade after a week is foolish to do so.
I liked Colby. I did. But let’s see how the season and next plays out. The goal is to win at the major league level right?
Why are we all so quick to glorify a prospect in Colby yet continue to downgrade everything Jon Jay related?
It does not bother me that they traded Rasmus. I just thought it was poor asset management, and I also think that TLR maneuvered Mo into the position of having to trade him at a lower value by yanking him in and out of the line up and leaking negative comments about him in the press. Mo was forced to do damage control. I think a lot of managers would have just put Colby in there and let him play, and IMO a lot of general managers would have told their manager to keep the kid in there. I just don’t think that Mo can do that as a new GM with a veteran manager like TLR.
This is a fair point. No matter what the dynamic was like, and no matter whose “fault” it was, TLR should never have allowed his own reaction to it to hurt the team by reducing Raz’ trade value — and it did hurt the team to reduce that value, whether the trade is a long-term “win” or not.
That said, did his theatrics really do any damage that wasn’t already being done? That, in my opinion, is not so clear, because Tony Rasmus seemed to be doing his level best to reduce his kid’s trade value already.
Nothing to see here.
Move on…
I somewhat agree with what Van Slyke had to say. He was wrong to attack the kid like he did. He had no justification for what he thought. But when I see Rasmus at the plate, in the field, and in interviews NOTHING outside of the physical tools that says to me that he is going to be a star. It is about intangibles. And say what you will about taking talent every time, but if it does not produce results it doesn’t mean much. Jay may not have anywhere near the tools Rasmus does, but I think he is going to have a significantly better career. This is all just a gut feeling. I have no logical reasoning to back this up. I just don’t see Rasmus ever fully utilizing his tools. He may have some good years where he gets by on raw skills, but I don’t think he will be consistent. Wish him the best though.
“But when I see Rasmus at the plate, in the field, and in interviews NOTHING outside of the physical tools that says to me that he is going to be a star.”
That’s Van Slyke or TLR speak. If it can’t be mathematically quantified can we really use it as a basis for valuing a player? Does grit really count? Or that BS about “playing the right way”? I personally despise these sorts of assertions and especially coming from Andy Van Slyke. He was enigmatic as a young player and had trouble getting along with Whitey. Listening to Van Slyke as a baseball analyst, for me, is like hearing finger nails dragged across a chalk board. He comes across as a person without much insight but who, in his own mind, is a font of knowledge. Kind of like Al Hrabosky without the endearing self-deprecating humor.
Bret … I completely agree. I was going to chime in, but you summed up my thoughts exactly. It’s past time to move on from Rasmus. Jon Jay has played very well and seems to be a very team-oriented (not that Rasmus wasn’t.). Let’s focus on the positives of Jay’s development in the system, along with other newcomers like Descalso, Lynn, and Salas, who have been brought-up from the system and seem to have no issue with La Russa or management. They should be the focus and Toronto fans can be left to worry about “Team Rasmus.”
Go Cardinals!
Well this has been a lot to chew on. Maybe more than it deserves but it is interesting. The constituency of this site is one that is interested in the potential of young ball players from their entrance into the lowest levels of pro ball to their ultimate level of success as major leaguers. The “jewel” of our system has been traded away and all of the predictions, hope, energy, numbers crunching and dialogue that we put into Colby Rasmus has gone with it. It’s hard not to look back at all of the interpersonal issues that may have contributed to Colby’s performance and the trade.
Actually though the trade does give us a chance to resolve all of the questions about what Colby’s potential was/is and who’s fault it is that he won’t realize it in St. Louis. If Colby blossoms in Toronto, gets along with coaches and managers and irons out the kinks in his game then we can safely lay the blame at TLR’s feet. If he continues to struggle on the field and in the club house then Colby or the “other Tony” can be held accountable. It probably will be more complicated than that but it will be interesting to see. My prediction is that he will continue to be a streak hitter but have a decent career. Somewhat like Andy Van Slyke with weaker defense.