Goold's chat: If standings are the same, has anything changed from '23 to '24 for Cardinals?

"Please Keep All Hands, Feet, Arms Legs Inside The Chat At All Times."

It's about to get bumpy.

Greetings, and welcome to another in the ongoing series of weekly Cardinals chats here at . I'm just getting the inbox revving here and already there are a few questions that could take me several minutes to read. It's going to be that kind of Monday.

Submit your questions below.

The Cardinals aren't scoring many runs. The Brewers came into town, swept the locals, and kept them rooted at the bottom of the NL Central, through 22 games. Angst is high. Anger is percolating. Apathy remains the biggest threat to the team. The chat could get lively.

You've got questions. I'll do my best to provide answers. A real-time transcript of the chat will be available below this window for easier reading, if you prefer.

As always, questions are not edited for grammar or spelling. The answers should be.聽If the questions contain vulgarities or threats they're usually just deleted.聽

Enough prelude. Into the fray.

Welcome to the Heath Barn: Should the Cardinals go outside the organization to get a center fielder?

Derrick Goold: Fair question. Not at the moment. They have one on the horizon -- getting closer to a return in Dylan Carlson. And behind him on the rehab schedule is the player the Cardinals and Cardinals fans expected to be their center fielder and stolen-base leader, Tommy Edman. If they were going to go outside they should have done so to cover the bulk of the time missed by those two, not go out now and get a player who will cover a few weeks, it seems (maybe less), and then turn the position over to either of the two outfielders who won the position. By the end of this home stand, it should be quite clear whether Carlson will be back in CF by the time the Cardinals are next back at home. His timetable is crystallizing.

The Cardinals' roster move with Victor Scott II on Sunday in large part reflects a willingness to play Nootbaar in center and in small part how soon they believe Carlson could be in minor-league rehab games.

Mark Bauer: With all the talk of last season derailing due to a slow start, but this season having an identical record and even worse run differential by far do you think any drastic changes could lie ahead?

DG: Of course. That is what is very clearly at stake for the Cardinals -- and it's been the tone of everything from the coverage of the team to the answers provided by the team. They recognize a repeat of last season will show it wasn't an outlier but a trend, that it wasn't fixed, and that a new direction is required. It was John Mozeliak who said that "our model will be tested." It was. Ownership has made it quite clear that the entire organization needs to improve and has even added that a "deep run" in October is part how it proves last year was an outlier. The model has been tested. It had a season of failing. Back-to-back seasons means that it fails the test. Pretty succinct. Standings don't lie, and they're public. There is a lot at stake for everyone around the Cardinals.

Seth: The cardinals are cooked this season is done. What do you predict happens in the offseason? Any big shake ups in the coaching, management? Rebuilding, or big splashes?

DG: Whoa. This is going to be a long year if it's over already. A lot to unpack here. Yes, if this is where things end for the Cardinals, changes would commence. There's a chance they wouldn't wait to the offseason. Big splashes? I have no idea, and neither do the Cardinals. They have their roster positioned to pivot into a rebuild, or at least veer into a younger team, maybe one that develops on the job. Not sure how fans would react to that. It would create spending space, for sure, but no promise the team would spend it -- or spend on the "splashes" that would qualify in some corners of the Internet. All that being said, it's April 22. No on wants to hear this, but ...

On April 22 of a recent season, there was an All-Star batting .196 with a .239 slugging percentage, and he was still looking for his first home run of the season. He had a .541 OPS and as many strikeouts (nine) as hits (nine).

That was 2022.

That hitter was Paul Goldschmidt.

He had time to win the NL MVP.

On April 22, 2022, Aaron Judge had hit three home runs and was on pace (quick envelop math) to hit 35 home runs for the season.

He hit 62.

It's April -- the season is far from over. It could get better for the Cardinals. It could get worse. It's just not over.

TomBruno23: Saving grace this Monday at least STL is one of the rows in today's IG...

DG: And an Arizona Diamondbacks column too. How popular is Dan Haren for the answer? Carson Kelly? Miguel Batista?

saw: Should we read anything into Pallante moving into the Memphis rotation other than giving him more opportunities to work on his pitches? Somewhat related: with Thompson in the pen, is McCheesey or Robberse now the 6th starter?

DG: No, not at the moment. This is a good question, and the timing of the move is obviously related to the length of his appearance the other day, his options, and the Cardinals not wanting to go a man down in the bullpen for the series against Arizona. All fine. But it also is interesting that they're doing with Pallante what some sinkerballers and relievers like him would accomplish during spring training. Seth Maness, for example, would go to the back fields and just throw sinker after sinker after sinker after sinker after sinker to get that pitch fine-tuned at some point during spring training, and he might go throw it 40-50 times in a row to hitters because they could provide him those innings on the back fields, get the pitch in tune, and then he'd come back to Grapefruit League play the role of reliever. Seems like a similar thing is happening here, just in the season, with out the access to the back fields, but access to options and a spot in the Class AAA rotation.

Sem Robberse has positioned himself well to be in that spot. The 6th starter is going to be based more on availability, but if there's a long-term need for a starter, the Cardinals will discuss Robberse being in that mix. Spot starts? Based on the 40-player roster and availability more likely.

Ryan: Why are people trying to replace Siani in CF? He actually has on OPS over 600 and catches the ball. Geez. Pick in someone else.

DG: I can imagine through the course of this chat, there will be an attempt to replace a lot of different people. It's early. We're just getting warmed up.

Bkburk515: DG, What do you think about a change in hitting philosophy, especially early on in the season. Busch plays horribly for hitters until it warms up, maybe we shouldn't be chasing launch angle and SLG so early on since Busch doesn't reward that?

DG: Let's agree on something -- something that you touch on. Launch angle is just that, the pursuit of SLG. That can mean line drives, gap to gap, line to line, ball in the air. All it's saying by "launch angle" is that damage is done in the air. As mentioned in a recent podcast, it's Dave Duncan's view of pitching -- pitchers want to keep hitters on the ground -- just the opposite side of that coin -- hitters want to get pitches in the air. OK, let's dive in from there.

Yes.

That's the short answer to your question, and it has come up over the past few years with the Cardinals. If they are going toward defense and pitching to fit the ballpark because they know it's not a friendly place for hitters, then why not also embrace that from an offensive approach. You're seeing some of that, for sure. Donovan's game fit the ballpark. Nootbaar's game fits the ballpark, just as Matt Carpenter's double bonanza did. Scott, Winn, Siani -- all of that speed fits the ballpark. And that is definitely a part of the game the Cardinals want to go, go, go, go more with this season. Got to get on base to go at all. See: Winn, Masyn. In a lot of ways, Winn personifies what the Cardinals aim to be -- strong defensively, athletic, and capable of taking a base via walk, via ball in play, or via being on base and stealing it. So they are moving their lineup in the direction of the ballpark, and thinking in those terms. They also have sluggers. And when they're sluggish -- and it's not the ballpark doing that -- it makes it difficult to put up the crooked numbers. That's when you see the team stalling at three. They conjure three runs through the approach your advocating, but it takes a walk, a single, a catcher's interference, and two sac flies to make it happen.

In summary, yes, that approach has value for the Cardinals, and you see it what they're trying to do to bring the lineup depth. It's won them some games here, honestly. But it's able to keep pace over the long haul without some hitters doing the damage expected. That approach gives the Cardinals depth and it's given the lineup a chance without much power. But no team will keep pace without SLG. So it cannot be only that approach.

Ernie: Do you see a world where if we鈥檝e dug us a hole so big about like last year goldy or nado are traded at the deadline?

DG: Sure. I don't have to squint to see it. The roster doesn't hide its ability to move on.

Chris is here: I also want to add that in 2019 the Nationals had a record of 19-35 at one point...and won the WS. There's time to improve.

DG: There is indeed. All it takes is a Soto and Scherzer, shake and stir.

JohnB.: What if this month is the beginning of a decline for Goldschmidt rather than just a slow start? Do the Cardinals have a plan B at first base?

DG: The Cardinals have Alec Burleson and Nolan Gorman currently on the roster and positioned as 1B of the future, if needed.

Kevin: Derrick, thank you for the time today and all that you do for us fans. My question is about the fans and their relationship to ownership. Most go online and complain and even boo at the games now. Will ownership ever acknowledge the frustrations or is it a head buried in the sand situation?

DG: I guess it depends on your definition of "acknowledge." Ownership has, in the past 8 months or so, taken responsibility on the record for the losing season and described it as unacceptable and also acknowledged the fans frustration by saying that they share in it. Bill DeWitt Jr. this spring told the Post-Dispatch, on the record, that he did not have a good year as owner, just as the front office and manager did not have a good year, and the players struggled as well -- and his bottom line measure for that was the team's place in the standings. At the Winter Warm-up presser, ownership said directly that it sensed the frustration from the fan base and that they needed to restore or reinvigorate the fan base with a better team. They felt the Sonny Gray signing would help do that. You can debate that point. For some fans, trading for Arenado wasn't enough, and that's fine, so signing Gray wasn't going to satisfy every corner of Xwitter. And speaking of Arenado -- if you want to extend the timeframe here -- that trade was directly referenced by executives for proving they could get a big name trade again and keep him, and ownership has said, again directly, that such a move was in response to seeing a playoff game that was not a sellout. That caught their eye. It sure doesn't seem like they see only sand. They see what you mention. Attendance and attention drifting. They've said as much. I hope you take the time to seek out those articles and those comments.

Mark Maschoff: How hot is Oli's job status, and how hot should it be?

DG: It hasn't really changed. The pressure is significant on him, his coaching staff, and the front office. When the Cardinals made the decision to dismiss Shildt and hire his replacement, the Post-Dispatch had an article that it would be the third hand-picked manager by the current front office and that put the pressure squarely there for the right call, because it would likely be the last hire. Baseball is built on threes, three up, three down, three outs for an inning, three strikes for a strikeout, and so on. That's a poetic way of putting ... Well, it's clear that the pressure is on the front office just as well.

Cherokee: What do you make of Molina's absence from the club? I know he and Holliday's situation are different, but the optics of two former players getting cold feet especially after the clumsy handling of - and reasons behind - Shildt's dismissal seems too much to be a series of coincidences.

DG: And yet it is.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It doesn't have to have some larger truth. Past actions cannot always have profound deeper, hidden meanings when looked upon with present information.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the true answer.

Parents just want to spend time with their kid(s).

I can speak from right now, present experience. And choices I make.

Matt Holliday and Yadier Molina were both approached about having a daily, in-uniform position with this staff.

Holliday initially accepted. Molina was reluctant to do so knowing the time commitment and only being a year removed from the grind of the season. Holliday got closer to spring training -- and you may have read a bit about what was changing for his sons at that time. They were going from draft prospects to first-round prospects to potentially first overall in the draft. Holliday had the chance to be with his eldest sons as that attention came on them, and he could be there for them. That would be more difficult if he was on the road and constantly away these seasons as bench coach. And, voila, Jackson Holliday went first overall, became the top prospect in all the land, and is already in the majors. What Holliday saw in the future wasn't some collapse with the Cardinals he wanted to avoid -- it was the potential of his sons and what he could help them through. He and Leslee are big-league parents, as you probably have seen. And instead of being the Cardinals bench coach, Holliday was there for it all with his family. And through it all he kept in touch with one of his good friends in the game, too. That's Oliver Marmol. (Wasn't that a photo on social media of the Marmols and Carpenters and Schumakers at Jackson's wedding?)

Molina wanted the same flexibility of his schedule and has, thus far, not accepted the Cardinals' invitation to be present when he wants to be. Some of the roles they discussed would put him out of the public eye, if that's where he's more comfortable. Again, it's the Cardinals that have given him this flexibility with the role. He wanted it to ... check his Instagram ... be there for his kids and their activities. And you may also know he owns and runs a pro basketball team.

Ed AuBuchon: Your take on Arenado's tag-up and advance to 3rd on fly ball yesterday.

DG: The Cardinals are trying to score runs any way they can while searching for swings.

TomBruno23: 9-13 going into tonight with a 13.9% chance of the division...9-13 in 2023 with a 28.6% chance of the division. This year the difference is not only the Brewers you have a Cubs team that is much more legit than their 12-9 start from 2023 (at least as the FG see things).

DG: Sure seems like maybe the Reds should get some attention, too. Not sure this is a division that is going to be won in April. It might be surrendered at the trade deadline.

Patrick: "That hitter was Paul Goldschmidt." Yeah but he he wasn't 36 about to turn 37. Why do people keep forgetting that part of the conversation and age related regression. Father time is undefeated

DG: We don't. We all have calendars. Perhaps my mistake was using Goldschmidt as an larger example of making judgments in April. The Cardinals, after all, are older than 130. Maybe this is Father Time catching up to them?

Welcome to the Heath Barn: Why not take a swing at Mike Trout? 32 with injury history, makes a $37M this year. BUT, it's MIKE TROUT.

DG: Mostly because teams cannot impose their will on the Angels. Teams have certainly explored those trades, have floated the possibility ... but, yeah, the Angels and -- based on his recent comments -- Trout haven't entertained.

ud: I'd like your opinion, are the Brewers just a better team (better roster) than the Cardinals or did they just catch us while the offense is slumping and make us look bad? Obviously there are 140 more games to discover the answer to this, but I'm interested in your take.

DG: The Brewers are playing better at this moment. Hard to look at their roster and see the pitching depth to maintain it. They proved that wrong last year, too. They had Burnes to do it. Better roster? I'm not going to make that leap, no. Better play right now? For sure. And sometimes that becomes momentum that cannot be stopped. We saw that with the Cardinals before. They played well coming into the season, seemed to be beyond the roster with their style of play, and never really slowed. Pitching depth just seems like a pothole lurking for Milwaukee.

Steve: The stadium seemed a bit emptier than I was expecting yesterday, especially with Sonny Gray starting. Late last season I attended a game and never saw such few fans at Busch (even though the Cardinals embarrassingly announced a 38k attendance and flashed it on the big screen). If there is a declining trend in ticket sales (or decline in fans just showing up at games), and the Cardinals can't turn this season around, I am worried about a doom loop starting.

DG: MLB sets the standards by which teams announce attendance, just FYI. As you consider how the Cardinals do it, keep in mind that standard is set for the 29 other teams too, just to have consistency across the box scores. That's not a big deal, but I thought you'd like that information. A doom loop? We'll see. That's a cool phrase. Would make for a great rock band name*. That's why this year so much is at stake.

* Probably already is.

DumbDan: Does Goldschmidt have any options left? He can join Scott in working out their batting woes.

DG: Even if he did, it wouldn't matter. Options aren't applicable after a certain amount of service time. An example of this is how Montgomery signed a minor-league clause in his contract and Pham recently signed a minor-league deal. Getting them to the minors with their service time has to be part of the negotiation on the contract. Options don't apply.

Redbird fan: Not being sassy, and sorry if I have missed it, but is there any update on Yadi coming to spend some time with the team?

DG: There is not as of the most recent check. But, to be fair, that was a week or so ago, and there's been other stuff going on with the team. Hasn't been a frontburner question recently.

Mitch: Seems like it would have been nice to have Yadi around during the start of the season. Any idea where he has been?

DG: He's been with his family in Puerto Rico.

Boyd Crowder: "What you allow is what you will be." -- this is the worst NL team at home in their last 90 home games. How does nobody get held accountable for this? A third base coach. A bullpen coach. Anybody?

DG: Is "accountable" a euphemism for "fired." Just say fired.

If you're going to call for someone's job, seems only fair that you use the word and not dance around the subject, no?

Steve from PA: "There is indeed. All it takes is a Soto and Scherzer." And with Gray, we've got Scherzer. Just need Goldy, Gorman, or Walker to take the Soto role.

DG: Interesting casting.

TomBruno23: "Sure. I don't have to squint to see it." Is it the same world where the Dodgers look at what is left on the Arenado deal and ask the Cardinals what they are going to do to pay in down in order to facilitate a trade?

DG: Imagine a league/world where every player only ever played for their hometown, only ever wanted to play for their hometown, and only never left their hometown. Wonder where the best teams would be. Probably not the best set up for a league with teams all around the country and players who, believe it or not, don't always want to play for the team where they grew up. Sometimes Freddie Freeman wants to stay in Atlanta, as he said. Sometimes Joey Votto just wants to finish his career with Cincinnati, as he said. But, hey, it's a fun exercise to think that everyone just wants to go home. That is, after all, the very purpose of the game. To get home.

Milledgeville Redbird: off subject but i am disappointed. Been a a fan for over seventy years. Last few years could watch Cardinals on Bally Sports and attend a couple of games. But got internet that moved by receiving about 10 miles and now it is blacked out. frustating. Also don't help to make new fans, witch will at some point effect attendance. Seems so stupid to me. care to commit.

DG: The Cardinals agree with you. The blackout restrictions are "archaic," in the words of the executives there. They need to change. They need to be vaporized so that fans who want to access the games can access the games. The model has change, and it's a fair question whether the blackout restrictions ever really did influence ticket sales, or if all these years they just held back growing the fan base.

Michael: When Carlson returns, what are the chances of Walker getting sent down to work on his swing in Memphis.

DG: Don't know yet. There will be other factors. This is something that the Cardinals are going to have active conversations about -- where best for Jordan Walker to see some progress and be rewarded for the work he's doing in the batting cage. Is it best for him to continue that work offensively/defensively in the majors, is there an argument that he do so at Class AAA and get some positive reinforcement? There's no obvious answer. Though if he makes that leap as the Cardinals suggest -- taking progress away from the game into the game -- then he will give the Cardinals the answer on what to do. Which brings us back to your question. There are other factors, and often the decision is obvious when it has to be made.

Millo Miller: How much longer do the Cards ride Gorman? Any chance of seeing Saggese in the near future? Thanks for the time Derr.ick

DG: Nolan Gorman's power from the left-handed side is a big part of how the team is built. So, they're going to give him every chance to be a major factor in driving this offense. He'll move around the lineup, but they're not going to move on from him. That would not make much sense, candidly. I can only imagine what the chat would be like when he goes and thunders away from another team. Saggese is off a strong start in the minors, and there will be a time for him to debut and possible impact this season in the majors. The Cardinals don't want that to be at Gorman's expense, rather as a boost for a lineup that has featured Gorman's power.

CrampyCrampaneris: "I guess it depends on your definition of...briefly...shortly"

DG: Definition of words matter, and how you're using them definitely reveals your meaning.

Jacko: What exactly was the surgery that Edman had that is taking so long to recover from? Is he having complications or was it a more serious/invasive procedure than originally anticipated?

DG: He had wrist surgery to address damage within the wrist, so both bone and cartilage. It was arthroscopic, so through a cut in the wrist and that was either to repair or remove the damage. Wrists are tricky. And you'll see example after example in baseball of hitters who have wrist surgery and then return, but really don't get that grip strength and swing back until the season after. It's just a tricky joint, and yes Edman had setbacks. He had swelling. He had a lack of strength in the area that was leading to soreness, strain, and a lack of range of motion, all as the wrist healed and he started using it again to hit. It's not the invasiveness of the procedure; it's the recovery from it, the reaction to to swinging the bat again. That's why they took a step back, focused on strength around the wrist and resumed the program from that point.

Chuck: The Cardinals are in desperate need of what Lance Bergman referred to as a "laugher". A good ole 14-2 win is sorely needed right now.

DG: There is definitely something to that, absolutely.

IL Redbird Fan: DG, thanks for hosting the chats. I thought you were too dismissive to the question about home record. STL used to be a rock solid venue for the Cards to pick up 10 / 15 games above .500 for the season. That advantage is completely gone in recent times. The sample size is meaningful; the Cards lose at home far more than in the past, and far more than they should. Are the fans the only one's concerned? Sure seems that way. Seems to barely register with DWIII, Mo, Oli. Blame the fans for not having patience and being critical seems to be their strategy.

DG: I did not mean to be dismissive. Not at all. Are you talking about the catering the offense to the ballpark question? My only point -- and if I didn't make it, then it's on me to be more direct -- was that they need to gear their offense toward taking advantage of the ballpark for depth of production. It cannot be their only source of production. They need power too. That's the game. Damage. And they can rely on their ballpark to create offensive depth or get them through games when they're not scoring, as they have at some points already. The Cardinals should/must be better at home. It was something that faltered at a few years ago, after having several consecutive 50-win seasons at home. My colleague Ben Frederickson has written a lot about how the Cardinals need to be a titan at home, full stop. Getting swept by the Brewers without their ace (traded) and without their former MVP (injured list) would not qualify as defending the home turf, obviously.

The fans are not the only ones concerned.

Ryan: I don鈥檛 like the idea of Carlson in CF saving the season. I know you鈥檙e just relaying the message, but if someone in the FO told you let鈥檚 see what happens when he鈥檚 gets back. Ouch

DG: Sheesh. No one said one player has to "save the season." What gives with any news of Dylan Carlson -- and a few other players -- being greeted this way? No one is saying that. Not the team. Not the above answer.

No.

One.

Mike in KC: I have to say that I didn't have "strong starting pitching and weak offense" on my 2024 Cardinals Bingo card.

DG: And you should not have. This offense should be good enough to carry the team over some of its flaws, and instead it's off to such a chilly start that it's revealing flaws and making them play perfect, zero-defect games elsewhere or they lose. That's an impossible way to contend.

Joliet Dave: I've read some comments about Mo's reactions. Do you get any feeling that the pressure is getting to him?

DG: He has said as much. That he feels the pressure. He's talked about not sleeping, etc. He's talked about sharing in the frustration. He's definitely been irritated by the questions he gets from the media, from the assertions he reads or hears. I get asked on Xwitter and elsewhere why the Cardinals don't feel the pressure, and I wonder ... well, they do. Hear it in their comments. See it in their actions.

It's not a secret. It was very apparent in the opening weeks of spring, and then they spent all spring without a valve for that pressure. They couldn't win games in the standings there -- because they hadn't started yet, and still there was this build up of pressure.

pugger: Hey Derrick!!! Do you ever think baseball will lean back into situational hitting, moving runners over, and away from home run baseball??? I mean, if the Cardinals had 3 or 4 other guys just hitting like Contreras, Winn, line drives all over the place, singles, doubles, etc, They would be scoring 5+ runs a game.. I mean, if a guy gets a single, next guy hits a double, that's a run.. Just like if a guy hits a solo home run.. . I don't get it, at all. Plus, 'home run baseball' is boring as heck... Thanks DG

DG: The new rules are helping, and it kind of has. Or it's closer to that style and more welcoming of that style than ever before. What has to really change is how players are paid. As longer as power yields the big bucks -- power at the plate, power off the mound -- then you're going to see the players and the game gravitate toward that, as you'd expect. Players are going to chase what is most productive and what is most valuable and what gets the highest salaries. Slugging percentage gets paid. Batting average doesn't like it once did. Pitching to contact, similarly, is a market inefficiency, where as striking hitters out get paid. We're starting to see small shifts in the market, and those will be reflected on the field, too.

Mike in KC: 2014 & 2015 Royals were exactly the team pugger described. "Keep the line moving" offense. Single, single, single. Some SBs, occasional HRs. But contact, contact, contact took them to 2 straight World Series.

DG: They were indeed. And that only further helps prove my point. KC wasn't paying for power, was building out from what they had, and when the market shifts, then so will teams. They have not yet. KC Style didn't spread far and wide.

Nat: DG. Thanks for the chat. Always informative. While the team posts the paid attendance at the game, it seems like there are a lot of fans dressed as seats. Turnstiles are a thing of the past, but someone surely keeps track of all those scanned tickets. Is this information out there? I would assume ownership uses this info, despite the rhetorical of three million fans we hear about every year. Thanks.

DG: Sometimes it is. There have been times when no-shows are available, and yes the team tracks those. In the past, over time, like multiple home stands, the percentage of unused tickets is detailed. There are also times when walk-up crowd info is available. The Cardinals did not get much of one for Gray's debut that was something -- had more to do with the day, time, opponent (??), than Gray, but it still stood out that they didn't pack the house for the big addition when there was plenty of forewarning. That's an example of when info beyond the paid attendance can be unearthed. That said, paid attendance has value too. It's a window into revenue. Unused tickets are still paid-for tickets.

Patrick: To expond on my point that I was trying to make, hes 36 going on 37 this season, and his problems aren't just confined to a bad 3 week start to the season. His Spring was horrendous and just a continuation of his second half of last season. Thanks as always

DG: This was a topic on a recent BPIB with Kevin Wheeler and it's also something I mentioned today on Foul Territory. When is spring training something you cannot ignore?

Joliet Dave: DG, at the chats beginning you say a easier to read version at the bottom. Why not just go back to that better version? Sorry, just my 2cents, and not a rehash of the many (that I agreewith) Redbird complaints!

DG: That chat interface is no longer available. Impossible to go back to a site/system that no longer exists. To keep the chat going -- because subscribers have shown us how important it is to the content they want -- we had to find an alternate engine that would allow for a real-time exchange of questions and answers and not, say, a mailbag format that is less chat and more, well, mailbag.

TroyMo: Fans seem to get dismissed or even ridiculed by media for calling for accountability or firing of coaches when field performance is poor. Yes players are responsible for execution and they are criticized as well. So how should the fans fairly evaluate coaches? If coaches are there to help players aid performance or get out of slumps, what is their culpability in lack of development or lengthy underperformance? Perhaps this is your chance to bridge this gap and avoid frustration by fans and media on the subject

DG: Preparation, mostly, with a wide definition of that term. Players are the ones in the batter's box or on the mound or behind the ball that have to make the play, deliver the pitch, or swing the bat. Every year I find it interesting that players are way more eager to take the blame, to acknowledge their failures, to be accountable for the team's struggles than fans are willing to put on them. I guess that comes with being a fan -- being protective of the player because you care about the player and the jersey. That puts others in the line of criticism. I've seen some suggestions recently that the Cardinals players would be better if the media asked better questions. Imagine how the players would feel about that! That their success is just waiting for a member of the media to unlock it with the right pointed question, or maybe that Few Good Men Moment that turns everything around! But your question is about coaches ...

Preparation. Putting players in the right some to succeed. Setting tones for what is valued, what is essential, what is expected. Scouting reports. Those are the things that coaches are directly responsible for. When the Cardinals made the decision to put Tyler O'Neill in center to start last season and that did not go well -- that's organization/manager's staff. The team did not put him in the best spot to succeed and a different decision should have been made. During the Spring of Discontent, when the Cardinals were rudderless, lacking fundamentals, had some real questions about leadership expectations in the clubhouse, that was the coaching/managing. Back in 2015, Jason Heyward and the hitting coaches at the time really had a breakthrough on his swing -- check out his second-half numbers -- and the coaches helped him maintain it, even build it up, and that's the other side of it, coaches helping. Wrote recently about the attitude the bullpen wants to have this year for the Cardinals. Ryan Helsley told me Andrew Kittredge has helped really reinforce that, but Helsley also said the person who has been pushing for that approach for years is ... Dusty Blake, the coach. There are a few questions in the chat today that have fixes for the hitters -- and they echo what coaches and hitters are trying to do. So they're on the same wavelength as fans at times, and the execution just isn't there. But the fix and the work and the preparation is all the same as the fans suggest -- they just don't see the results. So the results become the only evidence fans have, and that's fair. It's a bottom line business. But the assumption shouldn't be immediately that the coach or manager held the player back from the results. A hitter wouldn't go 7-for-10 if not for the coach. A hitter might go 1-for-10 instead of 0-for-10 with a tip from a coach. It's just more nuanced than fixating on the results. Sometimes it's just a hard game and the player didn't come through.

But "ridiculed"? That's interesting phrasing. That's not the intent, not when it comes to answering these questions. What would the word be for the replies I get on Xwitter that include name-calling or worse? How should I respond to those?

That's not a rhetorical question.

CRay: Listened to your podcast with Hochman. The Cards flunked their pride game yesterday. Expect it can get worse but I hope not.

DG: Thank you for listening. It is available here, if anyone else is interested. I was really appreciative of Benjamin Hochman taking the time to share the stories he did about growing up in Whiteyball. Just thought that was a real good conversation to have, and he made it even better than I could have hoped ...

Molly: Have you ever defended a coach or manager from criticism, then later realized that you were wrong?

DG: Probably. That's where reporting comes in, and why it's constant. You don't stop asking questions to try to understand a situation better. The opposite is also true. I recently learned about an approach that I could have taken with a player for better answers, if I had just asked a better question -- not of him, but of a peer he trusted. I learned about that player with a better question in a way that changed my view of past interactions. That, again, is why reporting never stops. There's always new information to get and make the next pursuit of information better.

Molly: Just like TroyMo said, you come off sounding dismissive,

DG: Well, I did my best to answer your question. It was a fair one. I tried to be honest. I guess, if I don't agree with the premise, I'll always come off as dismissive. But if the premise is based on a falsehood, then I'm not going to agree just so you feel validated; I'm going to point out the falsehood, and I guess that too could be dismissive. Depends on the eye of the beholder. But again, I'm not going to agree to a false premise just because I'll come across as friendlier.

Bryan Ryherd: Are there any details you can share with us about what the players and coaching staff are working on to correct the poor offensive performance?

DG: Sure. There have been several of stories from my colleagues about this. For me personally, I had a chance to talk with Nolan Arenado about what he's working on with his posture at the plate and how his follow-through indicative of that progress. For Jordan Walker, he's working on opening up, with his swing, laying off the pitches low, low, low, that he sees more of than almost any other batter, and trying to bring that pitcher up and back into an area he can lift. It's at least a two-part approach -- strike zone command and then also opening up to clear the way for a better view of the ball and a more level swing that clears his hips for power. It's what he had going in spring and continues to work to translate into games. Gorman? Gorman has been working and made strides in laying off the pitch at the top of the zone where pitchers were challenging him and he was having difficulty. Now you see how pitchers are seesawing back to him with chasing, and he's working to get control of the zone back. Goldschmidt's talked a lot about how he brings his hands back -- how he loads them, and what that is doing with his torso and changing about how he uncoils to swing. Hope that helps.

Bryan Ryherd: Are there any details you can share with us about what the players and coaching staff are working on to correct the poor offensive performance?

Joliet Dave: but those unused tickets are not buying concessions, tipping vendors, or merchandise purchase

DG: I understand your point, and some used tickets aren't either. We're all saying the same thing. Goodness.

Schlay: You are tireless with your chats and thank you for spending so much time providing information. Usually before the Generals fall on their swords they send out a few lower ranking officers to their deaths. I don't want to see anyone get fired after 30 games but it pains me to see Walker's batting stance. Someone should have coached that out of him before it came to this. To be specific there is way too much movement prior to the pitch and his head looks like it moves 12 inches.

DG: Thanks for the kind words. This is part of what he's working on. Still. Open. It's like he learned in the outfield, too. Less head movement. Clearer, consistent view of the ball. And look at how that's helped him.

milyabe: You're closer to the team than all of us. The record is the same as last year, but does it *feel* the same? Call me crazy, but I see signs for optimism. Stable rotation, fantastic bullpen, quality defense. All things we didn't have last year. Seems like if - if - we'd get going offensively, we'd be in a good spot?

DG: It does not feel the same because last year's weakness that they could never get over is not a weakness -- pitching. Pitching is an excellent bedrock to build from. Last year the wind went out of the team quickly because it sensed what we all wrote about was a possibility and fans all noticed as a possibility too -- that the pitching was teetering, and once it caved in there was no regaining that traction. This year, again, is different because what should be a strength hasn't been. What should be a strength based on track record, hasn't been at all. That is a different kind of concern, but what feels different is their foundation is more firm because of the pitching. They aren't built on quicksand. They're not chasing innings. That's different.

BL: Hey DG, the situation with Skip/Marlins I find somewhat interesting, and would be interested in your thoughts about a manager essentially saying he's walking away from his position at the end of the year, but it being said at the beginning of the year. Only time that happens is when the guy is retiring. Being made more interesting each passing day StL appears to underperform. Not that I think this all lays on Oli's shoulders - lord knows there's plenty of blame to go around. But do you think there would be any interest in a reunion there? I would think most teams would be, so it wouldn't just be familiar teams looking to hire him. The extension occurred this spring, but I highly doubt that'd be a factor if they really wanted him here?

DG: This situation with Skip Schumaker and the Marlins has many layers, and some of it you outline in your question. Let me add this, please, because it's important:

If the option remained in place, Schumaker would have no control at the end of the season of where he goes. The Marlins would hold his rights -- and could lock him in, if they wish. There is a benefit to Schumaker -- and thus a nod from the Marlins -- to eliminate that option, so that he can be a free agent at season's end. He could stay. He could leave. He now has that power, vs. the Marlins hold the option over him. So, he could choose to chase another job or just return home to spend a year with his family as his son gets ready to go play college baseball. There will be teams interested in Schumaker. At least one on the West Coast, it sure seems like. Cardinals ownership has expressed time and time again a commitment to Marmol. They've also said that everything will be evaluated at the end of this season with the purpose being to prove last year was the exception, not the new status quo. We'll see how that plays out. It is too early to know there for sure, or here for sure.

TroyMo: "But "ridiculed"? That's interesting phrasing." I don鈥檛 agree with name calling on either side. I get your defensive mindset given some of the personal attacks on you and the media. But some of the tone and sarcastic responses given by media in these chats when fans question coaching is derogatory. It reaches the point of passive ridicule. For those that don鈥檛 attack you, it is unfair to lump us with the other trolls and treat us as such with the sarcastic and dismissive responses

DG: I hear you. It gets back to my point about not hosting this chat to agree with every question or premise presented here. It's about information, not validation. If there is a wrong premise, I will point it out as wrong, and inevitably the person may take that as dismissive. Even in your point you want to have it both ways. You want to point out that you're not attacking the media, but then point out that I am dismissive and sarcastic, and I don't believe you mean those as compliments.

I just try to be consistent.

And pointing out how you want it both ways is probably dismissive or sarcastic depending on the viewpoint.

Tim wright: Do you think maybe it鈥檚 time to move on from these first year coaches and managers and maybe hire people with more experience?

DG: Interesting point. One of the questions I asked DeWitt & Mozeliak years ago and also shared with Marmol when he asked me about why I would ask such a question is this: Why not interview a wide range of managers before hiring someone? They're the Cardinals. They should be a destination job. They once interviewed Terry Francona. Neither side saw it as the right fit or the right time, so they moved on. But by interviewing Francona they also had a clearer view, they felt, of who they wanted to hire and even why it was important to go internally with an upside, prospect manager, one they were all certain was going to be a manager, so why wait? That makes sense, right? No matter who you hire, you interview the wide scope because it might make your choice -- the first-year manager -- more compelling by comparison. It's actually something that DeWitt brings up from a business perspective. He says it often: He will choose talent over experience. Talent is harder to find. Experience can be gained. That's been a consistent approach of his. You can definitely debate it, but that does give you insight into the direction he's going to go. The interviews may have even confirmed that approach.

Quick aside, I'm not sure how many first-year coaches/managers there really have been here. Shildt and Marmol both had more than a decade within the organization before they were promoted to the role. Turner Ward has been a hitting coach at several big-league stops. Dusty Blake had college experience, so maybe he is closest to that description, unless you're dialing it back to Matheny, who was a first-year manager in that hiring. He had not been a coach or manager at any level. His hiring was widely celebrated by fans and columnists, and all indications at the time was it should have been. Looking back, even now with hindsight, he was the right hire at that time, no? It did not end well or how they imagined or include a championship. It's definitely the seeds of an interesting debate.

Tim wright: Thanks for the response. I guess I was thinking more experience at the major league level. I think that鈥檚 what this team needs right now. Maybe I鈥檓 just missing the days of Larussa and Duncan: Understood. They, too, had to start somewhere. All of us a rookie in the job at some point.

Phil: Even avoiding the "first-time manager" tag, the only two managers to win a WS since Red Schoendienst stepped down were outside hires. In fact, the team has only hired three outside managers in those ~50 years, and all three are now in the HOF (even if Joe Torre's time here was rather disappointing). Since 1977, the Cardinals have had 5 managers with zero MLB managing experience before 最新杏吧原创 (leaving out interim managers Krol and Jorgesen); of those, only Matheny has lasted longer than 4 seasons. At some point, one would think it's evident that too much navel-gazing and internal favoritism hasn't typically worked out.

DG: Interesting research. Let me first get to your final point: This is a question I tend to ask a lot -- most recently of Lance Lynn, if you listened to the podcast -- about the benefit of going elsewhere, about seeing other organizations. I asked DeWitt & Moezliak once if their continuity that they treasure had become a staleness or isolationism. They did not like the question. But then, a few years later, they hired Chaim Bloom to bring an outside perspective, so here we are. There is power in outside perspectives, I think we all would agree as we go through this chat.

Now, let me comment briefly on the research. I see something else there. I don't think the ends prove the approach, rather they reveal how fortunate the organization has been with the managers at the time. I see limited space for managers not named Whitey or Tony and I see a team that moves on when there isn't winning. Two managers -- La Russa and Herzog -- had 61% of the games in that span. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for five othre managers, who on average had 530 games in the spot. Move Matheny out of that column and 76.5% of the games in that span were managed by one of three managers. Three! Three of the other five managed fewer than 500 games. For me, that's not a lot of data to come to your conclusion. But others may see it differently.

DCG: In case you make it back to the chat: Do you think this Cardinals regime will ever change its position about signing star FAs to the long-terms deals that are required to land them rather than preferring older players on the last fringes of their prime who command shorter deals? The reality is that it looks like they will have gotten four really good years out of Goldy, one average one, and maybe one disastrous one. Arenado has one terrific year, two mediocre years (for him), and we'll see moving forward. If I'm going to pay for post-30 years, I should would like to have the benefit of the pre-30 years first.

DG: That's a good question. The market and their pledge to build a competitor seem to be forcing them in that direction -- toward paying that price. The alternative is the deals for pre-arb players that lock them in for a long time. Winn, Walker, Herrera -- these would be a few of the players at that stage where other teams have locked them in longterm, with deals through their prime years. That would be one route they could go because, yes, their "model" as mentioned earlier is being tested when the market is increasing the price of those contract while maintaining the same risk that the Cardinals have either avoided or taken at the lower price to maximize return.

JoJo Disco: Do you get a sense of who initiated the Bloom conversation between DeWitt and Mo? That seemed a bit blurred during winter warm-up

DG: Sure, it definitely was because the word from both of them is that they brought it up independently to different groups and then to each other. They work together and come to an agreement on many things, so that blurring is to be expected.

Rallo: Did Mike matheny somehow ruin his legacy by becoming manager? I think he was a heck of a player and red jacket worthy

DG: A great question -- and a risk that I don't think Matheny got enough credit for taking. That was the subject of a story I did as he neared 1,000 and also got toward the end of his time as manager. I felt there was something noteworthy about what he risked as a beloved player to become the manager, to put that on the line. It reminded me of a conversation I had with the great Dan Issel, and how he told me once about giving up his ovations.

That story on Matheny as he neared 1,000 and what leap he took to be manager instead of staying the beloved player is still available here.

Rob in St. Charles: Forgive me if this has been asked and answered but when the team is going through a funk like this, why not shake up the lineup? Bat Goldy 5th, move Wynn up to leadoff and see if he can ignite a spark. Do something different.

DG: Fair question. Managers tend to avoid the knee-jerk reactions because of the obvious question. If it works for a bit -- what is real and what is random, what is the signal and what is the noise? They make more data-driven decisions. But -- and this is an important but -- you do it see with individual batters at times. Just to "give them a different look" and without the big changes that ... well, look at it this way, what if it doesn't work? Could just be the timing or batted-ball luck and then it looks chaotic. If it doesn't work and you go back to what didn't work, what's left? The counterargument is that at least tried something. Managers often think that's just a cosmetic change for a whole lineup, not a substantive one and it speaks to less consistency when they preach the importance of consistency.

CardsFan: Thanks for the insight DG! Is there any interest within the organization in bringing up Jose Fermin in the near future? He's tearing up AAA and frankly, we need some of that on the big league club. Is it a matter of getting him consistent playing time in Memphis? I wouldn't think so because the general opinion is that he does not have an above-average ceiling. Am I incorrect? What is the reasoning in keeping him in AAA?

DG: There is definitely discussion. He either should get his chance in 最新杏吧原创 or somewhere else in the majors. His bat is ready for the big leagues and he should get that chance. He had a strong spring. He's had a strong start. He's a big-league player who has earned that opportunity somewhere. Defense has been part of the question. But he moves around, handles infield so that he can play various position. Yes, that Cardinals have taken note. And it's not just how he's started the season. He made a ruckus in spring that forced them to keep an eye on where his bat fits. He can help a team, if not this one.

Alright, the game is going here. Lance Lynn is working his way free from a bases-loaded jam. The bar has been set. To win, the Cardinals are going to need three runs.

They'll be time to chat about all that happens next in the next chat.

Stay healthy. Stay informed.