Church over Scott in CF?

Welcome to STLtoday.com's forum for fans of the St. Louis Cardinals.

Moderators: STLtoday Forum Moderators, Cards Talk Moderators

BaseStealer
Forum User
Posts: 1127
Joined: 12 Oct 2019 03:39 am

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by BaseStealer »

Church in L.F., Scott in C.F. and Walker in R.F. ,,,,,, let them play! :lol:
Galatians221jb1
Forum User
Posts: 2259
Joined: 30 Mar 2023 15:23 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by Galatians221jb1 »

Scott doesn’t add anything offensively and Church can play CF just as well. Noot should be back soon to play left.
ecleme22
Forum User
Posts: 5300
Joined: 23 May 2024 21:17 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by ecleme22 »

Galatians221jb1 wrote: 22 Apr 2026 21:08 pm Scott doesn’t add anything offensively and Church can play CF just as well. Noot should be back soon to play left.
Church:
OPS a week ago: .413
OPS on before yesterday: .546
OPS today: .646

I don't know the option in CF, but we have to be aware of recency bias. Church was a ghost on CT a week ago, now some are implying he start the rest of the season.

I'm a fan of Church, but we should be aware that just one week ago, his bat looked worse that Scott's.
BaseStealer
Forum User
Posts: 1127
Joined: 12 Oct 2019 03:39 am

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by BaseStealer »

Galatians221jb1 wrote: 22 Apr 2026 21:08 pm Scott doesn’t add anything offensively and Church can play CF just as well. Noot should be back soon to play left.
We have been, for one reason or another, waiting on Noot for 5 seasons.
I wonder what any of these three could do if given the time we have been waiting for Noot?
Cranny
Forum User
Posts: 6324
Joined: 24 May 2024 09:26 am

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by Cranny »

Put Torres in CF.
OldRed
Forum User
Posts: 3761
Joined: 23 May 2024 15:53 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by OldRed »

Cranny wrote: 23 Apr 2026 07:50 am Put Torres in CF.
A 28-year-old who has never played a game in the Major Leagues? Is this the player you are talking about?
Bomber1
Forum User
Posts: 1757
Joined: 23 May 2024 16:27 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by Bomber1 »

Ozziesfan41 wrote: 21 Apr 2026 21:02 pm
Galatians221jb1 wrote: 21 Apr 2026 20:59 pm There’s just not enough offense with Scott and it seems Church is an excellent defensive outfielder. Eventually Noot will be back in LF. Baez could also be an excellent outfielder. Scott can bunt and play great defense. Church reminds me a bit of Donovan.
Baez isn’t ready I say give Torres a shot at left and church in center with Scott being the fourth outfielder until noot comes back
This.
Melville
Forum User
Posts: 6021
Joined: 23 May 2024 16:16 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by Melville »

I alone correctly analyzed and explained the extreme negative ramifications of the Donovan trade.
I consistently stated that Donovan should have been retained for 2026 - or until the summer deadline at a minimum.
I also stated that if Bloom was determined to make the grave error of trading Donovan, the return must include an established MLB outfielder or an MLB outfielder.
Most thought Bloom received good return for Donovan.
They were all wrong and I said so at the time.
My position was very, very clear - as well as being brilliantly correct: Donovan should have started the year as the starting LF while giving injury/performance insurance for the infield.
How much better would the lineup be if the Cardinals has simply done exactly as I advised?
Clearly, the team would be in far better shape - bot now, in the short term, and in the long term.
THAT is the key and relevant point in the outfield conversation.
The current mess was oh-so-easily avoidable.
Easy.
Obvious.
Correct.
Cranny
Forum User
Posts: 6324
Joined: 24 May 2024 09:26 am

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by Cranny »

Torres is long overdue for a shot. Give it to him.
He’s an on base machine.
CorneliusWolfe
Forum User
Posts: 1887
Joined: 02 May 2025 19:12 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by CorneliusWolfe »

Melville wrote: 23 Apr 2026 08:30 am I alone correctly analyzed and explained the extreme negative ramifications of the Donovan trade.
I consistently stated that Donovan should have been retained for 2026 - or until the summer deadline at a minimum.
I also stated that if Bloom was determined to make the grave error of trading Donovan, the return must include an established MLB outfielder or an MLB outfielder.
Most thought Bloom received good return for Donovan.
They were all wrong and I said so at the time.
My position was very, very clear - as well as being brilliantly correct: Donovan should have started the year as the starting LF while giving injury/performance insurance for the infield.
How much better would the lineup be if the Cardinals has simply done exactly as I advised?
Clearly, the team would be in far better shape - bot now, in the short term, and in the long term.
THAT is the key and relevant point in the outfield conversation.
The current mess was oh-so-easily avoidable.
Easy.
Obvious.
Correct.
I understand management’s priority to win later by building for the future. That didn’t have to completely cripple and remove all possibilities to win sooner, if the young players assert themselves, which most have. Donovan could’ve been a critical missing piece to an upper tier offense.

Instead they threw in the towel before the fight and made an unnecessary desperation trade.
Rojo Johnson
Forum User
Posts: 1141
Joined: 23 May 2024 23:25 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by Rojo Johnson »

BaseStealer wrote: 23 Apr 2026 03:31 am
Galatians221jb1 wrote: 22 Apr 2026 21:08 pm Scott doesn’t add anything offensively and Church can play CF just as well. Noot should be back soon to play left.
We have been, for one reason or another, waiting on Noot for 5 seasons.
I wonder what any of these three could do if given the time we have been waiting for Noot?
Noot reminds me so much of Moe and his dog fart method of coming up with years of OF failures. Who wants to be reminded of that skid mark of a POBO?
sikeston bulldog2
Forum User
Posts: 16447
Joined: 11 Aug 2023 16:20 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by sikeston bulldog2 »

CorneliusWolfe wrote: 23 Apr 2026 08:50 am
Melville wrote: 23 Apr 2026 08:30 am I alone correctly analyzed and explained the extreme negative ramifications of the Donovan trade.
I consistently stated that Donovan should have been retained for 2026 - or until the summer deadline at a minimum.
I also stated that if Bloom was determined to make the grave error of trading Donovan, the return must include an established MLB outfielder or an MLB outfielder.
Most thought Bloom received good return for Donovan.
They were all wrong and I said so at the time.
My position was very, very clear - as well as being brilliantly correct: Donovan should have started the year as the starting LF while giving injury/performance insurance for the infield.
How much better would the lineup be if the Cardinals has simply done exactly as I advised?
Clearly, the team would be in far better shape - bot now, in the short term, and in the long term.
THAT is the key and relevant point in the outfield conversation.
The current mess was oh-so-easily avoidable.
Easy.
Obvious.
Correct.
I understand management’s priority to win later by building for the future. That didn’t have to completely cripple and remove all possibilities to win sooner, if the young players assert themselves, which most have. Donovan could’ve been a critical missing piece to an upper tier offense.

Instead they threw in the towel before the fight and made an unnecessary desperation trade.
But did you know they would play this well. Without Donovan. And since he’s hurt, and will be, he loses value.

The trade will be an even split.

As Dave Mason sang- there ain’t no good guys, there ain’t no bad guys; there’s just you and me, and, we just disagree- reference throwing in the towel.
Melville
Forum User
Posts: 6021
Joined: 23 May 2024 16:16 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by Melville »

CorneliusWolfe wrote: 23 Apr 2026 08:50 am
Melville wrote: 23 Apr 2026 08:30 am I alone correctly analyzed and explained the extreme negative ramifications of the Donovan trade.
I consistently stated that Donovan should have been retained for 2026 - or until the summer deadline at a minimum.
I also stated that if Bloom was determined to make the grave error of trading Donovan, the return must include an established MLB outfielder or an MLB outfielder.
Most thought Bloom received good return for Donovan.
They were all wrong and I said so at the time.
My position was very, very clear - as well as being brilliantly correct: Donovan should have started the year as the starting LF while giving injury/performance insurance for the infield.
How much better would the lineup be if the Cardinals has simply done exactly as I advised?
Clearly, the team would be in far better shape - bot now, in the short term, and in the long term.
THAT is the key and relevant point in the outfield conversation.
The current mess was oh-so-easily avoidable.
Easy.
Obvious.
Correct.
I understand management’s priority to win later by building for the future. That didn’t have to completely cripple and remove all possibilities to win sooner, if the young players assert themselves, which most have. Donovan could’ve been a critical missing piece to an upper tier offense.

Instead they threw in the towel before the fight and made an unnecessary desperation trade.
Problem is, with Donovan they abandoned the present (both this year and next) and received nothing that is likely help them "win later".
sikeston bulldog2
Forum User
Posts: 16447
Joined: 11 Aug 2023 16:20 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by sikeston bulldog2 »

Melville wrote: 23 Apr 2026 08:58 am
CorneliusWolfe wrote: 23 Apr 2026 08:50 am
Melville wrote: 23 Apr 2026 08:30 am I alone correctly analyzed and explained the extreme negative ramifications of the Donovan trade.
I consistently stated that Donovan should have been retained for 2026 - or until the summer deadline at a minimum.
I also stated that if Bloom was determined to make the grave error of trading Donovan, the return must include an established MLB outfielder or an MLB outfielder.
Most thought Bloom received good return for Donovan.
They were all wrong and I said so at the time.
My position was very, very clear - as well as being brilliantly correct: Donovan should have started the year as the starting LF while giving injury/performance insurance for the infield.
How much better would the lineup be if the Cardinals has simply done exactly as I advised?
Clearly, the team would be in far better shape - bot now, in the short term, and in the long term.
THAT is the key and relevant point in the outfield conversation.
The current mess was oh-so-easily avoidable.
Easy.
Obvious.
Correct.
I understand management’s priority to win later by building for the future. That didn’t have to completely cripple and remove all possibilities to win sooner, if the young players assert themselves, which most have. Donovan could’ve been a critical missing piece to an upper tier offense.

Instead they threw in the towel before the fight and made an unnecessary desperation trade.
Problem is, with Donovan they abandoned the present (both this year and next) and received nothing that is likely help them "win later".
This may be correct. The win later part is TBD. It fades with attrition.

As for Donovan. He is injured. Tit for tat.
ilcubuffs
Forum User
Posts: 1077
Joined: 30 May 2024 16:48 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by ilcubuffs »

That’s why more reps are key.”

Marmol said he and his staff have started a “deep dive” on Scott’s start the season. The goal is to identify more than areas of adjustments but also an order of “attack.”

Exactly why this putz should never be in Cardinal dugout. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. His love dad MoRan beat that failure approach to it' death.

After a 1+ yrs of Scott's performance they are going to perform a deep dive. Now we are going to cliche fans to death. This clown is always an inning behind opposing manager during in game strategy. He is a year behind in identifying player issues. Bloom this debacle is on YOU.
CorneliusWolfe
Forum User
Posts: 1887
Joined: 02 May 2025 19:12 pm

Re: Church over Scott in CF?

Post by CorneliusWolfe »

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: 23 Apr 2026 08:55 am
CorneliusWolfe wrote: 23 Apr 2026 08:50 am
Melville wrote: 23 Apr 2026 08:30 am I alone correctly analyzed and explained the extreme negative ramifications of the Donovan trade.
I consistently stated that Donovan should have been retained for 2026 - or until the summer deadline at a minimum.
I also stated that if Bloom was determined to make the grave error of trading Donovan, the return must include an established MLB outfielder or an MLB outfielder.
Most thought Bloom received good return for Donovan.
They were all wrong and I said so at the time.
My position was very, very clear - as well as being brilliantly correct: Donovan should have started the year as the starting LF while giving injury/performance insurance for the infield.
How much better would the lineup be if the Cardinals has simply done exactly as I advised?
Clearly, the team would be in far better shape - bot now, in the short term, and in the long term.
THAT is the key and relevant point in the outfield conversation.
The current mess was oh-so-easily avoidable.
Easy.
Obvious.
Correct.
I understand management’s priority to win later by building for the future. That didn’t have to completely cripple and remove all possibilities to win sooner, if the young players assert themselves, which most have. Donovan could’ve been a critical missing piece to an upper tier offense.

Instead they threw in the towel before the fight and made an unnecessary desperation trade.
But did you know they would play this well. Without Donovan. And since he’s hurt, and will be, he loses value.

The trade will be an even split.

As Dave Mason sang- there ain’t no good guys, there ain’t no bad guys; there’s just you and me, and, we just disagree- reference throwing in the towel.
I predicted a .500 or slightly better season, mostly due to addition by subtraction and I thought one of Gorman or Walker would finally break out with some actual pressure on them, which would be transformative to the offense. That plus an expected good defense and no Mikolas or Fedde + Dustin May added up to, in my mind, a fringe playoff team, which is what they are at the moment.

The Donovan injury was not yet known otherwise the trade wouldn’t have happened. If he stayed and was playing left field, it might not have happened at all.