The Hall of Fame ballot came out Monday and former Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire appeared on it for the third time. There’s a good chance he’ll get 128 votes for 2009. That’s the figure he achieved in each of his first two years of eligibility as the majority of voters appears to wrestle with his possible involvement in steroids. While McGwire’s chances are slim again this time, there is another former Cardinal who appears to have received short shrift over the years.

Q: Hi Rick,
Please help me understand something.  While the career leaders in almost every statistical category are in the Hall of Fame, for some reason the all-time leader in saves, Lee Smith, is not.  Not only is he not in the Hall, there doesn’t even seem to be a campaign to try and get him elected.  Am I missing something?  Were some of his saves “cheap”?  Is he accused of steroid use?  I know the old reason used to be “relief pitchers just don’t make it to the Hall,” but now that Sutter and Gossage have led the way, that’s no longer an issue.
I’m not a huge fan of Smith, just a baseball fan who likes to see “everything in its place.”  And it would seem logical that the all-time leader in an important category like saves would be an automatic for the Hall.  Unless I’m missing something — so enlighten me.
I enjoy your insights to the game of baseball.  Keep up the good work!
Jim Geiss
St. Charles, MO
A: Jim, thank you. This matter has puzzled me for some time and it has angered Smith, an easy-going man very slow to such emotion. His percentage of 43.3 of the votes was very disappointing last year, given that all the candidates received a spike when surefire choices Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr., weren’t at the top of the ballot anymore. For the record, Smith has been passed by Trevor Hoffman as the all-time saves leader. All I can figure is that Smith rarely was in postseason play, mostly because his teams generally just weren’t good enough. I’d hate to think that the home run he allowed to Steve Garvey to lose a key playoff game for the Cubs in San Diego in 1984 has hurt him that much. Whenever asked, I always support Smith. Let’s see if he does better this year.

***

Q: Hi Mr. Hummel;
If the Cards are still interested in signing Springer or Looper what advantage (if any) do they gain by not offering them salary arbitration?
These are two quality guys whose fruit is now hanging low for anyone to pick and they missed out on obtaining a draft pick if the two decline to take the arbitration offer.  Was fear in the minds of Cardinal management that they would choose arbitration and thereby recieve large money or is there a thought-out method to this process whereby the Cards believe they can still sign them?
Thank you sir.
A: Dave, I think GM John Mozeliak wanted to maintan his roster flexibility for potential free-agent signings in other areas. In this awful economy now, I’m sure Mozeliak didn’t want to guarnatee bigger paydays to Springer and Looper by offering them arbitration and possibly having them accept. Looper, angling for a multi-year deal, probably wouldn’t have accepted the offer,  but if he did come back, you’d have the same rotation you finished last year with. And that really wasn’t good enough.

Until somebody signs somebody, we’re not really sure where the market is going and Mozeliak didn’t want his hands tied. I’m not saying that’s necessarily the right decision, but I’m trying to give you some of the possible thinking

***

Q: Commish:
As much as I like Chris Carpenter and hope that he pitches again in 2009, it’s not something I think we should count just yet.  I think DeWitt and Mozeliak need to get busy and sign another starting pitcher as insurance just in case Carp comes up lame…again!  I think that the starter we sign should be a lefty, should be relatively young, should be capable of producing double digit wins, and should be an innings eater.  The name that comes immediately to my mind is Randy Wolf of the Houston Astros.
Now that the Astros have apparently brought Mike Hampton back, I think this would be a good  opportunity to snatch a key cog from a division rival.  Randy will be 32 on Opening Day.  He won 12 games last year (same as Braden Looper).  He pitched 190.1 innings, had 162 strikeouts and only 71 walks.  I think he would be a perfect middle of the rotation guy and is the lefty starter we really need.
If Carpenter is ready to pitch again in 2009 - great!  But, at least, we would have a capable and durable starter as an insurance policy and we could even have Pineiro and/or Brad Thompson available as swingmen or long relievers.  With a healthy Carpenter, Wainwright, Lohse, Wolf, and Wellemeyer, we could have FIVE 162+ inning guys just like we did in 2004 and 2005.  That’s when our starters were able to go deep into ball games and Cardinal pitching was at its best.
A: Randy Wolf is at the top of my list, too. But the Cardinals want to wait for medical word on Carpenter. They risk waiting too long to sign somebody like Wolf but that is their philosophy although again, not much is likely to happen before next week anyway.

***

Q: Commish- Why would the Brave keep talking about trading young shortstop Yunel Escobar @ signing Rafial Furcal?? I understand HAVING to put him in a deal for someone like Peavy BUT short of a Peavy type deal why trade a young good shortstop @ sign Furcal?? What do the Braves know that nobody else does?? Have the Cardinals talked to Furcal? Orlando Cabrera? Orlando Hudson?
A: Bryan, I’m sure the Cardinals have talked to agents for all those players. If you had a good idea, Furcal was healthy, he clearly is the best sign of the ones you mentioned. But you don’t and it would be hard for the Cardinals to throw a lot of guaranteed money at Furcal unless there would be some games-played incentives attached.

***

Q: