TOWER GROVE -- It's happened twice in the past couple weeks -- once in a win, once in spectacular loss -- and each time St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa says the same thing in different words.

Leads are fragile. Protect them at all costs.

Continuing what could become a regular entry here at Bird Land, I thought we'd take a look at another debate we've had in the press box and on Twitter in the previous two weeks. This one revolves around the use of the bullpen and the role of the long reliever. Yesterday's discussion about first-pitch swinging continues to be a poll stalement -- with the vote split 50/50 after more than 750 clicks. (Again, where have you got 3,600 votes?)

THE SETUP & ACTION: Consider either example. In Colorado on July 6, the Cardinals had an ample lead and a start ejected from the game earlier than hoped. Blake Hawksworth yielded the mound after throwing just five innings. Instead of going to a long reliever to preserve the Cardinals' 6-2 lead, La Russa unleashed the arms -- he used a series of five relievers, starting with setup man Kyle McClellan to start the sixth inning, and everyone knows how the game ended. Two three-run homers from the Rockies upended the score and the Cardinals lost, 12-9.

This past weekend against the Dodgers, rookie Jaime Garcia lasted only 3 1/3 innings against LA. The Cardinals led 5-2 in the fourth when La Russa began a parade of six relievers to hold onto the lead. The team's longer reliever at the time, lefty Evan MacLane, did not appear in the game. The bullpen allowed two runs on five hits. Both of the runs came of righty Jason Motte. And the Cardinals won, 8-4, with Kyle McClellan earning the win for his 1 2/3 innings of work.

THE QUESTION: In both of these short-start games, should the Cardinals (i.e., La Russa) gone to the long reliever to absorb innings with a lead rather then testing/taxing the bullpen?

THE DEBATE: Several members of the Cardinals' media klatch believe that it is a mistake to ask the bullpen to handle more innings than designed. They cite the rupture in Colorado as an example. Had La Russa allowed the relievers to, say, stay in their lanes and not asked them to shoulder leftover innings then maybe the last couple innings of that game go differently. Maybe they are better setup to handle the next day, when a five-run lead vanished.

I don't see it that way, especially not at Coors Field.

Had the Cardinals been behind in either situation, then bring on the long reliever, be it Brad Thompson, Blake Hawksworth or MacLane. Whomever. That's the job, and leave up to the offense to get back in the game. That's what happened Sunday when MacLane did pitch. Turns out his scoreless inning was an important inning because as a few Cardinals said the next day if he gives up a run or two then that rally in the ninth doesn't happen or doesn't matter.

Pitching with a lead is a different animal.

We've seen several times since La Russa arrived -- and we see it with other teams, too -- when they have the lead and a starter out early in come the relievers, the specialists, the late-game flamethrowers. Managers often unload the bullpen to protect a lead, even if it means risking the relievers and their availability the next day. ("You can always make a (roster) move," said one Cardinal official a few days ago.) As La Russa said last season -- I believe -- leads are "fragile." Bring out the bubblewrap.

The counterpoint to this, of course, is that the long reliever is there for a reason. He is a major-league pitcher. And he should be able to hold a lead, too. If a team/manager is unwilling to use him in these situations -- why is he in the majors to begin with?

"What I believe is you manage every inning to make it difficult to score," La Russa said in Colorado when asked about his use of the relievers in the loss. "Once you get a lead like that, you're going to try to snuff out (shenanigans) before they get back in the game."

The best way La Russa believes a team can do that is to dispatch the late-inning relievers even if it's the middle innings.

What say you?

***

Got another topic for us to debate? Got something that has really sparked an exchange of views at the bar, with friends, in Section 203? Goodness knows this season hasn't lacked for conflicting views.

-30-