Is someone irreplaceable?

Sometimes baseball fans, even the most knowledgeable ones, tend to fall for their team’s superstar and will argue until the cows come home that the player is irreplaceable. That’s right?

Let’s lay down the ground rules before the debate. We’re talking about professional sports, baseball in particular, where money talks and players can be obtained or discarded at will. Amateur sports are a completely different situation.

I personally believe that any player can be replaced and if done with intelligence and foresight, the transition to the new player could be painless for the team. I’ll use the St. Louis Cardinals as my example.

Albert Pujos is arguably the best baseball player of his time. Albert owned St. Louis and the city loved him because he was everything a player could be on and off the field. If he had remained a Cardinal for his entire career, he would most likely have become the second most admired player behind Stan (The Man) Musial.

The contracts end and with the negotiations comes the issue of money. Surprise surprise. Pujos left the Cardinals for more money offered by the Angels and while I have to admit I could have made the same decision in his position, I and a million other St. Louis fans were pretty disappointed.

However, the reason for your departure is not the problem. The problem is that a baseball team, which was essentially built around a superstar whose departure creates a huge gap on the offensive and defensive end of the game, can compete at a high level without a readjustment period for the team from one or two seasons?

The Cardinals didn’t run out and stole an equal superstar in an attempt to replace the one they lost. Instead, they readjusted their lineup, moved players around defensively, and not only survived, but thrived the first season without their incredible superstar.

What makes this more incredible is that the Cardinals lost their future Hall of Fame manager, Tony Larusa, the same year. He was replaced by a manager who had never managed a baseball team at the major league level. The scenario of having a team devastated by losing their superstar player and an inexperienced rookie manager inheriting these issues, but making the playoffs that same year is truly unbelievable.

Still not proof that they are all replaceable? OK, fast forward to the 2013 baseball season, same team.

From opening day to May, @ month and a half the Cardinals lost:

1. Chris Carpenter, Cy Young Award winner and injury staff ace.
2. Jaime Garcia, their only left-handed starting pitcher through injury.
3. Jake Westbrook, a sinker ball expert in the starting rotation due to injury.
4. Kyle Lohse, leading game winner last year due to contract issues.

This is almost the entire pitching staff for the team that was 1 win away from going to the World Series. Throwing is the name of the game and the Cardinals had lost everything.

However, as of June 4, the St. Louis Cardinals have the best record in baseball, not just in their conference, better than any team in baseball term. How do you explain that if the players are irreplaceable?

What is the point of this article? One to prove a point for both young players and coaches, a team is never just one person, superstar or not. They should never consider throwing in the towel because their best pitcher or hitter goes on vacation.

Second, giving trainers something to put in their memory banks for future use in case they run into a cocky superstar along the way. A young player with all the talent in the world, but with an attitude problem, he will never play minor league baseball just to make it to the show.