La Russa was one of the people who brought us into the whole idea of rigid roles for relievers (although others had played with the idea of assigning roles to a setup man/closer combination, with Davis/Gossage coming to mind).  It would be interesting if he's the man to move us out of that mind set. 

The Red Sox tried this reluctantly in 2003.  They were forced into this strategy by not having anyone good enough to be the closer.  Boston moved to the standard model the next season by picking up Keith Foulke.  Even with the committee, they game within a pitching change of making the World Series in 2003.  If Milwaukee and St. Louis can pull this off, maybe the mind set will change to using the right pitcher in the right situation, rather than waiting for the ninth inning to bring in a closer with a three-run lead.

I suspect pitchers will resist this, however.  Right now, teams pay big money for closers.  If this is seen as diminishing the need for one great pitcher to finish the game, I suspect pitchers will start complaining about need to know their roles.  I hope their managers explain that there will simply be a pecking order, with the best pitcher brought in to handle the toughest situations.  Relievers will then be able to use WPA as a bargaining chip, rather than the number of saves they accumulate.  In that case, everybody wins.