my bet: it's burnett
this is a long post, following up on the gleeful hogwash-raking that took place here yesterday. for all i know this post will be obsolete by the time you read it -- eclipsed by other news or other rumors. even in this megabyte-a-second world, the eternal news cycle moves way too quickly . . . . but let's forge ahead.
first of all, the alleged "jocketty memo": true? a guy at northside baseball claims he heard about it from "a scout working directly for the assistant GM." (northside baseball has a glacially slow server; the link may or may not work for you.) mlbtraderumors.com had the same story from a different source. then there's bernie miklasz, who addressed the issue somewhat cryptically in a couple of posts at the pressbox:
One of my colleagues got an edgy e-mail from a Jocketty aide, basically complaining because we were talking to too many agents, and being aggressive in our attempt to gather info.
It's an interesting offseason. Walt (seems to me) is stressed, unless I am misreading him.
what does it mean? One of two possibilities: (1) he's working on some huge things, and doesn't want to risk blowing the deals. (2) he's frustrated by the market and the way things are shaping up.
now on to the substance of the rumored transaction. . . . .
two theories emerged yesterday that are propped up by at least a little bit of credible sourcing:
- the cards are getting abreu for marquis/reyes
- the cards are signing aj burnett
Now it gets better, after the deal is signed, expect a trade to happen very quickly involving Jason Marquis. Don't know who he is going to, but he is gone.
Don't expect Anthony Reyes in any trades. He is cheap and they fully expect him to start this year.
I am penciling in a rotation of Carpenter, Burnett, Mulder, Suppan, and Reyes for Opening Day.
Whenever I hear more, I will post it. I feel pretty confident in the information. If I didn't I wouldn't have posted it, I'm not trying to stir up stuff.
he's basically saying the same thing as the birdhouse's brian walton, who has pretty good insider access. his article yesterday was headlined "Playing the A.J. Waiting Game" and began: "The Cardinals are nervously waiting to see if A.J. Burnett will accept their invitation to join them. But other big players remain in the mix." sounds a lot like what Hawg said -- a burnett signing, then other transactions. also gibes with miklasz's observation that walt may be "working on some huge things, and doesn't want to risk blowing the deals." note the plural? deals. (man i'm parsing miklasz this morning . . . "parsing miklasz," sounds like the title of a spyke jonez movie). anyway, there's no real reason to doubt this -- the cards' pursuit of burnett is no secret, the signings have begun in earnest, and teams usually like to get business like this finished in advance of the winter meetings. this one comes through the bullshit test pretty clean; could be true.
now let's examine the abreu-to-cards rumor. it seems to have begun with a poster named hoopscubs at northside baseball and spread outward from there -- bernie's site, my site, sports lounge, etc etc. however, several other people out there claim to have been hearing similar things about this from independent sources. one poster at the cards clubhouse (where there's some intelligent discussion of the rumored trade) says has already heard this rumor independent of northside bball. and the guy who runs the phillies nation chat board has been getting the same tale from the phillies side; he told me he got "an email from a friend at the phillies about this deal, that usually means something is happening."
and here's a month-old thread from bernie's saying more or less the same thing -- viz., abreu for marquis and wainwright, purportedly coming straight from two phillies front-office personnel. miklasz had only one comment in that six-page thread: "i hope you are right." you could take that in one of two ways: 1) yes they are working on a deal, and i can't comment on it but i hope it goes through; or 2) this is such a crazy idea it doesn't merit a serious response. . . . . except bernie did respond, and he generally just ignores crackpot threads. (and there i go parsing poor bernie again . . . )
the rumblings may be there, but i'm having a harder time swallowing this particular bottle of hooch. first of all, this trade would leave the cards with only three-fifths of a rotation -- carp mulder suppan. so they'd have to go out and throw big dollars at a #4 (paul byrd, it has been suggested) and stick wainwright or some other inexpensive warm body into the #5 slot. the rotation would not only lose depth but also would feature only one hard-throwing postseason-type pitcher (carpenter).
moreoever, it makes no sense economically. reyes and marquis both represent payroll leverage -- the one provides 30 starts (if healthy) for $300K, while the other is roughly $5 million worth of liquidatable salary -- could be moved for a cheaper player to clear yet more payroll space. if the cards package them both for the extremely expensive abreu, they lose nearly all their maneuverability. best way to illustrate is via a matrix:
SCENARIO #7: ABREU
| STARTING 8 | BENCH | ROTATION | PEN |
|---|---|---|---|
| molina c ~$600K |
sweeney 1b-of $1m |
carpenter rhp $5m |
is'hausen rhp $8.5m |
| pujols 1b $14m |
luna if $350K |
mulder lhp $7.5m |
dotel rhp $1.5m |
| jimenez 2b $900K |
rodriguez of $320K |
byrd rhp $5m |
king lhp $2.5m |
| rolen 3b $11m |
gall 1b-of $320K |
suppan rhp $4m |
thompson rhp $330K |
| eckstein ss $3.5m |
fick c $650k |
wainwright rhp $320K |
flores lhp $400k |
| taguchi lf $1m |
duncan 1b Memphis |
warm body rhp $320K |
|
| edmonds cf $9.5m |
schumaker of Memphis |
ty johnson lhp $320K |
|
| abreu rf $13m |
cali lhp Memphis |
||
| TOTAL $53.5m |
TOTAL $3.1m |
TOTAL $22m |
TOTAL $14m |
| OVERALL | PAYROLL: | $92.6m |
what you're doing here is weakening the rotation and bullpen and skimping at 2b and left field -- all to accommodate one high-priced outfielder. doesn't make any sense. for the same money, the cardinals could just sign giles and retain all their other assets. under this plan, the 6-7-8 hitters would be gooch/rod, molina, and jimenez -- perhaps negating all the gains the abreu would bring to the offense.
the suggestion has been made that the phillies would pick up some of abreu's salary, enabling the cards to re-sign sanders or grud'k or something; but i just don't see the phils adding cash. jocketty's very talented so you never know, but as far as i'm concerned this trade only works for philadelphia if they shed abreu's entire salary and reinvest the bucks to fill other roster needs. that way the phils' return on abreu amounts to marquis, reyes, and an impact free agent -- a sensible, potentially advantageous move. but the phils' rationale falls apart if they have to throw lots of cash into the deal. they're already on the hook for $22 mill of jim thome's salary; even for a rich east coast team, that's about as much as any franchise can stand to pay for another team's players.
no cash equals no trade, if you ask me. the cards might have explored options with the phillies, which would explain the whispers being heard by our motley collection of sources; but i don't believe this is going to happen.jocketty's too budget-minded (and i mean that in a good way) and too focused on building a strong pitching staff.
so my bet's on burnett.
0 recs |
22 comments
Comments
bernie's motivation
I agree with you on the Abreu thing, noted the farout-ness of it yesterday in a Diaspora post noting my ultimate disagreement with it.
Burnett make way more sense in an NL Central taken over by "Big Threes"
by VanRam on Nov 30, 2005 9:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
mistake
Another thing that doesn't make sense about it, is that the Phillies have kind of an unwritten mandate to compete. Trading that many runs for a rookie pitcher and a middling quality starter does nothing for a rotation led by a vastly overrated John Lieber, unless of course, those two were merely trading chips, a risky move for trading a legitmate 30/30 superstar.
by VanRam on Nov 30, 2005 10:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Money?
My speculation would be that there could be a 3 way going on here. I'm surprised no one has speculated on a Philadelphia/St. Louis/Oakland trade involving Abreu, Marquis, perhaps Wainright, Zito, etc.
by sdrone on Nov 30, 2005 10:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
so if i follow you sdrone
that framework makes some sense --- and if the cards are sending wainwright, and not reyes, i could even endorse that idea
by lboros on Nov 30, 2005 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
to complete my thought
could work . . . .
my bet's still on burnett
by lboros on Nov 30, 2005 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
more...
I also wonder how much Walt would give up. I'm trying to figure out a scenario where we give up more (throw Reyes in? Rodriguez?) and we somehow end up with Zito AND Abreu. But I can't really make that work. Philly isn't getting enough; Walt is good, but not that good.
by sdrone on Nov 30, 2005 10:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
middle relief
by VanRam on Nov 30, 2005 11:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
A's depth ...
by WillieMcGeeModelingCompany on Nov 30, 2005 11:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Could it be that Morris is hanging things up?
by Red in Chicago on Nov 30, 2005 11:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Any truth to the rumor
by salvomania on Nov 30, 2005 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
one reason it could still happen
The Phils have an outfield prospect in Shane Victorino, who may be a young cheap version, of Abreu. Last year in AAA Victorino hit -.377/ .534/ .310 and stole 17 bases, hit 16 triples and 18 homeruns.
He's probably to good to sit in AAA for another year and the Phils may be looking to make room for him and with the money they save sign a closer like Hoffman or Wickman, and still have more to spend on whatever other holes they may have
by erik on Nov 30, 2005 11:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps
After next year, Abreu would essentially take over Edmonds' spot on the payroll and in terms of producing, so it becomes less painful.
Meanwhile, you have both for 2006, to try and get the team over the hump while the current core is still all around.
If you defer some of Abreu's money, and the Phils eat a little less of his salary, then I don't see the trade as being all that crazy, particularly considering the injury-proneness of Reyes.
by Valatan on Nov 30, 2005 11:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Scary comps
Of his Top 10 most-similar players, after their Age 29 seasons they combined to throw 583 innings total, over the course of their careers. And 442 of those innings came from ex-Cardinal Bill McGee in 1940-42.
Even scarier: Fully seven of the 10 pitchers on that list threw ZERO pitches after their Age 29 seasons. (One of the seven, Vicente Padilla, just turned 28.)
2006 is Burnett's Age 29 season.
by salvomania on Nov 30, 2005 11:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Although I just realized...
So ignore my previous ignorant post.
by salvomania on Nov 30, 2005 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Still, even his "Through Age 28 Comps"
Between 10 pitchers, after their Age 29 seasons, just 7 combined seasons of league-average starting pitching (162ip with ERA+ of 100): Three by Joaquin Andujar, three by Steve Renko, and one by Erik Hanson.
by salvomania on Nov 30, 2005 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
From Joe Sheehan at today's BP (subscriber)
And he's going to end up with a five-year contract, quite possibly for more than $70 million.
Here are two frightening stat lines for you, in each case, the career numbers of the players when they gained free agency:
ERA IP H BB SO HR WARP
A.J. Burnett 3.73 854.2 719 377 753 66 21.4
Darren Dreifort 4.28 667.0 636 281 581 68 15.8
Burnett's edges come largely because Dreifort spent more time as a reliever and pitched in a somewhat higher offensive era.
There are other similarities, both stylistic and statistical. Both pitchers were adored by scouts, both threw hard, both had injury histories. Both hit the market after their age-28 season, which was their second-best to date. Dreifort signed a five-year, $55-million deal with the Dodgers, and proceeded to throw 205 2/3 innings with a 4.64 in 2001. No, wait...that's what he did over the entire duration of the contract.
Darren Dreifort is to 2000 what A.J. Burnett is to 2005. I wouldn't sign Burnett with your money.
by salvomania on Nov 30, 2005 1:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That's why
Given that our meltdown in the playoffs the last two seasons has little to do with starting pitching, why on earth would that be the offseason priority?
With all due respect, but for the exact opposite reasons, that's why I concluded that it was not Burnett. And 5 years?!? Burnett would have to be willing to take an extremely incentive-laden deal to get 5 years I would think, which could make some economic sense in that it would protect from injury.
I just don't get it - and this isn't even considering my opinion that he's a head case and a quitter.
by STLEdge on Nov 30, 2005 2:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
here's the case for burnett
he's a power pitcher, the lack of which has hurt the cards the past two postseasons
he also is a groundball pitcher
his dERA (similar to f-i era) was 4.17, better than any cardinal starter except carpenter.
agreed that he's a high-risk, high-reward type of player. if you get lucky, he may help bring you a championship. if you get unlucky, he may keep you from making the playoffs.
caution never won a championship --- i say go for it.
by lboros on Nov 30, 2005 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Response
I'm still operating under the assumption that the Cards can afford one impact player for 2006. If I had my druthers, that player would not be a starting pitcher. Mark Mulder pitched two LCS games last year with a 3.09 ERA (and had a 2.45 overall postseason ERA) and lost them both. The fact that he was facing a "power" pitcher isn't as relevant to me as the fact that he got beat by a better pitcher in both games.
But I suppose you're making the argument that if we had Burnett going up against Oswalt in those two games, we have a better chance to win? I thought the accepted wisdom was that our bats were flat cold (just as they were in the 04 WS).
That's why my #1 numero uno top priority is a veteran bat, the more of those we have in the lineup, the less likely it is that they all flame out in the playoffs and leave Pujols by his lonesome again.
I'm open to an argument that for some reason crafty pitchers like Suppan and Greg Maddux (how's that for a comparison!) do not do as well in the playoffs as hard throwers like Oswalt and John Smoltz, but I can't wrap my head around why that would necessarily be so - it might be so because a particular pitcher is hot at playoff time (e.g. Beckett '03), but couldn't a "hot" playoff pitcher be a crafty veteran (Tim Wakefield? Does Buehrle qualify here?)
by STLEdge on Nov 30, 2005 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because...
Think about the '04 world series. SEveral columnists pointed out that Cardinal pitchers had lived by nibbling at the edges successfully all season and that they either weren't hitting those edges (Morris, for instance) or weren't getting the calls.
Power pitchers can fall back on their power to get around this issue.
by sdrone on Nov 30, 2005 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Power
by flynn on Dec 1, 2005 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cards flush with Cash?
Obvious example, the Yanks spend 200 Mill unwisely and still make huge profits, cause they CAN.
So consider...
- The Cards are normally a $90 million team
- MLB teams are flush with internet, satellite, and TV deal cash
- New Busch should generate tons of corporate luxury box $$$
- The DeWitt group is shamelessly (and may I add, embarrassingly) selling every single piece of Busch from the pennats to the friggin toilets.
MLB owner greed aside the answer seems to be yes.
So then overpaying in years & money for Burnett, while adding Abreu doesn't seem so crazy.
And pardon me for salivating over:
Eckstein
Abreu (TLR likes a little pop in the two spot)
Pujols
Rolen
Edmonds
by demetre on Nov 30, 2005 2:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs




















