rostermania II: a.j.
the atlanta braves won their second nl pennant in 1992 but for the second straight year fell just short of a world championship. despite finishing 3d in the league in runs scored, their everyday lineup was full of holes -- sid bream at 1b, raffy belliard at short, mark lemke at 2b, gregg olson behind the plate. the postseason free-agent market was jam-packed. wade boggs, paul molitor, mark mcgwire, and obp specialist dave magadan were all available for upgrades at 1b; for that matter, the braves could've signed an outfielder -- barry bonds, kirby puckett, joe carter, eric davis, chili davis -- and shifted ron gant to 1b. catchers benito santiago and terry steinbach were also on the market. for the first time in ages the braves didn't need pitching; they'd led the league in era in 1992 and returned six starters with a collective era of 2.92 and an average age of 28.
so who was their lone free-agent signing that off-season? greg maddux.
rather than addressing their needs, the braves simply acted on an old clich? -- you can never have enough pitching -- and made the mad dog the highest-paid player in the game. worked out pretty well for them; atlanta went on to win 100 games or more in four of the next five full seasons (excluding strike-shortened 1994 and 1995) and haven't missed a postseason since.
there are some who believe the cardinals could/should pull a similar stunt this offseason by putting their dollars into aj burnett, relegating their obvious needs in the outfield to a lesser priority. an arkansas native, he is said to have interest in coming here, and there's no denying his appeal -- he throws hard and can make batters look helpless. over his career burnett has recorded more strikeouts (8 per 9 innings) than base hits allowed (7.5 per 9); his career era of 3.73 rates 19th among active starting pitchers. for comparison's sake, matt morris ranks 14th at 3.60, kerry wood 17th (3.67), roy halladay 18th (3.70), and mark mulder 25th (3.87).
but before we get too carried away, let's be clear about this: aj burnett ain't no greg maddux. at the time the braves signed him, maddux had led the league in games started for three consecutive years, in innings for two, and in wins for one; he was the reigning cy young award winner and a two-time all-star. guy even had three gold gloves. his career win total at the time of the signing was 96. burnett has won half as many games (49), despite being two years older than maddux was in that 1992 offseason, and aj has never led the league in anything significant. hell, he's never won more than 12 games in a season, and he has made 30+ starts only once -- last year.
regardless of which, some daring organization is going to place about a $40 million bet on this guy -- and it might be the cardinals. my instincts say this is a bad idea; few things can wreak more havoc on a franchise than way-overpaying for a pitcher. but the cards are said to be interested, and you can see where the dollars might come from. matty mo earned $6.25 million last year with incentives, and jason marquis earned $3 mill; if you let them both go (matty via free agency, marquis via trade), you free up $9.25 million -- most of burnett's likely salary on the open market, which various sources place at about $10 million per. with anthony reyes making the minimum next year, it's a virtual wash financially: $9.3 mill for morris/marquis in 2005, vs. about $10.3 mill for burnett/reyes in 2006. the two rotations overall:
| 2005 | 2006 |
|---|---|
| carpenter $2m | carpenter $5m |
| mulder $6m | mulder $7.5m |
| suppan $4m | suppan $4m |
| morris $6.2m | burnett $10m |
| marquis $3m | reyes $320K |
| TOTAL $21m | TOTAL $27m |
the overall total jumps $6 million, but three-fourths of that increase is written into the carp and mulder deals. those five pitchers look mighty nice, i'll admit -- if all remain healthy and meet expectations, it'd be the type of rotation that no one wants to face in a short series. so, however risky (foolhardy?) this course of action may be, it does merit serious reflection. i'll toss out a basic roster template today, and some variations tomorrow. the steps described hereunder: 1) burnett signs a big fat honkin' contract, 2) king and marquis get traded for prospects, 3) morris signs elsewhere, 4) sanders re-ups for a corner slot, 5) taguchi / rodriguez share the other corner, 6) a coupla new setup men arrive -- here's the team:
2006 ROSTER MATRIX
SCENARIO #2: ALL IN ON AJ
| STARTING 8 | BENCH | ROTATION | PEN |
|---|---|---|---|
| molina c ~$600K |
rodriguez of $320K |
carpenter rhp $5m |
is'hausen rhp $8.5m |
| pujols 1b $14m |
luna if $350K |
mulder lhp $7.5m |
howry rhp $3.5m |
| grud'k 2b $2.5m |
gall 1b-of $320K |
burnett rhp $10m |
eyre lhp $3m |
| rolen 3b $11m |
mabry 3b-of $600K |
suppan rhp $4m |
flores lhp ~$500k |
| eckstein ss $3.5m |
stinnett c $650k |
an reyes rhp $320K |
thompson rhp $350K |
| sanders lf $3m |
duncan 1b Memphis |
wainwright rhp Memphis |
ty johnson lhp $320K |
| edmonds cf $9.5m |
seabol 3b Memphis |
eldred rhp $750K |
|
| taguchi of $1m |
schumaker of Memphis |
cali lhp Memphis |
|
| TOTAL $44m |
TOTAL $2m |
TOTAL $27m |
TOTAL $17m |
| OVERALL | PAYROLL: | $90m |
for this basic version i'm simply assuming marquis / king return prospects, presumably ones who are far enough along to add some helpful organizational depth. tomorrow i'll put up some scenarios under which marquis/king return major-league players who step right into key roles. anyway, re the roster above: the bullpen strikes me as one arm short, and the lineup's pretty watered down -- but it'd probably make do behind this rotation.
hmmmmm . . . . .
0 recs |
14 comments
Comments
INTERESTING...
I LIKE TRADING KING AND MARQUIS FOR PROSPECTS, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO SIGN BURNETT LONG TERM, WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE TO DEAL WAINWRIGHT, TOO??? HECK, WHY NOT TRADE SOUP IF YOU CAN GET GOOD TALENT IN RETURN, AND DO THE "HELLING-LIKE" THING IN HIS SPOT - DESSENS, WASHBURN, VALDEZ - I WONDER WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR FOR JOE MAYS OR BRIAN MOEHLER???
IF YOU DEAL SOUP, TOO, THEN MAYBE YOU HAVE ENOUGH IN THE BUDGET TO SPLURGE ON AN OUTFIELDER IF NEEDED COME JULY 31ST???
FRANKLY, I LIKE THIS SCENARIO MUCH BETTER THAN GILES AT $10 MIL A YEAR FOR 5 YEARS...
by TOLAXOR on Nov 8, 2005 8:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fragile: Handle with Care
by Matt on Nov 8, 2005 10:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention
by cardsrul on Nov 8, 2005 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Aren't we forgetting about....
One thing that is impossible to predict, but still should be mentioned, is the possiblity (and probability) that the Cards sign Giles, or Burnett to a big deal that is backloaded. You're probably already there but for the not-so-quick I will provide one "Giles for 3 years and $30 million" example: 2006 - $7M, 2007 - $11M, 2008 - $12M.
I feel like this is an absolutley huge variable that is being overlooked in all these scenarios. Burnett for $45 M for four years doesn't have to mean $11.25 M for 2006. It could be much less, allowing the team to fill more holes in 2006 (with the obvious drawback coming in years to come).
Just a thought as we enjoy these great hypotheticals.
by flynn on Nov 8, 2005 12:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
that's a very good point
unfortunately all those factors make this exercise way too complicated. i'm just trying to rough things out; if jocketty's able and willing to defer big chunks of salary, he might be able to stretch his buying power and we'll all be happily surprised, at least in the short run (though we might not be so happy in three years when we owe major dollars to aging players).
but i'm not going to count on front-end discounts; not every player and/or agent will go for them.
by lboros on Nov 8, 2005 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No need to change.
As for the overpaying tail ends of those backloaded contracts, the team dealt with one in 2004 (Morris) and will probably be dealing with one in 2006 and maybe 2007 (Edmonds.) Pujols doesn't look to dissapoint (he's underpaid anyway) for the rest of the decade, and time will tell on Rolen (although his deal peaks in 2007 and then tapers down slightly.) Izzy has a big contract too, but it's pretty consistent from year to year, so you can't include him in this group.
by flynn on Nov 8, 2005 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I dig these
by rockin redbird on Nov 8, 2005 1:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
how good is reyes?
Reyes (no matter where he starts the year) ends up slotting in #3 by the end of the year to me.
Why (over) pay for A.J. (whom I love) when he still hasn't proved he can stay consistent or healthy, when we got Reyes.
Regardless though, I say trade King & Marquis for prospects and/or a young, OF with upside to make the OF younger and the organization deeper.
Instead go after another 2 yr affordable-Soup type contract (Byrd? Millwood?) or a one year "wanna turn around your career with Dunc" pitcher. Armas? Dessens? Brown?
And keep Wainwright, he may be that guy still.
3 yrs of Giles for 30 million is looking better & better to me. Those first two years will be consistent with what you'd expect (with extra HRs out of Petco) and well worth it.
It's that 3ry year that's vexing cause of age, but by how much? 2 million? 3 million, at the most? That's not really shooting yourself in the foot budget-wise.
Of course if he's looking for more than that or 5 years, he shouldn't even be considered.
by demetre on Nov 8, 2005 1:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Tony Armas
As far as the Reyes/Burnett debate, I think if we put both in the rotation next year, we'd likely finish the year with one of them on the DL.
Another thing, is Reyes ready for 100 pitches/start for a full season yet? If not, will the bullpen need a few more innings eaters?
by Valatan on Nov 8, 2005 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
good stuff
by DCGreg on Nov 8, 2005 1:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Burnett
That said - yesterday's thread convinced me that we ought to try and keep Marquis around for at least one more year. Slot Reyes into MattMo's rotation spot, and let's focus our attention on the bullpen and the corner outfield.
Last weekend's thread had me convinced that if we could get Carl Crawford, almost any price was worth it. Then I remembered that Rick Ankiel is only 26.
by STLEdge on Nov 8, 2005 3:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
According to
by cardsrul on Nov 8, 2005 3:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Braves' prospects
All of those guys played at AA or higher in 1992.
The Cardinals simply are not in the same position.
by DizzyDean17 on Nov 8, 2005 4:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Just In...
by rockin redbird on Nov 8, 2005 6:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs



















