Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: RSL Soapbox for Real Salt Lake Fans!

the good news: cards sign ryan franklin

Update [2007-1-11 15:52:57 by lboros]: Erik and Mrs. Erik had a healthy baby boy --- Landon James. add'l info at this diary. congrats and blessings to the new parents.[end update]

i checked in with will carroll, who wrote the book (literally) on pitching injuries, to ask him what we can reasonably expect out of mark mulder in 2007. his response:

I don't think we have any idea where this is going to go. I think the best comp here is Matt Morris. Similar, but not identical injuries. Similar styles (different throwing hands, obviously).

The mid-season target seems reasonable.

at the time of mulder's surgery last september, carroll wrote this in his Under the Knife column at Baseball Prospectus:
Mark Mulder had successful surgery last week, but what does that mean? All surgery where the problem is corrected and the patient wakes up can be qualified as successful. What Cards fans want to know is if Mulder might come back as something near what he was. (Of course, Cards fans might not care if Walt Jocketty elects to let Mulder move on.) Mulder had a repair of his shoulder, specifically focused on the rotator cuff. The expected debridement became more significant once the shoulder was visualized, making this surgery much more like the 2005 surgery on Kerry Wood than the 2004 surgery on Matt Morris. Mulder faces a long road and a likely change in style when he does return.
the reference to kerry wood does not exactly inspire confidence. wood had his pitching shoulder cut on in late august 2005 and threw his next big-league pitch 9 months later, on may 18, 2006; he lasted only 4 starts before returning to the DL --- for the season, as it turned out. i scoured the archives looking for other examples, to see how other guys who've had the same surgery fared in their comeback seasons. between will carroll's archives at BP, some medical-journal searches, and plain old google, i came up with a list of about 30 names. and there are at least another 30 listed in USS Mariner's "attrition war" compilation, which examines injuries to high-ranking pitching prospects. you're never heard of most of those casualties, because the injury ruined them before they got a chance to get established.

but a lot of guys you have heard of came back from rotator-cuff surgery; that's the good news. the bad news is that only one of them came back to pitch with any degree of effectiveness within 10 months of his surgery: roger clemens, who was operated on in late august 1985 and returned the following april --- less than 8 months after surgery --- to post one of the best seasons in recent memory, 24-4 with a 2.48 era. he won the mvp and cy young awards that year. another pitcher, jimmy key, returned to action in april 1996, just 9 months after having rotator-cuff surgery, and had a decent season: 12-11 with a 4.68 era. the caveat is that he was absolutely awful for the first 2 months of his comeback; through june 5, his record stood at 2-6 with a 7.06 era. from that point --- 11 months post-surgery --- forward, key was very good: 10-5 with a 3.65 era. mulder will reach the 11-month point in his recovery in mid-august.

below is a list of the rotator-cuff recoverees who most resemble mulder --- starting pitchers who'd achieved some degree of success before getting hurt. i won't claim it is a complete list, but i bet it's pretty close. if anybody knows of others (starting pitchers only), add 'em below:

date of
surgery
age at
surgery
date of
return
length of
rehab
year 1
record
year 2
record
scott elarton 9/99 23 4/23/00 7 mos 17-7, 4.81 4-10, 7.06
casey fossum 9/03 25 5/14/04 8 mos 4-15, 6.65 8-12, 4.92
aaron sele 9/02 32 5/9/03 8 mos 7-11, 5.77 9-4, 5.05
joey hamilton 9/99 28 8/19/00 11 mos 2-1, 3.55
(6 starts)
6-10, 5.93
orel hershiser 5/90 31 5/29/91 12 mos 7-2, 3.46 10-15, 3.67
tony armas jr 5/03 25 6/1/04 13 mos 2-4, 4.88
(16 starts)
7-7, 4.97
el duque 5/03 37 7/11/04 14 mos 8-2, 3.30
(15 starts)
9-9, 5.12
ramon martinez 6/98 30 9/2/99 15 mos 2-1, 3.05
(4 starts)
10-8, 6.13
carlos hernandez 2/03 23 8/14/04 18 mos 1-3, 6.43
(9 starts)
n/a
bret saberhagen 10/95 31 8/22/97 22 mos 0-1, 6.58
(6 starts)
15-8, 3.96
justin thompson 8/99 26 8/18/05 72 mos 0-0, 21.50 n/a
dave fleming 10/95 25 n/a n/a n/a n/a

the players are ranked in order of the time it took them to get back on the mound --- shortest to longest. the top guy on this list, elarton, had a comeback similar to jimmy key's: he returned too soon and performed miserably, with a 7.11 era through his first dozen starts in 2000. the same goes for fossum, who came back after an 8-month layoff and posted an era of 7.64 over his first 18 starts post-surgery, and aaron sele, who put up an era of 7.01 in the 1st dozen or so starts after his premature return. don't overlook joey hamilton as a comp; he was the same age as mulder at the time of his surgery and had a somewhat similar path, pitching extremely well through age 25 and then slowly crumbling under the weight of faulty mechanics and declining peripherals. despite a triumphant 6-start return from surgery in august 2000, he was never the same pitcher after the injury.

continuing down the list from this point, all of the rehabs are at least a full year in duration --- which, if applied to mulder, would mean a september 2007 return. even at this point of the table, not all the stories are pretty. hershiser scuffled for most of his first year back; as late as labor day his era was worse than league average, but he prettied up his final line with a stellar september --- 16 months post-surgery. el duque waited more than a year before he started pitching again, and the patience paid off: he had a great comeback season, the best on this chart. but saberhagen didn't recover effectiveness until nearly 3 full years after his surgery; if it take mulder that long, his contract will be expired before he's a useful player again. ramon martinez, pedro's older brother, was at the peak of his career when the injury hit him; after his 6.13 era in his "comeback" season he stopped playing. justin thompson was a 15-game winner and former all-star whose big-league career was essentially ended by this surgery; in the 3 years following his operation he only took the mound 3 times, all in the minors. dave fleming went 30-15 over his first two-plus seasons but never threw a single pitch after his rotator-cuff operation. carlos hernandez's promising career had just begun; now it may be over.

it's not an encouraging track record, at least where starting pitchers are concerned. (i didn't look closely at the many relievers who've come back from this surgery.) aside from clemens, all the guys who resumed pitching less than 11 months after rotator-cuff surgery pitched abysmally for the first 2 to 4 months, at least, post-surgery; those who took longer to come back have what could generously be described as a spotty record. maybe mulder will be a rare case; maybe he'll come back in july and go 8-4 with a 4.25 era the rest of the way. but the odds are strongly against it, based on the evidence i've been able to find so far. for that matter, the odds are strongly against mulder's ever regaining his former level of ability, or even coming close to it; those few pitchers who played a number of years after the surgery (hershiser, hamilton, el duque) came back greatly diminished, although el duque was able to regain his old form for half a year. only clemens has been able to get back to his former level and stay there --- and he was 22 when he had his surgery.

and was roger clemens.

conclusion: mulder shouldn't be counted on to provide any help in the short term, ie in 2007. if we're lucky, he might start pitching at a league-average level by august --- but it would be imprudent to depend on that. so the rotation remains a big problem. having looked at all these rotator-cuffers, i have to wonder why the cardinals considered mulder a better gamble than john thomson. thomson has shoulder issues too, but he's rehabbing them nonsurgically; he'll be ready to pitch opening day, and he only cost $500,000 guaranteed, plus incentives.

as for the other pitcher the cardinals signed yesterday --- ryan franklin, for a $1 million guarantee --- i actually like that signing quite a bit better than the mulder deal. to my eye, it's 50-50 that franklin outperforms mulder in 2007.

0 recs  |  Comment 108 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

mulder / franklin
>>as for the other pitcher the cardinals signed yesterday --- ryan franklin, for a $1 million guarantee --- i actually like that signing quite a bit better than the mulder deal. to my eye, it's 50-50 that franklin outperforms mulder in 2007.<<

But will either Mulder or Franklin outperform what we would have gotten from Thompson / Narveson (for chump change)?

by jjray on Jan 11, 2007 9:40 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

i don't know
if they would have. i don't even know if it's an either/or. they could have stayed patient and waited for a better option to develop --- stuck with that status quo, supplement it with low-cost people like franklin / thomson, and save the $$$ until there's an option that has a realistic chance to make a positive impact.

this just looks like a large longshot bet to me ---- prob'y a lot of money spent to make the team nominally better, if at all.

by lboros on Jan 11, 2007 9:47 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

mulder
I'm in agreement with you--should have had the managerial stones to stay pat.  Thanks for the research on pitchers coming back from rotator cuff.  Quite a gamble when the history of this surgery is that the first year post-op is a wash.  I would have punted on Mulder, taken the pic, gone with the kids and placed my money on landing pitching help at the deadline.

by jjray on Jan 11, 2007 10:50 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Good Research
I'd tried to put together a set of pitchers who'd come back from a similar injury a month or so ago with little success. Nice job.

by liam on Jan 11, 2007 9:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The Upside for This Deal is Long Term, Not Short
My primary objection to this deal is the perception, which I think is mistaken, that Mulder has any significant role to play in 2007.  I think that's a hell of a gamble, and the Cards are best advised to dismiss the possibility as wishful thinking.

As LBoros has convincingly demonstrated, there's a reasonable chance that he improves the team--substantially, not nominally--in 2008.  But in order to obtain that benefit, we likely need to give Mulder the year off.

My point: The job of fashioning an '07 rotation remains incomplete.  We need another starter.

So says, The Dude

by Titus Pullo on Jan 11, 2007 11:18 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

well said...
good post.  nice insight.
o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 11:21 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

well said
the job of building the rotation is incomplete --- and (for the millionth time) that has always been my objection to this signing. as i said a week ago:

"a mulder signing would be worse than no signing at all, imho, because it would make the cards apt to sit back and count on mulder for their midseason rotation boost, instead of aggressively pursuing walk-year pitchers who hit the market as the trade deadline approaches. jake westbrook and mark buehrle are both pending free agents and prime candidates to be moved; see derrick goold's entry at Bird Land today for a long list of other players who might shake free on that basis. if they have mulder in their hip pocket, the cards won't feel the same urgency to bring in reinforcements. but mulder, whenever he returns, is just as likely to undermine the rotation as stabilize it. . . . "

sorry to keep repeating myself.

by lboros on Jan 11, 2007 11:23 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It needs to be repeated, Larry.
I have the same fear, but I guess it's out of our control.  We don't know what the Cardinals' brass is thinking.  

I am cautiously optimistic about this signing.  It will all depend on the medical staff's rehab philosophy.

The Franklin signing is great and good...but Goold seems to think that they will still go with a "bullpen start" for the 5th spot "until Mulder is ready."  And this scares me.

I wonder if Weaver will be pursued at all by the Cards anymore.  My guess would be no.  But Jocketty better not stop shopping around.

Man I hope they are going to stay conservative on this one.

by silent_bob on Jan 11, 2007 12:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Rehab philosophy
The Cards medical staff rehab philosophy appears to be: "If the player says he feels fine, then heck, let him play."

by blove121 on Jan 11, 2007 2:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

at least...
the contract incentives appear to be appearence-based.  That is to say, now the team will  have a financial interest in keeping him out of games.
o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 2:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Matt Morris
...might be the only positive reinforcement we have for usage in the second half.  
All my friends became Cardinal fans and grew up happy and liberal. I became a Cub fan and grew up imbittered and conservative." -- George Will

by wannabeGedman on Jan 11, 2007 3:14 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It's pretty obvious
that you ABSOLUTELY can not rush a pitcher back to the mound after a rotator cuff repair.  I have stated it before, and I'll state it again, it would be career suicide for Mulder to do so.  

The problem that may arise, in my medical opinion, is that Mulder will likely "feel great" before his shoulder is completely sound.  And a mistake could be made, AKA him taking the mound before August.

I say this because if you remember, Mulder denied feeling any shoulder discomfort while pitching last year, despite having a torn tendon.  Usually with impingement and rotator cuff damage, there is significant pain with overhead movements, and especially with the "late cocking" stage of throwing.

by silent_bob on Jan 11, 2007 9:47 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

silent bob, thanks
for weighing in on this. i am far from an expert on medical matters. do you know of other examples i have left out, or other factors (other than time) which might inform mulder's recovery, that i have failed to consider?

by lboros on Jan 11, 2007 9:49 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I looked before,
when we had an earlier conversation about it - but you were much more successful at finding major league examples than I was.

by silent_bob on Jan 11, 2007 9:50 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

thanks a lot for all the injury info..
this is something i have been curious to know more about. i appreciate your expertise.
o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 10:27 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

But,
"Mulder denied feeling any shoulder discomfort while pitching last year, despite having a torn tendon."

Didn't he have labrum issues? Is that the "torn tendon" you're talking about? Now, I don't know for sure, but doesn't a labrun tear itself not cause any pain? I've played with guys who had torn labrums and didn't realize it for awhile, until they started unconsciously compensating for it, which caused a different injury, which led the doctors to find the labrum tear.

Again, I have no actual idea, this is pure speculation. But I'm still in favor of the Mulder signing.

by Jhusk on Jan 11, 2007 2:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

NO TORN LABRUM
I'm sure of this...and I confirmed it with my friend who is a nurse's assistant with Dr. Paletta.

by silent_bob on Jan 12, 2007 12:46 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

A Competitor
I remember how heartbreaking it was when Carpenter re-injured himself in 2003—throwing too hard, too soon to show Jocketty that he was worth the risk.

Here's hoping Carp and the entire organization have learned the lesson from that and will make sure Mulder rehabs carefully.

"Make speed without haste."

by liam on Jan 11, 2007 9:52 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

John Thompson
Remember that John Thompson's deal is worth 4MM if he reaches his incentives.  If Mulder can be an effective pitcher by August we will get or $ worth.

All we are asking him to do this year is be a #4 starter.  If we can find our way into the post season and he is doing well, he can take Wainrights rotation spot and we can have a lights out bullpen again.  

2006 Cardinals- An underdog story

by Born in 82 on Jan 11, 2007 9:48 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

but thomson will have to pitch
a full season, and pitch well, to earn his $4m. mulder gets paid $5m even if he has a 10.00 era.

by lboros on Jan 11, 2007 9:49 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

True...
But I dont think the 5MM will keep us from improving our team if necessary.  By my count we still have appx 9MM to spend.

Could we get an updated roster matrix to confirm that?

2006 Cardinals- An underdog story

by Born in 82 on Jan 11, 2007 9:51 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'll tell you
why Thompson wasn't persued. Two words:

Todd Stottlemyre.

When he went to the D'backs after his stint with the Cards, he had "shoulder issues" that he "repaired nonsurgically" with weights, thera-band, etc. The only problem was, after that, he sucked, and he ended up having to have surgery anyway.

by Jhusk on Jan 11, 2007 2:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Its risky,
but I think that the Cards have some information that we don't.  I am scared of the prospect of Mulder going back to the mound too early;
but I'm also encouraged by his low pain levels and ability to pitch while the tendon was obviously torn.  Mulder is also relatively young, and he, from all indications, is a superb athlete.  I've found that young, naturally great athletes tend to have a more favorable outcome from these types of surgery.

by silent_bob on Jan 11, 2007 9:53 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Franklin/Thompson/Looper
The John Thomson point is a valid one, in that he would be a much cheaper option than Mulder. What I don't understand is the continued fascination with Brad Thompson and Braden Looper. Thompson got shipped to the minors last season because of his pitching, didn't he? And Looper has a history of being ineffective in ONE-INNING outings, let alone acting as a starter. Ryan Franklin was not terribly effective last seaon either. Just because they are cheaper does not equal better. Sure, it's possible that they might contribute more than Mulder this season, but there also has to be some acknowledgement of the histories of these guys. We're not talking about consistently effective pitchers here. Mulder's deal does have some upside if he is able to recover properly. Now, having said all that, I think they still need another starter to fortify the rotation. Weaver would be nice, but if they signed a guy like Armas or Ohka that would also help.
Cards fan in Denver

by TurdFerguson on Jan 11, 2007 10:21 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

good theory
I like the idea that the Cardinals have some info we don't.  I would hope they wouldn't make a $13mil gamble without doing the same research as lboros (thanks lboros!), so surely they should have at least as much as we see here, if not more.

by john vb on Jan 11, 2007 10:31 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

no doubt they have better information
than i do. the question is what do they do with it. they had better information on mulder than all of us did last season; they still kept running him out there when everyone on the planet could see he was incapable of pitching effectively.

by lboros on Jan 11, 2007 11:19 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i concur
I'm suprised by all the aprehensive posts... the cardinals aren't throwing away ridiculous money.  It is a risk.  However, with a guy like Mulder, I'd be willing to take that chance.  The guy has been a winner his whole career.  It's okay to take a healthy risk on a winner, in my book.

by jose smokeindo on Jan 11, 2007 11:16 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Why Franklin?
I suppose he's cheap, but I was getting excited about a youth movement, and I don't see what this soon-to-bee 34-year-old brings to the table other than...

-a consistantly below-average K/9 rate
-a walk rate that has increased every year for 5 years running
-a consistantly high HR/9 rate
-historical flyball tendancies

I would rather give the youngsters a shot.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 10:23 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Agreed
Unless I am missing something you could offer J. Williams the same amount and the money would be better spent there imo (b/c he would still have a few years under Cards control thereafter)...

by Lawless on Jan 11, 2007 10:29 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Then again
Woody Williams was an older guy with not great stats when we picked him, so heard me into the in Walt I trust pack (i know, i know, Ponson)

by Lawless on Jan 11, 2007 10:30 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm with you...
At least Jerome Williams (or one of the young kids in our system) is still young and would at least offer the possibility...hope...dream...whatever that he could still get it together and have a great career.  Franklin has already shown his cards (so to speak) and appears to be a lock for a 4.7ish ERA.  At least younger kids would offer the possibility of improving.  I don't see Franklin getting it together at 34.
o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 10:34 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

perhaps
he's just being brought in for some ST competition and a little insurance. I think 1 mill is quite reasonable for that role.

by Birds on the Matt on Jan 11, 2007 10:38 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

yeah, I guess...
but I feel like that's what they said about Ponson, and he was going to get a spot no matter what.  If they're even thinking for a second about sliding Wainwright back to the 'pen I'm going to flip.

Plus I feel like...

Narveson
Tankersley
Hawksworth
Thompson
Looper

could all be as good as Franklin.  I suppose in baseball dollars $1MM isn't that much.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 10:42 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Pitch to contact...
I don't even see the room for Dave Duncan's pitch-to-contact strategy to work.  Looking at Franklin's numbers, he has posted below-average BABIP against every year of his career.  I don't think that even our defense could help him that much.  

Sorry I'm such a negative Nancy.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 10:37 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, quite Frankly... (I made a pun!)
I easily see Franklin having more value out of
the bullpen than as a starter. We'll certainly
see Franklin compete for the #5 slot in the
rotation... as he should. But I'm already seeing
everyone freak out that Fanklin is going to steal
time from Reyes/Nav'/Wainer; this isn't necessarily
going to be the case. Depending on how spring
training goes, I think we're going to see our
young guys have a legitimate shot at the rotation.
Franklin is basically an insurance policy. If we
don't use him as a starter, he'll work out of the
bullpen... and will likely perform better there.
For $1Mil, I've seen worse uses of a BP spot.

I guess what I want everyone to hear is that just
because Franklin has a history of starts does not
automatically mean our young guys are going to
lose opportunity to make starts.

-ShawnD

by lostraven on Jan 11, 2007 10:51 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

do we have room in the bullpen?
Kinney
Hancock
Thompson
Looper
Johnson
Rincon
Flores
Isringhausen
Springer...

I suppose its a good problem to have.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 11:05 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Simply amazing...
Great information, lboros, a really comprehensive view of the surgery and realistic outcomes of recovery.  I think the Cardinals are addicted to the idea of a Cinderella story, a la Carpenter.  I suppose he's young-ish, but $13MM of committed money is a lot to bet on him returning to a staff #2
o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 10:31 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

how?
how is that alot? 5.5 is what marquis made last year. He has the potential to out perform full-season marquis in a half season. It really doesn't seem like that big of a gamble.

by Birds on the Matt on Jan 11, 2007 10:40 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

$13million
IS a lot of money.  Mulder is a pitcher that, when healthy, fits the Cardinals mold quite nicely.  I like the guy.  But the historical examples are less than optimistic with refference to this surgery, and those are really the best predictors we have for what is to come.  I'd love to see it work out, but it is far from 100%.

$13MM is more than the ammount we were short on trading for Vazquez and signing Burnett last offseason.  This organization's pockets are deep, but they aren't bottomless.  $13MM will make a difference.

And if we're talking marquis... $6.5MM annually is only $500k short of what Marquis' new contract is worth.  He is, if nothing else, healthy.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 10:46 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

NO
$13 million over 2 years is not a lot of money. That's nothing in today's market.

They passed on Burnett because it was $55 million over 5 years. That's not even close to 2 years, $13 million.

The Cards had $16 million "left over". Maybe they shouldn't have spent it on Mulder (if that's your opinion that's cool), but to say they can't afford that is silly in my opinion.

by themang on Jan 11, 2007 10:57 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Burnett, etc.
I was saying that the difference in the contracts offered 4/44 from the Cards and 5/55 from the bluejays was less than a $13MM difference.  Just to clarify.

I understand that in todays market $13MM is relatively small, but it isn't worthless.  Think of it this way... we're paying 30% more from 1.5 questionable seasons from Mulder than we are for 3 full seasons of a now healthy Adam Kennedey.

I'm just saying I see your point, but I'm never going to say that $13MM doesn't matter.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 11:08 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Except
13 mil is the going rate for a #2 for only one year in this market. If Marquis gets 7/per and Supp gets 10, I think putting 6.5/per on Mulder coming back (even if he's only a 3 or a 4 in the rotation) is a decent gamble.

With that said, this market makes me sick. All of my kids will be lefthanded.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Jan 11, 2007 10:42 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

fair points...
I'm really not as pesemistic as I sound.  I think (want to believe) that Mulder can come back and become a solid pitcher once again.  St. Louis, with its defense and pitching coach, is certainly the place to do it.  I agree with a lot of what you said.

I suppose I was just hoping that in a world where Barry Zito cleans up because of his money-in-the-bank consistancy, the oposite would be true as well... that is to say that because Mulder is such a question mark the discount would be pretty severe.  I suppose, though, that in this market, a $6.5MM middle of the rotation starter is a discount.  I just think we should've gotten a better deal for taking such a risk.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 10:51 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

the odds are against
mulder ever being a legit #2 again. not impossible; but not good odds.

by lboros on Jan 11, 2007 11:27 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Right
I'm not convinced he's been one (a #2) in a while (mid '05). But a 3 or a 4, I think that's reasonable (at least in '08). And, again, with this market -- this stupid market -- the deal isn't outrageous.

(wow. lot of numbers in that paragraph. kind of confusing.)

Although, when a "could be worse" is the reaction to what is probably the second biggest signing of the off-season (with Carps ext being a cautious "WooHoo" being #1, and Jimmy's sentimental 2 year deal #3), that's not the greatest off-season in recent memory.

On the otherhand, my SI commerative '06 World Series book came yesterday.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Jan 11, 2007 12:11 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Anyone hear
if Mulder was swinging a golf club in Tahiti? I read somewhere he was a scratch golfer--his handicap could be a leading indicator.

Scraping for some optimism, here...

by Red in Chicago on Jan 11, 2007 10:56 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Agreed
I would have liked to sign Mulder but keep the money we are going to pay Franklin and give Narvie/Thompson a shot until Mulder can make his return. It would give the young guys some experiecnce and save a little money. But that's just my opinion.
Play hard, play to win, but make it fun!

by Edmonds is baseball on Jan 11, 2007 11:04 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

OK...
I agree with you completely.  Mulder is a gamble, but gives us something to hope for, and it could pay off.  I'd also rather see what the young guys can do rather than wait for Franklin to do the thing he's been doing for years... post a mid 4s ERA.

Like I've said before, at least Narveson and the kids are inocent until proven guilty.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 11:10 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Thats not what I am saying
I know we got Mulder at what now can be considered just more the dirt cheap, and I am glad for that but I just don't see why we can't keep the little moeny we are giving Franklin and hang on to it for a little while. Invest it in a bat or something.

And as for the overloaded bullpen, that is a great thing. Now whoever doesn't do their job can be shipped out and traded for some new blood. I see a deal around the deadline that moves some of the overloaded bullpen for a bat that helps us down the stretch.

Play hard, play to win, but make it fun!

by Edmonds is baseball on Jan 11, 2007 11:23 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

are we not saying the same thing?
I like the Mulder signing, but it was slightly more expensive than I thought it would be.

I would rather have not speant the money on Franklin.

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 11:30 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It's 1% of the payroll
as long as he is taking a legit shot away from Thompson/Narveson/whoever a la Ponson, how can it hurt? He's a good rubber arm/flex swingman guy. He probably sucks, so what, we DFA him before July 7th, not after?

by plh903 on Jan 12, 2007 12:08 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i rather like the thought...
of competition in spring for a starting spot.  I have an abundant amount of faith in this cardinals organization.  LaRussa isn't perfect but he, along with Jocketty & Duncan, has a knack for winning.

by jose smokeindo on Jan 11, 2007 11:30 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Does Franklin bring his steroids with him
maybe that will help Mark heal faster.

:D

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 11, 2007 11:31 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

I am looking forward to Mulder in 08 and 09
If he helps for 07 that is a bonus.  

Also, Bernie has some TLR insight today about the rotation.  

It sounds like they view the 5th spot largely as a competition between Franklin and Looper with Thompson really only having an outside shot.  It also sounds like Hawksworth is the dark horse.

by OCCardsFan on Jan 11, 2007 11:33 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Hawksworth intrigues me
In a fair (ie non-Ponson/Reyes) competition, if he's all the way back, I see no scenario in which he doesn't beat Franklin out.

And Looper is honestly weird enough that I think they might smell a Bottenfield situation. I don't believe it's going to happen, but I don't think they would have carried the joke this far unless they're sure they've got something.

by DanUpBaby on Jan 11, 2007 3:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

according to bernie
the brass like hawksworth too, and will be watching him this spring.

ideally, i'd like to see them give hawksworth at least another 1/2 season in the minors; he is, after all, only about 12 starts removed from class A. but, you know, another month at double A, a couple months in memphis; then see where they are in the standings and call him up if they need him.

until that point, franklin's a cheap insurance policy.

by lboros on Jan 11, 2007 3:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Good column...
Nice work LB.  Last night I was thinking about the comps to Mulder and this moring you have the answers.

As for Franklin, I think he looks pretty done.  I just see this as $1M throw away.
 

by Zubin on Jan 11, 2007 11:35 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Have the Cardinals had a press conference
with Adam Kennedy yet to announce his signing?  They still have him listed as having no uniform number on the main site.  Does anyone know what number he will use while here in STL?
Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 11, 2007 11:45 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

I remember one with Kennedy and Wells...
Don't quote me on the day, but they were together right after signing. All of my days run together, but I did see all the smiling faces.
Pujols just did WHAT...

by gforce on Jan 11, 2007 1:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Kennedy Uni #
He wore #12 last time he was with the Cardinals (thank to Birdbats for the info). Maybe they're trying to figure out how to approach Miles about changing his uniform number.

Aaron Miles wore #6 with the Rockies, but that number's claimed in this organization.

by liam on Jan 11, 2007 10:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Medical literature
From what I've skimmed of the literature, a full rotator cuff ligament tear is a career-ender. However, arthroscopic surgery on partial tears has been pretty successful.

See this article for information about partial labral tears.

The sample sizes on all these medical studies are small, but they have looked at baseball players and throwing injuries quite a bit.

Sports med types may want to take a crack at the Medline search engine.

by Red in Chicago on Jan 11, 2007 11:48 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

different injury
torn labrum and torn rotator cuff are often confused for one another; i made the same mistake mistake myself about a week ago. but i now know they are completely different injuries. the article you linked to refers to an injury that mulder did not have, if i recall. i believe his labrum was deemed to be "frayed," but not torn. somebody correct me again if i am still wrong about this.

by lboros on Jan 11, 2007 12:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I know
that a rotator cuff injury and a labrum injury are different, but I think this article from Will Carol in Slate from 2004 might be worth reading.

http://www.slate.com/id/2100895

the relevant quote:

"Position players have labrums too. Angels third baseman Troy Glaus may miss the rest of the year with his "frayed" labrum (there's no difference between a fray and a tear)."

That quote doesn't make me feel better about Mulder if he does indeed have a "frayed" labrum.

by JMedwick on Jan 11, 2007 12:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Correct - but...
there needs to be some additional clarification. A quick anatomy lesson: The rotator cuff is a total of 4 muscles, with their tendons blending together. By far, the one that is most often torn is the supraspinatus, which helps to raise the arm. Mulder's tear was a "partial thickness" tear, which means that it probably happened over time with fraying on the underside of the tendon getting worse until it became torn significantly. Mulder's surgery was initially just going to be a scope to clean up the tear, maybe repair some torn fibers. But, they found the tear was worse when they went into the joint. So they made an incision and went into the joint. Here's where the info is sketchy. It is likely that the surgeon saw the partial tear, COMPLETED the tear, which means taking the tendon off the bone, and then re-sutured the tendon back to the bone. Does that sound serious enough to you? It is. Now, the surgeon may not have completed the tear. But, it still would be a repaired tendon. See a torn labrum here. See a torn rotator cuff here.

by silent_bob on Jan 11, 2007 12:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Either way
if Mulder also had labrum surgury, I feel far less certian about his ablity to pitch well again next season, if ever.

by JMedwick on Jan 11, 2007 1:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Mulder did not have a labrum tear
Maybe some minor fraying. But that happens in time. Trust me on this.

by silent_bob on Jan 11, 2007 1:11 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Moby Dick and Mark Mulder
Is Mark Mulder an analogy of Moby Dick to Walt Jocketty's Captain Ahab?  Walt has earned our trust as one of the best GM's in baseball, but he gave up a lot (not exactly his leg, but some people would say Haren, Calero and Barton are an arm and a leg) in exchange for his whale (Mulder).  While I still think the free agent signing is a good bet, I wonder if the often sited "Worst Deal of Jocketty's Career" (He has to know people say this), might cloud his judgement.  If Mulder comes back and pitches like the 1st half 2004 Mulder, the deal could still be salvaged.

We all know that Jocketty is very successfull (award winning GM even) at finding great bargains for the Cardinals (which this could be an EXTREME bargain).  Look at his success with Williams, Carpenter, Suppan, Edmonds, Rolen, Walker etc.  You really can't argue with his success, because in many times he has been able to look beyond the numbers to find so much more.  You can only worry about his frame of mind.  

I find the anaylis completed by lboros very interesting, but it's not like predicting what someone with a specific K/9 +GB/FB+ BB/K rate will do in the future.  It is so much tougher.  His study did a lot to throw the red flag out there (and rightly so), but the hardest things to predict with historical statistics is injury and breakouts.  There are medical breakthroughs all of the time (which would mean comparing Mulder's surgery to a surgery completed in the 80's/90's problematic) and all bodies respond differently.  

Let's just hope that this is the award winning GM Jocketty making this deal and not the Captain Ahab emotional one.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt (Jocketty has always been a good gambler), but that is what I'll be worried about.

"It takes pitching, hitting and defense. Any two can win. All three make you unbeatable". Joe Garagiola

by MRCARD on Jan 11, 2007 12:05 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Ryan "Don't look at my Dips" Franklin
I've heard several people mention his stellar 2003 season.  Please note his peripherals from 2003 to 2004 are nearly identical, yet his ERA balooned a whole run plus change.  DIPS said his ERA should have been around 5.2 both of those seasons.  I would venture to guess he had a very "lucky" BABIP against that year, as he kept hits way below 1/IP.  

I don't really see the upside in this guy.  He'll probably outperform replacement, and it lets us keep thompson/looper in the bullpen.  

by Jonathan23 on Jan 11, 2007 12:05 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

2003
I mentioned BABIP earlier, and you're right.  In 2003 his BABIP was .249
o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 12:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The Upside of Ryan Franklin:
If you really want to know why the Cardinals like Franklin:

Year.....Groundball/Flyball
2001.....0.62
2002.....0.82
2003.....0.76
2004.....0.78
2005.....0.95
2006.....1.43

That last year kind of jumps out at you doesn't it?  Looks like a perfect pitcher for our defense...

"It takes pitching, hitting and defense. Any two can win. All three make you unbeatable". Joe Garagiola

by MRCARD on Jan 11, 2007 12:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Groundball percentage
Is more consistant, overall, from year to year than almost any other recorded pitching statistic, including strikeout rate, walk rate, and homerun rate.

2006 looks not like a trend, but like an aberration.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 2:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

GB rate...
In my opinion it is more likely that he changed his style to produce more ground balls (this is what Duncan preaches) than "luck".  Maybe it was luck that he made it all the way to 1.43, but it wasn't luck that it increased because it was to just to much difference.  With Duncan on the staff seeing what he did differently (in 2006), I would bet it would be preached to him how to do it again.  Maybe it won't be quite as pronounced, but I would expect he has transformed himself into a ground ball pitcher.  Possibly, a quite useable one.  
"It takes pitching, hitting and defense. Any two can win. All three make you unbeatable". Joe Garagiola

by MRCARD on Jan 11, 2007 2:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Data...
These are just our opinions.  I doubt if either of us spent much time watching Franklin pitch last year, so we don't know if he kept the ball down more, learned a new pitch or just got EXTREMELY lucky.  If you can find a study backing up your claim of flyball pitchers having a significant groundball increase (+.30-.50) and then settling back into a flyball pitcher, I would be interested in seeing it. There might be a handfull of pitchers out there that have done it, but I'm guessing the overwhelming majority had a significant change in apporach.  I'm sure there are quite a few with fluctuations (+-.10-.20), but I just don't see this great a fluctuation being all luck.
"It takes pitching, hitting and defense. Any two can win. All three make you unbeatable". Joe Garagiola

by MRCARD on Jan 11, 2007 2:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

bop
Given the small sample size from which your conclusion is drawn, I'd say the burden of proof is on you.  70 innings alone can't tell you something is different unless its proven otherwise.  

Food for thought:  Franklin's flyballs left the park at an astronomical rate compared to the rest of his career.  Can he survive if he reverts to his old gb/fb ratios?  

by Jonathan23 on Jan 11, 2007 2:32 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

nice call...
on the HR%
o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 2:36 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

His HR%...
went up because he was pitching in the Philly bandbox.  That is one of the worst parks for HR rates.  I don't think Cincinnati is much better (he was better there), but I could be wrong...
"It takes pitching, hitting and defense. Any two can win. All three make you unbeatable". Joe Garagiola

by MRCARD on Jan 11, 2007 2:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I suppose its possible...
that at age 33 he completely reinvented his approach to pitching, but it seems unlikely.  even if he does maintain this uncharictaristically high GB/FB ratio, I'm not sure its going to help him be that successful.  He still can't strike any one out and he puts on plenty of people with the walk.  Normally you at least need reasonably fine controll to be a servicable pitch-to-contact style pitcher, and Franklin really doesn't.
o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 2:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Actually...
Franklin had a +.17 growth in groundball rate in 2005 when he had 190 innings so I'd say the proof is that he is changing to a groundball pitcher.  While 80 innings isn't exactly small, I'll concede that it isn't large either and the walk rate is a good point.  He will probably never hit 1.43 again.  My point is, that there is a very good chance of us seeing 1.2, especially when he is going to a groundball pitching coach on a team set up for groundball pitchers and he has been trending towards becoming a groundball pitcher.  

I'm not saying that he's going to be dominant or even league average, but he should be well above replacement level if he has found a new skill. A 4.6-4.9 ERA in half a season as a starter, or a 4.00 ERA out of the bullpen would be worth 1 mil IMO.  It's not great, but it would put us well above average for 5th starters.  At the very least it's good to have somebody else on the roster above replacement level.

"It takes pitching, hitting and defense. Any two can win. All three make you unbeatable". Joe Garagiola

by MRCARD on Jan 11, 2007 2:49 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

some facts about ryan franklin
his career ERA is 4.35 --- which is 0.25 better than jeff weaver and jeff suppan. he's achieved that lower ERA despite pitching most of his career in the DH league.

some of you should look at his career stats:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/frankry01.shtml

his career ERA+ is 100 ---- dead-on average. suppan's ERA+ is 101; weaver's is 96 (ie, just below average).

do i think ryan franklin is a good pitcher? no. but i don't think he's worthless either. as a 5th starter, he'd be just fine --- an era of 4.50 to 5.00. i don't think he's that much worse than either suppan or weaver, who many people believe are worth $10m per season.

by lboros on Jan 11, 2007 3:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

re
His career ERA isn't as low as Mulder's.  (That's kind of a joke, but career numbers as indicators?  C'mon!)

He pitched against DH's, but he also pitched in the AL West and in SafeCo field (which averaged 94(ish) in terms of hitter friendliness over his span there.

OPS+ takes all those factors out, but consider he's logged 17% of his career innings as a reliver.  Never as a good one mind you, but factor that out and his OPS+ would be lower than the century mark.  

I don't care for the guy at all, but its still a better signing than Mulder.  Just saying this seems more like a Ponson signing than a Thomson signing.  

by Jonathan23 on Jan 11, 2007 3:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

sure, it's a ponson signing
but this guy is capable of succeeding in that limited role. he's got a small sphere of responsibility --- compete for the #5 starter slot and possibly make 20 to 30 starts at a 5.00 era or below. he's fully capable of completing that mission.

mark mulder is capable of completing that mission too. but i think the cardinals are counting on him for a much larger mission.

as for his career averages, look at it this way: franklin has met or exceeded league avg status in all but 2 of his big-league seasons. in his worst year, he was 85 pct of league average. compare that to weaver --- below league-avg in 4 of 8 seasons, and just 76 pct of league avg or below (ie, replacement level) in 2 of the last 4 years.

does that mean franklin's a better pitcher than weaver? no. does it mean he's a better buy at $1m than weaver at $10m? yes.

franklin's easy to take cheap shots at, but he's not a completely useless player.

by lboros on Jan 11, 2007 4:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Budget, etc.
Is the Cardinals payroll still low enough that they could reasonably still go after Weaver, or else a #5-ish guy like Ohka?

by Fitz on Jan 11, 2007 12:19 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

It looks like it...
But there wouldn't be any (or, at least, much) room for a midseason move. I don't know about you, but I feel comfy having that room for later in the year.
Cheers

by Alxfritz on Jan 11, 2007 12:22 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

yeah
With the potential free agents who are likely to get traded, I'd agree with that

by Fitz on Jan 11, 2007 12:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't see the point...
They probably already have 3 #5 starters as is with Narvie, Thompson and maybe even Looper

by Zubin on Jan 11, 2007 5:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

all things considered..
I am not concerned on the Mulder signing. I was, and am of the opinion that it was vital that our youg arms had the opportunity to step up and show their stuff this year. Given the lack of quality pitchers available this off season, I am glad that the Cards haven't made a deperation move (Marquis?) and chased pitchers who were truly replacement level at best. The Mulder deal gives the brain-trust the opportunity to work with Reyes, Wainwright, Wells, and Thompson/Franklin/Looper and see if they can develop on effective rotation. If and when Mulder is ready, then we (they)can see how he fits.  It is a gamble, but a gamble that if it doesn't work is not crippling to the organization. Here's hoping Mulder can return and contribute to the team.
go crazy folks..........

by wwbd on Jan 11, 2007 12:52 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Franklin
Maybe Franklin can introduce Mulder to HGH (or some other substance) ensuring a better, faster recovery for the shoulder.

by bdief on Jan 11, 2007 1:11 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

I don't think we really know
the extent of the injury. We've seen a bunch of terms tossed around without full context. Was the surgery arthroscopic or not? Did the surgeon "complete" the tear as Silent Bob speculates? What was the deal with the labrum? How is debridement different from what happened in the operating room?

All this sounds really scary. Perhaps we need a bit of clarification before assuming the worst has happened.

As I said before, according to the medical literature "full thickness" rotator cuff tears are basically career-enders. This is a very current study. I seriously doubt a surgeon would cut through the remaining tissue to create what's essentially a thousand-to-one chance of recovery.

Something is missing from our information set. The conclusions may be exactly as Larry has laid out, but we really don't know where Mulder is, IMHO.

by Red in Chicago on Jan 11, 2007 1:22 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Info from today
in the Belleville paper quoted a "50%" tear of the rotator cuff. That is NOT a full thickness tear. If Mulder had a full thickness tear, he would not have tried to rehab through it last year. I'm relatively optimistic about Mulder's return ....In 2008. All bets are off in 2007, imho.

by silent_bob on Jan 11, 2007 1:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

How much is our 5th starter going to cost us?
Remember last season when the Cardinals ended up spending more money on 2nd baseman than it would have cost to re-sign Gruz?  It looks like we are heading in that direction for our 5th starter.  If you consider Mulder/Franklin our 5th starter (which I do right now), we are up to $6 million already.  If we have to take on more salary through trades/DFA pickups during the season, then we might have been better off to just pay Weaver or Suppan.      

by lefty fan on Jan 11, 2007 1:47 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

not really
That comparison makes sense only if you focus exclusively on '07 salary.  Sure, Mulder/Franklin will make over $6 million, and Suppan "only" $4 million more than that.  But Suppan wasn't going to sign a one-year contract; neither will Weaver.  so far, we've committed less than $15 million over two years (assuming the incentives aren't reached) to Mulder and Franklin; the Brewers committed $40 m over 4 years to Suppan.  

by tdawg on Jan 11, 2007 2:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You're right Tdawg
I am just looking at 2007.  It might get worse in 2008 if Mulder makes 20 starts this year.  The more he pitches in 2007, the more he makes in 2008 regardless of the results.  My thinking is that the Cardinals could have targeted an average pitcher (Suppan, Weaver, etc.) and spent the same about of money with less risk.  I hope Mulder exceeds my expectations, but I don't think our $6M to date has solved the problem at the back of the rotation.

by lefty fan on Jan 11, 2007 2:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Dirt Cheap
An AAV of 6.5 million is really cheap for an establisehd pitcher, and frankly it seems adjusted for him to miss all of 2007.  

Larry, my man, you're very likely right that Mulder will be no great shakes if he pitches at all in 2007, but I don't think anyone--including the Cards brass--is really inclined to believe that he will be.  

The question is: who cares?  In 2008 he should be healthy as a horse, and the part of the deal I really love is the club option (likely at substantially reduced rates vis a vis this offseason's free agent starting pitchign market) for 2009.  

Most importantly, the 2007 money isn't my money, and I'm sure Jock and the gang are considering it a down payment of sorts on Mulder's 30-35 years.  It's what we had to pay to get 2008 for very, very cheap, considering that before last year's injury-induced debacle his career ERA was just around 4.00 despite throwingthe vast majority of his career innings in the hitter-friendly AL.

Also, question: didn't Carpenter have major shoulder surgery/issues?  As I recall, it wasn't rotator cuff but labrum, and labrum problems, as I understand it, are even more career-threatening than rotator cuff problems.  So that's some good news.  Carp turned out OK, even with STL's apparently unimpressive medical staff overseeing his rehab.

Finally, the list of rotator cuff comps is all well and good; it's solid research and it's nice due diligence that I hope and assume the Cards did themselves before inking this deal.  However, it's also important to note that the majority of these guys were not "name" pitchers who had established themselves as upper-tier major league pitchers at the time they had their injuries.  

As a young pitcher, it's hard enough to establish oneself as a dependable, quality major league starter even with a healthy shoulder.  Armas, Elarton, Fossum?  These guys were projected for big things, sure, but they'd never really achieved them.  Lots of young pitchers, arm problems or no, fail to live up to the hype.  

Even for the older pitchers, the extenuating circumstances--whether relating to attitude, talent, work ethic, contract incentives or team fit--can't be overlooked.  Some pitchers just have bad years, for a number of reasons.

All in all, especially since Mulder seems to rate near the top of available pitchers w/r/t all of these extenuating circumstances (work ethic, talent, contract incentives, team fit, etc...), this seems to me to be a great gamble.

And Ryan Franklin sucks really, really badly.  I think he's likely to suck in '07 too, no matter how Mulder does in comparison to him.  He's always a terrible bet...

"Enamored" takes the preposition "of," not "with."

by MKDCardinal on Jan 11, 2007 2:00 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

ramon martinez, orel hershiser, bret saberhagen,
jimmy key, aaron sele, joey hamilton. . . . .

you don't think these guys had established themselves as upper-tier pitchers?

even the guys at the bottom of the list, who you've never heard of, were very good pitchers with all-star appearances and 15- to 17-win seasons under their belts.

do you think mulder's got some comeback ability that all these guys didn't have?

by lboros on Jan 11, 2007 2:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Factor in the skyrocketing cost
of pitching this offseason and Mulder really isn't that expensive. Could they have used that money on John Thomson or someone of that ilk? Sure; Larry has made a great point there. For argument's sake, let's say they had signed Schmidt. He's 33 and has been on the DL the past three seasons. Financially speaking, wouldn't he have been a greater risk than Mulder?
Cards fan in Denver

by TurdFerguson on Jan 11, 2007 3:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Actually
I am familiar with the guys at the bottom of the list, and what's more, so is The Baseball Cube.  

With the exception of Key, whose quick return to form after surgery hurts rather than helps your argument, yeah, I would to some extent dispute that Sele or Hamilton were that good, or at least on a par with Mulder.  

Sele had one good year--in 2001--and the rest of the years leading up to his surgery were pretty pedestrian, high Win totals on a good Seattle team (at that time) notwithstanding.  Mulder had four years like Sele's one good year, and he had them over the course of fewer seasons.

Hamilton was better than I remember him being, but he was still nothing like Mulder in his Big Three heyday.  Similar story to Sele, but in reverse chronological order.  Hamilton had his best year right out of the gate at Age 24 in (pre-steroid-era) 1995, and his numbers steadily declined from there.  WHIPs (even playing in SD, which I belive was pretty pitching-friendly, even then, pre-Petco) leading up to surgery, i.e. pre-injury, were 1.37, 1.39...1.50.  Not an encouraging trend.

Saberhagen was a walking arm problem from nearly the moment he entered the bigs.  Hershiser was an established upper-tier pitcher, but, like Key, his success upon return hurts, not helps, you argument.  Ramon Martinez was a very good pitcher for a while, but I don't have time at the moment to look at his stats to see whether his abrupt decline was the result of his shoulder troubles, although that does seem to make sense.  You're likely right on that one.

I'm not saying that the surgery isn't serious, or that I don't appreciate your analysis.  

But yes, I am saying that I think Mulder has a much better chance, because he was better and more established pre-injury, because he's a solid guy in and supportive good situation, and because shoulder surgery becomes more successful with each year that passes, than all but 2-3 of the guys you listed.

"Enamored" takes the preposition "of," not "with."

by MKDCardinal on Jan 11, 2007 5:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Sounds like
the Cardinals basically paid $11-15MM for a year to a year-and-a-half of Mulder. When you add in the option, it's kind of like a two-year deal for around $10-12 per year.

If you think the guy returns to form, he's a bargain at that price.

by Red in Chicago on Jan 11, 2007 2:01 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

something you all are forgetting about mulder
him resigning means one thing, that you all gave great advice to me this summer about getting the Mcfalrlane Mulder to round out my birds collection...now hes a bird for 2-3 more yrs...

on another note, my pujols picture fell nocking the matyt morris Mcfarlane off and making his hat look like a beanie...ill try and take a photo of it.

Kenny is a "dirt" bag?

by punchinjudy on Jan 11, 2007 3:19 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Congratulations to Erik!
Let's hope the little guy is a lefty (or maybe an OBP machine).

by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 11, 2007 4:07 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Congrats Erik!
Ah, how I miss the days of 2AM feedings and spitup on my dress shirts! It's a labor of love, though, and many blessings for good health, dude. One more Cards fan is always a great thing!
A walk is a waste of three pitches-Bob Gibson

by orlando card on Jan 11, 2007 5:48 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Landon James
It's a boy? Has anyone told Erik to batten down the hatches...

by Pokey Joe on Jan 11, 2007 7:42 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Roster Matrix
Lboros,

If you don't have any pressing issues to hash out tomorrow, consider updating the roster matrix and getting a discussion going.  I know a majority of the spending has been done, but exactly how much is left could determine that lowball Weaver offer, or which Wilson the ends up riding the pine for the cards in '07.  

by Jonathan23 on Jan 11, 2007 9:56 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

There is
$89M of guaranteed money
  • $9M in incentives
  • $600K in bonuses
and $8M deferred

by plh903 on Jan 12, 2007 12:13 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

lboros, i'm gonna have to disagree
with you on this one.  i gotta believe that the cards' brass decided to double-down on their bet with mulder.  as we've all mentioned a billion times by now that the cards gave up a lot to get mulder losing haren, calero and barton.  they looked at the market and realized that there isn't a pitcher out there who can realistically put up the same type of numbers mulder can when healthy who is going to cost them $11.5 total for the next season and a half given that pitchers like jason marquis are getting $7 million per.  the cards have the appearance-based incentives to make they don't rush him back at their own expense, which means the youth movement would still get a look.  mulder either
gets healthy and produces or the cards eat the base salary and exercise the buyout.  on the flip side, if mulder succeeds, they also protected themselves with the option if it is working because then the cards get him for that next year for what he's worth in the market.  i'm with bernie on this one.  fair deal for both sides, and i would rather see mulder succeed in st. louis than for someone else.  i applaud walt for having the courage to double down on his bet and just put his faith in a player.  it's nice to see that type of loyalty by both team and player in sports today.

also, by "outperform" do you mean put up better numbers overall or put up proportional numbers for less cost?

by stlspecialsauce on Jan 12, 2007 1:12 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Duncan
Wow interesting analysis over at Beyond the Box Score.  Duncan was among the top two or three No. 2 hitters in baseball last year by a few different measures.

I hope this kid continues to produce at even something close to that level.  

by OCCardsFan on Jan 12, 2007 12:12 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.
Start posting about the Cardinals »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
How to EASILY make tables for Fanposts
1753738656_110919ebe9_o_small
2010 Hot Stove Post #1: CHONE hitter projections

Recent FanPosts

Arch_small
Number 15
Small
Some thoughts on Holliday (and potential replacements)
Small
Ok let me try this again...
Knights-09_small
Disenchanted Blue Jays Fan Looking For A New Team
Painterlance_small
The Holliday Dilemma (Rocks Fan Perpsective)
375830-r1-025-11_011_small
Anybody read Bob Gibson's new book yet?
Flanders_small
Yadi2first
Small
40 Man Question..

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Jack_benny_small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bender1_small azruavatar

Adam1_small chuckb

Kid-a-bear_small the red baron