Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Network Message: 50% Off: CBS/SB Nation Fantasy Baseball

youth is served

keep your eye on dan szymborski's site --- he's been posting team-by-team ZIPS projections all winter, and the cardinals are next up in the queue. according to chone smith's recent analysis, ZIPS was the most accurate pitcher-projection system (the best in a weak field, admittedly) but just so-so in forecasting hitters. overall, szymborski's numbers are as accurate as bill james' --- worthwhile discussion starters, if nothing else. if the st louis projections go up today, i'll let you know.

you also might want to take a look at steve treder's article at the hardball times about the cardinal dynasty that might have been had the st louis franchise not sold three ballplayers --- johnny mize, walker cooper, and johnny wyrostek --- for cash in the 1940s. it's part 1 of a (presumably) 2-parter.

the cardinals likely will open the season with a rotation that features two sophomores --- reyes and wainwright. neither meets the league's definition of a rookie, but both carry the discomfiting, rookie-like "unproven" label. in wainwright's case, the tag only applies vis-vis his ability to start games; as a reliever he has proven his provenness. neither of these two has thrown as many as 100 big-league innings. a third potential member of the rotation, brad thompson, will be entering his 3d season in 2007 with just 1 big-league start and 112 career innings.

my question today: how often have the cardinals taken comparably inexperienced rotations into a season, and how have those teams fared?

it has been quite a while. st louis hasn't opened a season with even one yearling (hereafter defined as a guy with fewer than 100 career innings) in the rotation since 2002 --- bud smith, who had gone 6-3 the previous year in 14 starts and finished 4th in the rookie of the year voting. he was 22 on opening day 2002 and pitched horribly, hasn't been heard from since. rick ankiel was even younger (20 years old) and greener (5 career starts) when he opened the 2000 season in the rotation; the year before that, 25-year-old rook jose jimenez made the opening-day rotation and stayed in it all season despite posting one of the worst lines in franchise history (5-14, 5.85 era). he did toss a no-hitter.

that brings us to the last time st louis opened a season with two second-year players in the rotation, 1998: matt morris and manny aybar. the circumstances aren't really comparable to 2007's, though, as morris could hardly be considered unproven: he'd tied for 2d in the rookie of the year voting (behind scott rolen) the previous year, in which he threw 217 innings and went 12-9 with a 3.19 era. aybar (age 25) had made 12 league-average starts the previous year as a late-season callup. he was dreadful in 1998, 6-6 with a 5.98 era; morris was among the league leaders in era halfway through the season when an injury shut him down for the next year and a half. st louis used 15 different starting pitchers that season, with none making more than 29; four or five different pitchers were used as closers. the team finished 8th in the league in era and went 83-79.

in 1997, coming off their first division title in 9 years, the cardinals opened the season with a rookie (morris) and a 2d-year pitcher (alan benes) in the rotation. benes had won 13 games the previous season and finished 7th in the ROY voting, with a pitching line vaguely reminiscent of anthony reyes' in 2006:

w-l era era+ whip h/9 k/9 bb/9 hr/9
benes 96 13-10 4.90 87 1.461 9.0 6.2 4.1 1.3
reyes 06 5-8 5.06 87 1.383 8.9 7.6 3.6 1.8

the two youngers were stl's two best pitchers in 1997; morris led the team in wins and innings pitched, benes in era. but the cardinals never settled on a 5th starter; they got 26 god-awful starts from the likes of brady raggio, sean lowe, rigo beltran, and washed-up vets danny jackson and fernando valenzuela. st louis went 6-20 in those games. even so, the cardinals finished 5th in the league in era. it was the offense that betrayed them: they were 11th in the league in scoring and finished 4th at 73-89.

spool back now to 1992. here, at last, we encounter circumstances that compare to those of 2007: a rotation featuring two pitchers with fewer than 100 career innings pitched. it has been 15 years since the cardinals last tried this. coming off a second-place finish (84-78) in 1991, the birds opened '92 with a rookie donovan osborne in the rotation and added 2d-year guy rheal cormier a week into the season, after bryn smith went down with a season-ending injury. the two youngsters did very well, finishing 2d/3d on the team in both wins and era. osborne went 11-9 with a 3.77 era, and cormier was 10-10 with a 3.68 era. the era's weren't quite league-average back in those lower-scoring days, but they were close. the young pitchers helped the cardinals lower their team era by a third of a run over 1991; they finished 4th in the national league, at 3.38, and went 83-79 (3d place).

the 1989 cardinals began the year with two true rookies (ken hill and don heinkel) and a 3d-year pitcher (scott terry) in the rotation; heinkel only lasted 5 starts, though. hill stuck it out for the whole year and pitched better than his record would indicate; he went 7-15 despite an era just a shade worse than league average. those cardinals finished 4th in the league in era, at 3.36, and very nearly won the division with a september surge. but the loss of todd worrell was a killing blow; they blew some late leads down the stretch and finished 3d in the nl east, at 86-76.

finally we come to 1982. herzog's opening-day rotation included sophomores andy rincon (9 career starts, 77 career innings) and john martin (20 career starts, 145 career innings); by june both had been replaced by true rookies, dave lapoint and john stuper. those four greenhorn pitchers combined to start 1/3 of the cardinals' games that year and threw an aggregate 395 league-average innings, with a 24-18 combined record; stuper and lapoint were 2d and 3d, respectively, in era among the rotation regulars. the team finished 3d in the league in era and won the world championship.

to sum up this brief history: when they've relied heavily on inexperienced starting pitchers, the cardinals have almost always fared well, finishing near the top of the league in era and competing for (if not winning) their division.

0 recs  |  Comment 76 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Interesting
You call Wainright a proven closer.   How many career saves does he have?   Yes, he did really well in the postseason, no doubt... but a proven closer?  Eh...

by redbird2006in on Jan 2, 2007 9:55 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

With a curveball
like Adam's, the only thing that I am sure of is his ability as a closer or setup guy.  He can dominate with 2 pitches.  His ability as a starter is yet to be seen.  I hope he can consistently throw a slider and/or change up, or he will be average, at best, as a starter.  

by silent_bob on Jan 2, 2007 10:12 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Are we really this short-sighted?
We had another starting pitcher with a mid-90s fastball and a big curve and a few mediocre second pitches and he still had a few pretty good years there.

If you have two good pitches, you can be a good starter. Jeff Suppan had four mediocre pitches, and he was average.

by DanUpBaby on Jan 2, 2007 7:56 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

you apparently missed
my subtext, which is that the whole idea of "provenness" is vastly overrated . . . .

braden looper has a longer track record than wainwright --- ie, he's more "proven." which one would you rather have on your team heading into next season?

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 10:14 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Good point
especially considering that both Looper and Wainwright have won a WS as a closer.  But Wainwright has the makeup and the stuff to be dominant.  I don't care if he hasn't proven himself to you; his playoff performance and his talent level are enough "proof" to me that I'm glad he's a Cardinal.

by silent_bob on Jan 2, 2007 10:45 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

He
says "proven reliever", not "proven closer".  I think that a years worth of low era pitching out of the bullpen, even discounting the post-season is a good enought qualifier

by eglasier on Jan 2, 2007 10:05 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Tell that to...
... Derick Turnbow.

by kindred on Jan 2, 2007 4:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Comfortable with rotation
lboros, can I assume with your conclusion that you are comfortable with the Cardinals 2007 rotation as it stands now?  I am not, and the question marks are not Reyes and Wainwright.  The question marks are Wells and TBD (Thompson, Looper, etc).  The Cards still seem to be one "proven" starter away from any kind of comfort level.  I am confident that Jocketty will bring in one more starter and even more confident that Duncan will make it work.  If we get to February and nothing has changed, then I might panic.

by lefty fan on Jan 2, 2007 10:44 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Don't panic in February..
Walt has already said on the record that this a roster he is comfortable taking to spring training.  He is master of the spring training deal.  Now do I hope that the Cards sign Weaver before ST?  Of course.  But will I lose sleep if they don't? Nope.

by silent_bob on Jan 2, 2007 10:48 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

lefty fan
like you, i'd feel better if they added some depth. but i don't necessarily think weaver is the answer; he'd be a question mark even if they got him on a short-term deal, and they won't get him on that basis. if marquis can get 3/$21m these days, weaver will get 3/$30m or 4/$36m, something like that. i wouldn't want the cards to make that big a commitment to weaver.

so who will they add? they might get mulder on a 1-year deal with an option, which i wouldn't be crazy about. they might add a minor free agent (such as tony armas jr) or get a veteran to come in as a nonroster invite (think pedro astacio or the nontendered jorge sosa). or they could simply stand pat until the season begins, see what they've got, and then try to swing a trade. there'll be another jeff weaver out there next season.

so ---- i do think they need to add depth, but i don't think it absolutely has to happen before opening day.

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 11:19 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Free agent vs. Trade vs. Dumpster
I agree that Weaver, Mulder, nor Suppan are going to be worth the contracts they will/have received.  But what will a trade cost in inexpensive prospects? Would you actually be dollars ahead by signing someone like Weaver to 3/$30M deal than trading away 2 prospects that could contribute at the league minimum in 2008?  Maybe you are right about waiting to sift through another teams trash (my words, not lboros), but it seems like a risker proposition. I know Walt will weigh all these options, but I would rather overpay for a free agent than to trade the next Dan Haren.  Besides, we need someone to replace Juan E as the 2007 Tino Martinez award winner in the category as most disliked Cardinal free-agent signing!

by lefty fan on Jan 2, 2007 11:35 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

it didn't take dan haren
to acquire jeff weaver; they got him for a minor prospect. the dbacks acquired livan hernandez in-season for chump change; the mets picked up orlando hernandez for a middle reliever.

i'd rather see the cards acquire the so-so pitcher they need via that route, as opposed to commiting $40 million and four years to one.

i agree with your point that they can't afford to trade good prospects for bad pitchers. . . .

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 12:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree 100%
with your last few points.  Weaver will be horribly overpaid while in truth, he is probably no better than Marquis.

I think The Cardinals will be well served to pick something off the scrap heap and/or wait till the season starts to make a move.
 

by Zubin on Jan 2, 2007 1:37 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Weaver no better than Marquis?
I think not.  Some people seem to have forgotten that while Marquis was consistently shelled during the second half of the season and was so bad that he wasn't allowed near the mound in the postseason, Weaver got better and better, culminating in his overpowering performance that clinched the World Series.  I'm not committed to the Cardinal re-signing Weaver, but I'm getting sick of all this passive acceptance that the Cardinals need to do nothing further with the starting staff until perhaps some time between spring training and July 31.  The thinness of the present staff would be a joke if so many of you, starting with Larry, don't appear to be taking it seriously.  Remember that even LaRussa said that Reyes is going to have to compete for a starting position in spring training.  That really carries a lot of weight when there is virtually no one with whom to compete!

by MikeG on Jan 2, 2007 9:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

FIP last 3 years
                 2004   2005   2006
Marquis   4.43   4.88    5.94
Weaver   3.66   4.41    5.35 (LAAofA)  5.75 (StL)

Interesting Weaver was actually a better pitcher for the Angels than for us when defense/etc. is taken out of the equation.

I guess you could say he was slightly better than Marquis if you want to get technical about it.

by RedbirdRay on Jan 2, 2007 10:26 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Is FIP park-adjusted?
Pitching in Dodgers stadium does crazy things to a pitchers' stats.

by Valatan on Jan 3, 2007 3:33 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Formula for FIP
(HR*13+(BB+HBP)*3-K*2)/IP

It tries to take out everything not in control of the pitcher.  So, about the only thing that would be park influenced is the HR.  

by RedbirdRay on Jan 3, 2007 6:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

But the HR are pretty heavily weighted
and Dodger Stadium is ridiculously hard to hit a home run in.  Busch is a hitters park in comparison

by Valatan on Jan 3, 2007 10:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Mike G ---
what moves do you think they should have made, but didn't make?

among the remaining known options, what moves do you think they should make?

by lboros on Jan 3, 2007 9:38 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Livan trade
Wasn't so much for chump change.  Garrett Mock apparently has pretty big stuff but hasn't have the results to back it up.  Same thing for the reliever prospect whose name I forget right now.  It was probably a pretty good trade for the D-Backs, but Mike Rizzo (AZ's former scouting director and now assistant GM of the Nats) knew what he was getting.
Pujols > God

by joker24 on Jan 2, 2007 5:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

sickels has them both rated
as C+ prospects (the other pitcher was matt chico), which is the same grade given to cardinal pitchers like narveson, lambert, and worrell . . . . dime a dozen.

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 6:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm fine entering the season
with Carpenter, Wainwright, Reyes and Wells if they can add one more person.  There is a lot of upside in that rotation but not alot of track-record.  Durability could be the biggest issue.  I think Reyes and Wainwright will be settled in as (at worst) league average by midseason.

Whoever bombs out during the season you just try to replace or you just skip as often as possible.  We suffered through some really atrocious pitching last season with Mulder, Marquis, Suppan (first half) and some Weaver starts.  The team doesn't have much in the way of fallback options outside of Narvie at this point and there seems to be no discussion as far as his role on the club next year which I find very peculiar.

Are there any old projections or MLEs from when Thompson was a starter in the minors?  Looper is impossible to predict as a starter, imo, if you accept the spin about him having 4 pitches. Also, any word on what minor league pitchers can expect a spring training invite?  Garcia?  Hawksworth?  Maybe somebody makes the jump in spring training.  

by azruavatar on Jan 2, 2007 10:55 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Presumably
Jocketty's doing what he always does: concentrating on one player at a time. I think if they can get Mulder one a two-year deal, they will do it. The fallback is Weaver.

If they get Mulder, they probably have to use, ahem...Looper...in the rotation for a few months. Could he be any worse than Ponson?

Seems like a resonable outcome, provided Mulder can tie his shoelaces by June.

by Red in Chicago on Jan 2, 2007 11:39 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Tale of the Tape.....
Izzy's postseason appearances: 22
Izzy's postseason record: 1-1, 11 saves
Izzy in the World Series: 0-0, 0 saves
Izzy's ERA in the postseason: 2.38 ERA
Izzy's postseason K/IP: 0.88
Izzy's teams in postseason series: 4-5

Wainwright's postseason appearances: 9
Wainwright's postseason record: 1-0, 4 saves
Wainwright in the World Series: 1 Win, 1 Save
Wainwright's ERA in the postseason: 0.00 ERA
Wainwright's postseason K/IP: 1.54
Wainwright's teams in postseason series: 3-0

I post the numbers... everyone draw the conclusions....

by TNFan32 on Jan 2, 2007 11:41 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

is this supposed to be bashing Izzy?
a 2.38 ERA wouldn't bother me.

I'd be more interested to see Save % than their teams win-loss in post season series.

A closer could conceivably never get in a game and have their team lose.  That wouldn't be their fault.

by mtalken on Jan 2, 2007 2:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not bashing Izzy
The numbers show that Izzy (when healthy) was good in several postseason appearances, and that Wainwright was even better in fewer postseason appearances. I don't think it's bashing Izzy to show that AW's postseason performance stacks up favorably with Izzy's.

"Closer" sample sizes tend to be small, which makes prediction very speculative, so the data at best suggest that AW could prosper in that role. History gives us a flashback to healthy Izzy, but we may not see him healthy for several months, if ever. I'm still dubious about Cardinal management reports of medical conditions after the Mulder disinformation campaign last year.

by madridbend on Jan 2, 2007 3:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Hmmm
"I post the numbers you draw the conclusions"

heh.

by TNFan32 on Jan 2, 2007 7:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Spin on Spinmeister...
These four teams you identify had good team eras and contended not because of the rookies mentioned but the efforts of other, veteran players.

Martin, Rincon, and Heinkel were awful.

Stuper, Hill, and Lapoint were adequate but lucky: Stuper walked 55, struck out 53 in 136 innings. Lapoint gave up 170 hits in 152 innings, plus another 52 walks for a WHIP of 1.45... in a pitcher's era. Hill walked 4.5 batters per 9 - 99 in 196 innings - and posted another 1.45 WHIP.

Osborne and Cormier had nice looking eras... but their ERA+ of 90 and 93, respectively, would be the 2006 equivalent of someone like Steve Trachsel (87), Doug Davis (91), or Eric Milton (93).

Alan Benes started 32 games and pitched 191 so-so innings in '96, so he's not really comparable.

The only sterling season out of the nine listed here was Morris' 1997 season... All in all not a terribly promising record.

Looking at these cases doesn't it seem unlikely one of the sophmores pitches like a #2? I mean only one out of the eight listed here really pitched above average. It'd be better if we Suppan or Randy Johnson backing up Carp... then we might be able to survive the mediocre performances that are likely to come.

Acquire Randy Johnson!

by guayzimi on Jan 2, 2007 11:43 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

not so, guayzimi
first of all, you miss the point --- which is that the cards' youngish 2007 rotation doesn't doom them to a 5.00 team era and a losing record, as many fans seem to assume. it's a fact, not spin, that the cardinals have usually pitched pretty well when relying on young starting pitchers.

it's also a fact that, in the past examples i cite, the young pitchers themselves pitched well. you dismiss stuper and lapoint as being less important than unnamed "other players." i'd like to know who you mean, other than joaquin andujar. bob forsch? his k/w ratio was nearly as bad as stuper's, and his h/9 nearly as bad as lapoint's --- and his era was worse than both. so who are we walking about, steve mura? eric rasmussen? stuper and lapoint, by the way, both pitched well in the 1982 postseason and sustained their success into 1983, when they finished 1-2 on the team in wins and era . . . . you write them off way too breezily. they were important players.

likewise, in 1992, obsborne and cormier were the only good starting pitchers on the team other than bob tewksbury --- aside from that, the rotation had mark clark, jose deleon, and omar olivares. if not for the rookies, the team would have fallen apart; and it's a fact (not spin) that those rookies were good enough to help anchor the 4th-best pitching staff in the league.

as to your bottom-line point --- is it unlikely that one of the sophomores will pitch like a #2? yes, it is unlikely --- but no more unlikely than the odds of jeff weaver pitching like a #2, or jeff suppan, or vicente padilla, gil meche, randy wolf, or adam eaton. the cards' failure to sign one of these pitchers is nothing to be upset about; they have better options already in hand. the only loss to bemoan is schmidt, and he didn't have any interest in leaving the west coast.

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 12:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

to amplify my point
if carpenter pitches like an ace, and wainwright / reyes pitch at about league-average level --- which history shows is not an unrealistic expectation --- the cardinal staff will probably be better this year than it was last year.

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 12:32 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes...
but it might doom us to 85 wins and no postseason.

The '82, '89, '92, and '97 teams had pythagorean win totals of 90, 84, 84, and 79, respectively. The first three teams all had a great top of the rotation starters with Andujar, DeLeon/Magraine, and Bob "Gibson" Tewksbury. They all had fantastic bullpens. They all had average to slightly above average offenses. Sounds like what we might see next year.

The sophomores are fine for the back end of the rotation, and I would strongly urge putting them in there as opposed to Eaton or Meche, but to get to 90 wins the Cardinals need someone more likely to post a 110 ERA+ like Suppan or Johnson. Yes they have their faults, they have obvious risks, and yes their contracts will likley be a burden at some point in the future. But if the #1 objective is to get the 2007 Cardinals to 92 wins, a rotation of Ace-Rook-Rook-Reclamation project-? must be improved, and I think the fate of the four teams you listed shows that.

Acquire Randy Johnson!

by guayzimi on Jan 2, 2007 1:15 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

no doubt the rotation
has room for improvement; nobody's disputing that. but what price are you willing to pay for that 110 era+ pitcher you are looking for?

if the short-term goal of getting to 92 wins in 2007 comes at the sacrifice of longer-term goals, then it's a bad idea imho. i'd just as soon have them take their chances with wainwright-reyes-brad, see if they can muster 88 wins and sneak into the postseason, and give the system another year to ripen. win or lose, they'll likely be in a much stronger trading position a year from now, and will make more productive long-term moves.

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 1:33 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

But a Johnson trade would look attractive
if the Yankees are simply looking to, say, add Chris Duncan or thin out our reliever logjam and maybe pick up a Lambert/Hawksworth type.  I think he only has one year left on his contract, too.  I'd be willing to trade soem spare parts like that and eat the $16M.  

by Valatan on Jan 3, 2007 3:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah...
there's no right answer as to whether we should mortgage the future or not. It's just that there's a huge need to replace the Thompson/Looper #5 spot in the rotation and $15mm in the bank waiting to be spent. Seems to me the solution is to find a guy that's likely to perform at league average and give him the $15mm.

A 4/40 for Soup might be over the line, but what about a 2yr/$30mm contract for Johnson and giving up TJ, Garcia, and someone else? Dunno if it's possible, but if it is, that's the kind of deal that needs to happen. Johnson over Thompson or Wells could be worth 4 wins, and if he totally tanks it's only one year we can't sign free agents.

Acquire Randy Johnson!

by guayzimi on Jan 2, 2007 1:46 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

well, they did try
to give the $15m to jason schmidt, and apparently they also tried to give it to pettitte. neither one was interested, but jocketty had the right idea. the other pitchers on the market aren't in the same class; suppan / weaver / padilla / eaton, etc etc, aren't true #2 pitchers, and wouldn't provide the 3- to 4-win improvement you're talking about. considering what those pitchers cost, i don't blame the cards for choosing not to shop in that market.

so your idea --- find a league-avg pitcher and give him the $15m --- makes sense, but executing it in this market is easier said than done.

i wouldn't be opposed to randy johnson, but not at the cost of jaime garcia. jaime could very well be in the rotation by the middle of 2008 --- and pitching better than randy johnson.

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 2:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think
that when it comes down to it that adding Jeff Suppan gets you about 3 wins next year, and guarantees nothing after 2007. (Especially considering the young kids, next years FA class, and that this franchise is obviously trying to acquire a number two type.)

But it does guarantee you that you will have committed 12% of your payroll to Jeff Suppan until 2010. No thanks.

RJ would do very well in the central next year, he isn't his old self, but he was extremely unlucky last year. I think he would actually be a lock for a sub-4.00 ERA on the Birds.

The problem is, he lives in Phoenix and has a no-trade cause. The D'backs are giving up three prospects and giving him an extension, which it looks like works for all parties involved.

I don't see that he waves his NTC to come to St. Louis(?).

That's definitely the right kind of idea though, and I am pretty sure that I would rather have that happen then have paid for anyone but Schmidt (and maybe Maddux, I liked that deal) this offseason.

by plh903 on Jan 2, 2007 2:14 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Simple math
To get 90 wins, you need to get them from a combination of starters and relievers. Last year, these were the numbers:

Wins
Carpenter 15
Marquis 14
Suppan 12
Mulder 6
Reyes 5
Weaver 5
Ponson 4
Thompson 1
Wins by starters: 62

Wins by bullpen 21

Marquis sucked, but he started a lot of games and did get a lot of wins. They need another veteran to step up and start 30-plus games.

by Red in Chicago on Jan 2, 2007 1:48 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

they can find anybody
to do what marquis did last season.

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 1:56 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

yet only the
Cubs would give him $21 million bucks for it.

by erik on Jan 2, 2007 4:26 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Problem solved.
Just find another three or four spot starters and re-sign Mulder.

by Red in Chicago on Jan 2, 2007 2:02 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Anyone else think....?
That Narveson could challenge for a starter spot out of spring training? He pitched great in AAA last year, hes 25 (if not now, when?), and hes a lefty.

by gopher100 on Jan 2, 2007 2:29 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

We gotta give him a chance
I think we have to see what he can do in spring training.  I see him and Brad Thompson fighting it out, and I would like to see Narvy hold down the fort until Mulder gets back.  (lets sign Mulder)
2006 Cardinals- An underdog story

by Born in 82 on Jan 2, 2007 3:03 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Heck Yeah
If it comes down to Narveson and Looper, Narvie wins hands down. Looper hasn't started a game in years, he's getting up there in age, and lefties rock his world. Narvie is young, left handed, and he was a starter all season last year for Memphis.
Play hard, play to win, but make it fun!

by Edmonds is baseball on Jan 2, 2007 3:04 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Quite comfortable with rotation......considering
2007 vs 2006 - opening day rotation
Carp = Carp
Reyes > Mulder
AW > Marquis
Wells = Suppan
TBD > Ponson

like Weaver, Finley, et al - we add when one drops and on we go

thank goodness we didn't overpay (for years) for weak pitching

by Hinkster on Jan 2, 2007 3:06 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Wells most certainly...
does not = Suppan. The guy has had an ERA+ of 90, 84, and 70 the last 3 years and he's pitched about 360 innings collectively. Soup is just under 600 innings and hasn't seen the wrong side of 100 during that time.

Based on this why would you assume Wells is likely to match Soup's performance next year? Sure it's possible... but likely? Also it's distinctly possible that Looper/Thompson will be as bad as Ponson was in '06...

We may not have overpaid for it, but weak pitching is what we've got. And since it's all DeWitt's money, who cares what the Cardinals pay? Are we building up a war chest for Johan Santana or Zambrano? Hah, I'll believe it when I see it...

Acquire Randy Johnson!

by guayzimi on Jan 2, 2007 4:00 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

agreed...
i think wells is a joke.  it'd be nice to eat those words though.

by jose smokeindo on Jan 2, 2007 4:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

the money isn't as important
as the opportunity cost. overpaying for so-so players leaves the organization locked into bad options. that's the situation the cardinals now find themselves in with looper rincon and encarnacion. they've got money and roster space allocated to players they don't really want, but nobody else wants them either --- so the cards are stuck with them, which limits the organization's maneuverability and makes it difficult to pursue upgrades.

rather than lock themselves into yet another option --- another signing that hurts the team as much as it helps --- the cards are taking some intelligent risks. for all we know, brad thompson is ready to make 25-30 starts at a league-average level; that is hardly a far-fetched scenario, and if it pans out the cardinals are much better served by that solution than by a $40m commitment to jeff suppan.

and if it doesn't pan out? well, i'd turn the question around and ask: what if jeff suppan's 1.400 whip and 4.5 k/9 finally catch up to him?

until a real solution presents itself, it's not unreasonable for the cards to stick with make-do options and preserve their opportunity capital. that, more than the money, is what's at stake.

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 5:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

a question for you guayzimi
not asking to be an a-hole, just curious to get your opinion: which free-agent pitcher(s) do you think the cardinals should have signed? which contract(s) should they have bid up? and of the guys who are still on the market, who do you think they should spend their money on?

i'll answer my own question this way: i don't believe they could have gotten jason schmidt unless they were willing to overspend foolishly. i don't think they can get randy johnson. pettitte rebuffed them.

to me, the missed opportunities seem to have been woody williams and ted lilly. woody's on a 2-year deal at $6.5m a year. lilly signed for the same money as suppan but is younger and has a better set of leading indicators. if they could go back and do it again, those are the guys i wish they'd gone after.

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 5:13 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Maddux
I don't know if he would have left the west coast, but a short deal for him like the Padres did would have been good IMHO.

by wildman on Jan 2, 2007 10:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not saying...
mgmt didn't make a good effort. Schmidt, Pettitte, and Randy Johnson seem to me to be the best targets. The middle group - Padilla, Meche, Lilly, Suppan - is probably best avoided, though 4/40 to Lilly or Soup could be seen as a necessary evil.

I would have matched Woody or Batista's deal... Ohka could be ok for a 2/15. Maybe we could take a bad contract from someone... Hudson, Hampton, Pavano come to mind.

Acquire Randy Johnson!

by guayzimi on Jan 3, 2007 12:04 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Doesn't last year prove the point?
We didn't get Giles and we didn't get Burnett...and so much the better. It's not that I wouldn't like to have Giles but he is starting to play like a guy on the wrong side of 30 (not bad just not game breaking) and the same will be said of players like Suppan.

It's one of the things that people miss in Moneyball. That no player is really that important. yes players like Pujols and Bonds are very important but we aren't talking about them. We are talking about Suppan and Lilly and Bautista and such. The difference between these guys and Thompson and Narveson isn't that great. Yes it's $6M/yr for 2 years different but not $10M/yr for 4 years different. Ask the Rockies how the Hampton deal turned out, hell even the Helton deal is killing them and he's good.

And for that matter when guys like Wolf and Schmidt turn down (reportedly) more money here to play in LA what do you want Walt to do? $200M/for ten years? Schmidt would have taken that but would we have wanted him to? No.

I'll stick to my view that Walt has kept the Cards from killing themselves...and the same can't be said for the Crew, Cubs or the Stros.

by Harknights on Jan 2, 2007 5:22 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think Wells will be as good as Suppan
I think he'll be between Ponson and Suppan.

Even though, if he puts up a Marquis year, I won't be suprised.

by viva el rojo pajaro 42 on Jan 2, 2007 4:02 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

What happened
My brain has stopped working or I just missed it...... But what happened to Dennis Tankersly? I looked up his stuff at the Memphis Redbirds website and it says his parent MLB team is Detroit. What the hell? I liked him
Play hard, play to win, but make it fun!

by Edmonds is baseball on Jan 2, 2007 3:09 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

he was a minor league free agent
DET signed him a while back to a minor league deal.

by azruavatar on Jan 2, 2007 3:14 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Wins
To get to 90 wins, you need something like this:
(Last Year / This Year)

Carpenter: LY 15 / TY 16 +1
Marquis (Wainwright): LY 14 / TY 14
Suppan (Wells): LY 12 / TY 13 +1
Mulder: LY 6 / TY 8 (1/2 season) +2
Reyes: LY 5 / TY 12 +7
Ponson/Weaver: LY 9 / TY 0 -9
Thompson/Narveson: LY 1 / TY 4 +3

LY 62 / TY 67 +5

Bullpen: LY 21 / TY 23 +2

Overall: LY 83 / TY 90 +7

Bottom line: Wells has to win a dozen-plus games. Wainwright and Reyes need to step up and pitch 24-30 games and win about half of them. You need a Mulder-like person as well, who can contribute 8-9 wins or so and replace the Ponson/Weaver scrapheap combo. With a modest improvement in the bullpen, principally coming from having a healthy Izzy, and some quality spot starts from Thompson/Narveson/Looper, you can get to 90 wins.

by Red in Chicago on Jan 2, 2007 3:31 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

last year vs. this year
This years starters could be equal to last years starters and the club could still win 90+ games IF we do not have a hurt closer for the better part of the season . . . Izzy blew something like 10 games for the Cards--the starters would have had more wins if it had not been for the pen . . .

by SprfldCards on Jan 2, 2007 5:56 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Also,
Injuries at: SS, 1b, LF, CF...

Aaron Miles playing 100+ games at 2B, Molina not hitting his weight, and Rolen likely still recovering from 2005 didn't help things either.

by plh903 on Jan 2, 2007 6:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I guess
ZIPS isn't done with the Cards.

They just skipped to the Jays.

The Cards of the 1940's what if is cool...add into that what if Rickey got his way and was able to intoduce Robinson and such to the Cards? A few more WS wins for the Cards and a few less by the Yanks and we would be closer to the yanks for total championships.

by Harknights on Jan 2, 2007 4:28 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

hmm..
I wonder what the deal is? No one in the comments has brought up that the Cards aren't there, maybe I'll register and see what is going on..

On a sidenote: ZiPS likes AJ Burnett for 183 IP and a 3.59 ERA next year.

Ouch.

by plh903 on Jan 2, 2007 6:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

those are last winter's projections
looking ahead to the 2006 season . . . . i don't know what that link is doing at the top of szymborski's sidebar.

in any case, i'm wrong --- the seattle mariners ZIPS apparently will be posted next, followed by the cards' . . . .

by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 6:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

whoops
that makes much more sense, it looks like some dude commented on last year's Jays projection and bumped it to the top of the "hot topics." My bad.  

by plh903 on Jan 2, 2007 7:18 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

resign mulder
the guys a winner...

by jose smokeindo on Jan 2, 2007 4:50 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Wells
He's what the Cardinals do, he'll be another Duncan special. He's an extreme groundball pitcher, which is what the Cardinals coaching staff and defense works best with. I wouldnt consider him Suppan yet, but I think that they are in the same mold of pitcher, so its not ridiculous to consider he'll put up Suppan type wins.

by gopher100 on Jan 2, 2007 5:19 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

agreed
Wells 07 and Suppan pre-Stl are in the same general class of pitcher.  Alot of fans and evidently GMs don't understand what Walt does. You don't want a $40M Jeff Suppan of 2007, you want a $5M Jeff Suppan of 04.  That is spelled Kip Wells. After a few chosen studs, you don't pay for statistics proven, you must gamble on who hasn't but might.  Walt's track record is not perfect but also unmatched in this department.

by Hinkster on Jan 2, 2007 5:46 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Suppan, Wells and Thompson
All three are extreme contact pitchers.  Anyone want to guess what Suppan's ERA is going to be now that he doesn't have an excellent defense playing behind him.  Most are expecting a 0.5 to 1.0 spike.

By contrast Wells should benefit greatly from playing in front of that same defense that made Suppan look a lot better than he was.  Heck, even Marquis did ok until they started hitting all his pitches into the upper deck this year.

If given the chance Thompson will do fine as a starter.  Probably end up with an ERA around 4 or a hair over.  He throws the 2nd fewest pitches per inning of any cardinal pitcher so it should not be a problem for him to pitch a decent number of innings.

by DriverZn on Jan 2, 2007 5:53 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Suppan and the Brewers
I'm really happy for Suppan - great guy, big payday.  I can't figure out the Brewers.  Why does a small market team who constantly struggles with budget issues, spend big and long on a career middle of the rotation guy?  What are they thinking?

by Hinkster on Jan 2, 2007 6:17 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Guesses
The Brewers may be thinking (1) that Suppan is a durable, dependable guy who'll help their clubhouse; and (2) that next year's FA pitching prices will make 2006 look cheap.

Some of the price runup is simple supply and demand - a lot more dollars, but not a lot more decent pitchers.

by madridbend on Jan 2, 2007 6:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

at some point,
an average-ish pitcher like Suppan just isn't worth 10-20% of your annual payroll. I could care less what the market looks like.

Besides, that's called inflation and it's not sustainable at that level.

by plh903 on Jan 2, 2007 6:37 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Suppan and Brewers
At some point, probably sooner than later, we'll see a market correction in these average pitchers.  Because of less money, no.  Because there will be some real doozy flameouts.  It's one thing to back up the Brinks truck for a proven stud like Clemens, Zito, Schmidt, etc.  They're reasonably predictable.  Batista, Meche, Suppan, Wolf, Jennings, Woody Williams are not.  Some will pay off but some will flame out and as each year of the contract goes by - more flaming out.  That's what pitchers do.  I'm proud of the Cardinals for sitting this one out.

by Hinkster on Jan 2, 2007 6:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

If you think we
have trouble getting free agents to choose StL, you can't imagine what the Brewers go through.  They have a young team that could prove a contender and an owner who is increasing payroll.  However, getting free agents to even consider them isn't easy.  They will have to overpay a few times while building winners to get themselves back established as players.

by RedbirdRay on Jan 2, 2007 7:43 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Good point about overpaying
The Tigers had to do exactly this.  By all accounts they overpaid (by quite a bit) for both Pudge and Magglio in order to convince them to go there.  

The Royals are in the same boat, though not nearly as close to being competitive as the Brewers.  But while I certainly agree that the Meche contract was a bit crazy, I can sympathize with their need to bring in some veteran talent and their problem of having to overpay to get there.

by OCCardsFan on Jan 2, 2007 8:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

how do youfeel........
about russ ortiz?

and was i dreaming this, but i thought josh fogg was a free agent to be but i did not see him on espn's free agent tracker.

by herr28 on Jan 2, 2007 8:01 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

the Rox
tendered Fogg a contract. He's about as mediocre as they come, anyway, I'm guessing Narveson could put up the same 88-ish ERA+ for free.

And you didn't ask me, but I'm not a fan of Ortiz unless the Cardinals are really planning on doing the throw-as-many-NRIs-as-possible-at-the-fifth-starter plan.

by DanUpBaby on Jan 2, 2007 8:03 PM EST up 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.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Photo_29_small
Rich Hill still has two arms for some reason.
Cardinals_spring_baseball_small
2010: A Baseball Odyssey
Pcb_sunset_web_small
What does the BA Top 100 tell us?

Recent FanPosts

Cardinal70-48_small
2010 Cardinal Approval Ratings
Lkkn__2__small
 " Baseball fantasy or reality "
Lkkn__2__small
Es el Busch Stadium amigo de los Pitchers o lo es HOK SPORT ?
Ken_red_small
Musings on Fantasy Baseball or Why You Should Join the TGBL
61736post_foto_small
Unofficial Albert's new officially unofficial nickname thread
3302_1084868615194_1630752284_179446_4689125_n_small
Hey all
Ankiel_vs_drew_small
Pitching attitudes versus OPS

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Jack_benny_small DanUpBaby

Editors

Images_small azruavatar

Trigun_001_small the red baron

Adam1_small chuckb