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 |
76 comments
Comments
Interesting
by redbird2006in on Jan 2, 2007 9:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
With a curveball
by silent_bob on Jan 2, 2007 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are we really this short-sighted?
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
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
by silent_bob on Jan 2, 2007 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He
by eglasier on Jan 2, 2007 10:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comfortable with rotation
by lefty fan on Jan 2, 2007 10:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Don't panic in February..
by silent_bob on Jan 2, 2007 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lefty fan
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
by lefty fan on Jan 2, 2007 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it didn't take dan haren
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%
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?
by MikeG on Jan 2, 2007 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FIP last 3 years
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?
by Valatan on Jan 3, 2007 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Formula for FIP
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
by Valatan on Jan 3, 2007 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mike G ---
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
by joker24 on Jan 2, 2007 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sickels has them both rated
by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm fine entering the season
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
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 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?
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
"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
heh.
by TNFan32 on Jan 2, 2007 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Spin on Spinmeister...
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.
by guayzimi on Jan 2, 2007 11:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
not so, guayzimi
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
by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes...
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.
by guayzimi on Jan 2, 2007 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no doubt the rotation
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
by Valatan on Jan 3, 2007 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
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.
by guayzimi on Jan 2, 2007 1:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
well, they did try
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
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
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
by lboros on Jan 2, 2007 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yet only the
by erik on Jan 2, 2007 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thats because
by stlcardinalsfang on Jan 2, 2007 10:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Problem solved.
by Red in Chicago on Jan 2, 2007 2:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Anyone else think....?
by gopher100 on Jan 2, 2007 2:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
We gotta give him a chance
by Born in 82 on Jan 2, 2007 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Heck Yeah
by Edmonds is baseball on Jan 2, 2007 3:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Quite comfortable with rotation......considering
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...
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...
by guayzimi on Jan 2, 2007 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed...
by jose smokeindo on Jan 2, 2007 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the money isn't as important
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
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
I'm not saying...
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.
by guayzimi on Jan 3, 2007 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't last year prove the point?
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
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
by Edmonds is baseball on Jan 2, 2007 3:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
he was a minor league free agent
by azruavatar on Jan 2, 2007 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wins
(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
by SprfldCards on Jan 2, 2007 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess
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..
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
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
resign mulder
by jose smokeindo on Jan 2, 2007 4:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wells
by gopher100 on Jan 2, 2007 5:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
agreed
by Hinkster on Jan 2, 2007 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Suppan, Wells and Thompson
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
by Hinkster on Jan 2, 2007 6:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Guesses
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,
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
by Hinkster on Jan 2, 2007 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you think we
by RedbirdRay on Jan 2, 2007 7:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point about overpaying
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........
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
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
BTW, Larry
http://p092.ezboard.com/fbrewersfandemoniumfrm3.showMessage?topicID=13732.topic
by RedbirdRay on Jan 2, 2007 9:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
it was actually
by stlcardinalsfang on Jan 2, 2007 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs



















