Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Nevin Shapiro Vows To Bring Down Miami

middle of night miscellany

insomnia sucks. i'm awake; might as well blog.

programming note: right before the holidays i had a long chat with rick hummel, the post-dispatch's hall-of-fame-bound writer; look for the Q+A transcript in the next day or two.

in today's p-d: the mulder bidding plods along. texas and cleveland are in for two guaranteed years, and the bet's to jocketty: call or raise? i say fold 'em. 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 --- the guy hasn't been right for two and a half years, and he's recovering from a torn rotator cuff. i'd sooner have the cards take a flyer on tomo ohka or john thomson, the latter of whom tops jeff sackmann's list of free agents still worth watching.

sackmann's list also names jeff weaver, who (according to the p-d article cited above) remains on the cardinals' radar. if he'd sign for a year or two, sure --- but why would he do that? he's got a better resume than jason marquis and adam eaton, both of whom signed for three years in the low $20ms; if it takes more than that to get weaver (and it will), it's too much. sure, he looked great in october; he also has posted era's pushing 6.00 in two of the last four seasons. weaver has had just one winning season in an 8-year career, and just one year with a sub-4.00 era. jocketty got him for next to nothing last season, and next to nothing is about what he is worth going forward . . . . well okay, that's a little harsh; maybe not next to nothing, but in the same subdivision. will weaver be appreciably better than brad thompson over 30 starts? i'd put it at 60-40, maybe 65-35. if that's worth $30m to ya, be my guest . . . .

it might be worth it to the seattle mariners, who per this diary at Halos Heaven may empty part of their unspent zito purse into weaver's lap. before you dismiss that as a worthless internet rumor, you should know that the socal-based HH seems to have an in with the socal-bred weaver; this blogger scooped the mainstream media by two days last winter when weaver signed his one-year deal with the angels. the diary also notes weaver's fondness for st louis and hints that this factor might even trump seattle's dollars. if jeff would grant the cards one of those coveted Hometown Discounts, i'd discount my reservations about him commensurately.

one other thing before we leave this morning's post-dispatch: the last paragraph says st louis is considering adding a right-handed bat, with preston wilson among the possible targets. i'm not wild about preston, but he has his uses; i'd still rather have the other wilson, craig, who has better on-base ability.

randy johnson won't be joining the cards . . . . .  

final item: the first of the diamond mind simulations have appeared, courtesy of Replacement Level Yankees Weblog (RLYW). for those not familiar with diamond mind, it's a simulation game --- think strat-o-matic, but a lot more sophisticated. the game first impressed itself upon cardinal fans back in the spring of 2004, when it correctly forecast that st louis would reclaim the division title after its 85-win, 3d-place finish in 2003. that was not a widely shared prediction, you may recall; the astros had signed clemens and pettitte, and the cubs had added greg maddux to their terrifying wood/prior combination, while the cards were counting heavily on a reclamation project (chris carpenter) and an inexperienced 25-year-old (jason marquis). but in 100 full-season diamond-mind simulations using projected stats for 2004, the cardinals finished first nearly half of the time and had the highest average win total (92) over the 100 simmed seasons.

RLYW has run preseason diamond-mind simulations the last couple of years, with mixed results. in 2006, this exercise correctly called 6 of the 8 playoff teams; in 2005, it only went 3 for 8. the sims that appeared at RLYW last week are preliminary and should not be taken very seriously; they used data from one of the less established projection systems, CHONE, and only 100 seasons were simmed. by the end of spring training, RLYW will have run several thousand simulations using multiple sets of projection data --- those are the results i would place the most stock in.

but we don't have those yet. the results we do have, flimsy though they may be, are at least encouraging. the CHONE-driven sims project st louis as the best team in the national league, with an average record of 90-72. the cards won the nl central in 54 of the 100 simulated seasons and took the wild card in another 15. even more shocking than that result was the following: the sims project st louis, with its uncertain starting rotation, to yield the lowest number of runs in all of baseball.

i e-mailed SG, who runs the sims for RLYW, and asked who he had slotted into the cardinal rotation for these simulations. he answered that carpenter, wells, wainwright, and reyes were in the first four slots, with narveson and blake hawksworth splitting the #5 slot. it so happens that CHONE thinks reyes and wainwright are just swell --- both are projected to have era's in the mid-3.00s --- and it's reasonably bullish on kip wells, who projects to an era of 4.41. if those pitchers can meet such rosy projections, then st louis will indeed have a hell of a staff.

but don't order your playoff tickets just yet. it's only one projection, and it's based on so-so data and incomplete rosters. i recommended to SG that he use brad thompson as the cards' #5 starter in future simulations; if they sign mulder or weaver or anybody else, that will alter the simulation results. i'll keep an eye on his site and let you know how the make-believe cards fare in the thousands of make-believe seasons to be played in the coming weeks.

Comment 136 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Insomnia does suck
So does working 3rd shift. Thanks for giving me something to read.

The CHONE projections on Reyes and Wainwright make me down right giddy; I really think those two w/ Narvie or Thompson could lead a stellar young rotation (with that old fogey Carp getting a few starts, too). Of course, they're only projections (and that's why they blahbahblah), but it's nice to read anyway.

Looking forward to The Commish Q&A...

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Jan 4, 2007 4:55 AM EST reply actions  

Optimistic here also
Reyes, Wainwright, Thompson

Those 3 would make a good 2,3,5 if they are given the chance.  I don't understand why so many want to throw money away on free agents rather than let the kids have at it.

At this point I would pass on Weaver if he is asking anything north of 7/yr.  I cannot see him being more than 1-2 wins better than a Thompson/Naverson combo.

Mulder is a tougher subject.  I think the 05 form is the most likely incarnation we would see.  Thats a 13-15 win soft tossing lefty.  Is that worth several times what Naverson would make?  If thompson/naverson can give you 10+ wins then the answer is no.  

I say save the money and try to make a mid season trade to add some offense to the outfield.

by DriverZn on Jan 4, 2007 5:08 AM EST up reply actions  

Not optimistic here
I agree with the reasoning on Mulder. Matching the offers already on the table would tie us up for two years on an arm that's not all that certain to ever come back. On the other hand, if he does come back--and I think he will--Mulder is exactly what we need.

As for Weaver, I don't think looking at the past is constructive. We did turn Weaver around, and he clearly has good stuff. He's capable of being a very good No. 2 or 3 man for several years. And if he comes through for us, we may have a chance at his brother down the road.

As for going with the youngsters, it all sounds good in January but when the results start coming in through June and July...Actually, I shudder to think about what might happen. It's nice to fantasize about picking up someone in August, but if we're 20 games out, we're going to be sellers rather than buyers. And seriously I think these owners would be willing to decimate this team for the chance of maximizing profits.

I don't pretend to have any special expertise but when I look at the young possibilities, I see only Wainwright as someone who might step in and win more than five or six games. Thompson is great...in his bullpen role. But I think hitters would figure him out mercilessly on the second time through the lineup. Narveson? Where's the sharp break on his curve ball? I really don't think he has major league caliber stuff. I know I'm in the minority here on Reyes, but so far I'm underwhelmed to say the least.

With three youngsters in the rotation, I see a very long, difficult season with the unloading of contracts in August. With Weaver (and maybe Mulder or another scrap heap pitcher), I see a season much like last year--and at least a chance to improve in August and make the post-season.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 9:03 AM EST reply actions  

So if I read your last paragraph right,
you're pinning all our hopes for 2007 on ... Jeff Weaver as the difference between the playoffs and failure?

by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 4, 2007 9:52 AM EST up reply actions  

rotation
I don't think he's necessarily saying that Weaver is the savior, but he would represent an upgrade over Narveson/Thompson/whoever, assuming he pitches like he did in October. Going into 07 with Carpenter, the two young guys, plus Kip Wells (ugh) and some other guy is NOT the way to seriously defend a title. While I like Reyes, he does have an injury history. And how is Wainwright going to respond to pitching 175+ innings when he worked out of the pen last season? My gut feeling is that he's enough of a stud to do well, but it's still a valid question.  

Bottom line: StL NEEDS another solid pitcher for the rotation, period. I'm fine with overpaying a little for Weaver. Not ridiculous Gil Meche-money, but what Marquis got from the Flubs isn't out of the question. If they decide he isn't worth it, then they may have to dangle Duncan to get another pitcher.  Actually, that may actually be the better way to go.

Cards fan in Denver

by Futility Infielder on Jan 4, 2007 10:52 AM EST up reply actions  

The rotation with Weaver
is not nearly enough, in my opinion. But it might get us 83 wins and a trip to the post-season if other teams in the division flop again (which is unlikely).

To play the kind of baseball we played in 2004, 2005 and part of 2006, we need a rotation that gives us a good chance every game. Last year, we needed only one pitcher (Marquis) to fail consistently for a good part of the season to put us in jeopardy. When that one failure was combined with occasional struggles by Suppan, rare setbacks for Carpenter and the expected performance of a "promising young pitcher" (Reyes), we put together three eight-game losing streaks and nearly lost the division.

If you have three guys in the rotation who can be expected, at best, to win half their games, then Carpenter and Wells are going to have to be perfect. I can tell you right now that Well is not.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 12:53 PM EST up reply actions  

fred, i'm having a hard time
following your logic. last year, in his starts as a cardinal, jeff weaver had a higher era than anthony reyes --- 5.18 vs 5.06, in almost exactly the same number of innings. like reyes, he averaged fewer than 6 innings per start, and he allowed more hits per inning and homers per inning than reyes, while striking out fewer.

yet you think weaver is essential to the cards' 2007 success, while reyes is a path to certain disaster. that doesn't make any sense to me.

and remember, the comparison above only takes the good part of weaver's season into account; we're pretending the 15 horrible starts for anaheim didn't even happen.

we're also leaving out the fact that weaver's numbers have trended downward over the last several years, while reyes is still young and has his best years ahead of him.

can you help me understand your position? why do you trust weaver, but not reyes?

by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 1:09 PM EST up reply actions  

more
Weaver isn't better than Reyes, but I think he's probably better than Thompson/Narveson/Looper or who knows who else they'll run out there.

And I read today where Mulder is being offered two guaranteed years by Cleveland and Texas. I hope Jocketty is backing away slowly.

Cards fan in Denver

by Futility Infielder on Jan 4, 2007 1:57 PM EST up reply actions  

i would ask the same thing
vis-vis brad thompson. he's perfectly capable of the same 5.18 era that weaver posted in 15 starts for the cardinals last year --- and he'd do it for about $8.5m a year less.

thompson is not likely to pitch at the level of a #2 starter, but neither is jeff weaver. i just am not convinced he can pitch consistently at the level he displayed last october --- and i certainly wouldn't want the cards to risk $30m on the answer to that question.

by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 2:12 PM EST up reply actions  

I think the answer has to be
that Weaver's 5.18 ERA isn't a good indicator of his predicted future performance. Those who support signing Weaver, myself included, couldn't possibly justify their position, given the money the signing will require, if they were predicting 5.18.

I think looking at Weaver's performance post-Aug. 2 - which I view as the period after he got straightened out and comfortable in STL - is more indicative of what we can hope for in the future. And even if you split the difference, that's a 4.6 or 4.7 ERA, which is better than I think Thompson can do.

Anyone who thinks Weaver is going to have an ERA over 5 and still wants the Cards to sign him, well, that's just a bad position. It's either one or the other. I'm bullish on Weaver '07, which is why I favor signing him.

by nycbirdo on Jan 4, 2007 4:26 PM EST up reply actions  

but couldn't you say the exact same thing
about jason marquis? he's obviously a better pitcher than his 6.00 era would suggest; taking the last three seasons as a whole, he has vastly outperformed weaver. and even taking last year in isolation, you could argue he outperformed weaver: their eras were nearly idential (5.86 weaver, vs 6.02 marquis), and jason had nearly twice as many wins, a much better whip, a lower home run rate, lower rate of hits allowed . . .

so if weaver is worth 3 or 4 years at $8 million per, then the cubs must have gotten an absolute steal in jason marquis ---- yes?

the argument will be made that weaver pitched well in sept/oct, while marquis stunk the entire second half --- but i don't believe that reflects anything meaningful vis-vis their respective abilities. it's just part of the random ups and downs that pitchers go through. you'll recall that in 2005, it was marquis who pitched lights out in september; that didn't help him much come 2006, did it?

the argument for jeff weaver is basically this: he had a pretty good 6-week stretch last fall, so let's commit to him for 3 full seasons and hope that he maintains that same level of performance he displayed last fall. it's not a high-percentage bet.

by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 6:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Do you think the ups and downs are really random?
I think downs are nearly always related to fatigue, arm (or leg) problems or similar matters that affect command. Sometimes the downs become permanent because there's only so much punishment the arm can take.

Marquis' bad pitching, in my view, was related to:

  1. his sinker flattening out (for whatever reason) and
  2. his failure to follow pitching advice he was being given.
He may or may not pitch well for the Cubs but he was finished with the Cardinals.

Wasn't Weaver failing (for some reason) to come inside far enough and crisp enough when pitching to lefthanded hitters? Whatever the problem (and I'm sure there were several) he responded positively to Duncan's coaching and I like to think that's why he improved. His arm looks as if it has plenty of zip, even after a long season.

I think Weaver today is the same pitcher that the Yankees were willing to give up the farm to obtain--but significantly better because he has now successfully passed the test of pitching with guts in a big game. But he regained that form with the help of a good coach, and if he leaves that coach, he may well revert to his old form. I think he wants to come back to St. Louis, but Walt is not bluffing and neither is Scott Boras. Whether he's worth that much is a moot point; if we don't pay it, we probably won't get him, and I think that would be a shame.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 9:03 PM EST up reply actions  

I sorta agree with you
but would add that Marquis also lost a few mph off of his fastball.  In retrospect, I wonder if he was injured.

I always thought that of the Suppan/Weaver pair, it made more sense to go after the latter.  If they could have signed him to an early, cheapish short-term deal (which, if he truly has improved would really, <u>really<u> be in his interest), then Weaver makes a ton of sense.  Something like 2$17M would be a great deal for the team.  

But it doesn't make a ton of sense to sign him to a four year contract for nine or ten per.

by Valatan on Jan 4, 2007 9:16 PM EST up reply actions  

To sign him for four years, you have to believe
that it would benefit the Cardinals to do so--to get him for the long term while he's cheap. We did that with Carpenter.

I trust Tony, Duncan and Walt to know whether Weaver merits that kind of confidence. My only concern is that the decision not be made solely on the basis of money. Of course, Walt will deny that it is solely the money so we will never really know.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 9:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, it's never solely on the basis of money
but money has to be a factor.  If Weaver wants an eight year contract, or if he wants $15M per, then obviously, that deal is a total disaster for the Cardinals.  Signing him for 3/30 isn't buying low--it nets no benefit for grabbing him while he's under the radar.  It's paying him premium dollars at a time when he hasn't really yet warranted it.

This won't happen, but I always wondered why teams don't offer contracts like this to players like Weaver:

1 year, guaranteed $8M

If player fails to throw 120 IP at a 4.50 ERA, contract voids.

If player meets these criterion, add a second year at a guaranteed $8M

If player throws 170 IP at a 3.50 ERA, then automatically add a 3/$33M contract to the end of the deal

I really don't think that teams use incentives creatively enough.  There are some clauses that could be written that both would look attractive to players and would protect teams from a Darren Driefort-style signing.

by Valatan on Jan 5, 2007 12:48 AM EST up reply actions  

If I'm not mistaken
ERA and other "performance" statistics can't be used in incentives anymore.  
Pujols > God

by joker24 on Jan 5, 2007 12:55 AM EST up reply actions  

Well then
Comparing Weaver's situation to that of Carpenter's is a total farce.  Carp's original contract was total bargain basement as he was coming off of a devastating torn labrum and then the extension was signed coming off a 2004 3.46 ERA performance that was shortened by injury yet again.  

So not only was Carpenter's true talent level far less secure good or bad, his ability to pitch was even in question...and then he was only signed for a 2 year + option deal.  We signed him for cheap because the market for injury-risky, 1 good-year pitchers at the time was not very strong.  It was a smart sign because he showed great promise throughout a full year and had next to no risk with a 2 year actually cheap deal.  Not to mention his stuff is/was at least twice as good.

Weaver on the other hand, sucks.  He has consistently sucked for quite some time now.  We know he sucks.  To say "I'm very bullish on him" is great, but Jeff Weaver is not a good pitcher with any regularity.  The market for Jeff Weaver-types is unusually strong and will not be "cheap".  His agent is Scott Boras: he will not be cheap.  

He won't be cheap.  He won't be good.  Not good, not cheap, not worth signing.  

It is staggering to me that people would be willing to commit 30 million solely on the laurels of a 5 starts with a 19:9 K:BB, 3 HR 29 inning performance.  (5.69 k/9, 2.79 BB/9, .93 HR/9)  That's the best you are going to get from Weaver, which is going to translate to something around a 4.15 ERA over the course of a season according to DIPS.  

That's his absolute upside.  A #3ish pitcher.  

His downside?  I think the Angels and Yankees can attest to how bad that is.  Hell, even we caught a 4 week glimpse.

3 years??? No.

8 million per year minimum???  No.

3 years at 8 million minimum.  You tell me.

Pujols > God

by joker24 on Jan 5, 2007 12:52 AM EST up reply actions  

We're seeing different Weavers
I live in Michigan and saw him often when he pitched for the Tigers. I wanted him on our team then and thought we'd never be able to afford him. We couldn't.

The Tigers weren't sorry to see him go because he was very immature. But I haven't heard any Tiger fans say that he doesn't have good stuff.

He's a few years older now but still seems to have the same arm. It appears that he still lacks some maturity but hopefully Papa Duncan is bringing him alone. The downside as I see it is not that Weaver sucks but that outside influence only lasts so long. (It didn't last long enough with Jason Marquis.) Jeff Weaver has to grow up as a pitcher. I saw signs of that happening in the World Series.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 5, 2007 8:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Boras lets the market for pitching establish
And that market dictates a minimum 3/24 deal if not 3/30 sadly.  
Pujols > God

by joker24 on Jan 5, 2007 12:21 AM EST up reply actions  

weaver did make strides under duncan
but can he sustain them? again, i think back to marquis, who made such great strides in the last five weeks of 2005. he's finally listening to duncan, everybody said; keeping it simple, pounding the sinker, staying aggressive, throwing strikes. jason looked reborn; looked like a different pitcher. was a different pitcher for that short period of time.

but he couldn't sustain it, and for good reason --- his true level of ability was far below that spurt of good pitching. i believe the same to be true of weaver --- at the top of his game he's league average, and you can't count on him to be at the top of his game consistently. quite the contrary. like marquis, weaver has been consistently inconsistent. whatever strides he made in october, i wouldn't expect him to sustain over the long haul.

by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 11:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Ability or maturity?
I think Jason Marquis still has a ton of ability (although his arm may have weakened a bit) but not enough maturity. Maturity is also the chief issue with Weaver.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 5, 2007 8:33 AM EST up reply actions  

What does Dave Duncan think?
I am a Weaver believer, but so the heck what! I have said it before and I will say again. If Duncan thinks he is for real I say, "Sign the man!"

by nybirdfan on Jan 4, 2007 9:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm basing my view on my subjective judgment
of what I see in the pitchers when they are on the mound. Weaver was pretty shell-shocked when he came to the Cardinals and it took five or six starts to get things turned around. But what I saw when he pitched was good stuff--an ability to get hitters out in many different ways. In the post-season he confirmed that he had that plus an ability to pitch under pressure.

I saw no evidence that Reyes was demoralized at any time. In fact, I saw a great deal of confidence, even under pressure as in the WS and in his first game against the White Sox. What I did not see--and I admit that this is purely subjective opinion from a fan and not an expert--was the kind of stuff that gets big league hitters out consistently over the long term. He has zip on his fast ball...but not enough to keep it from flying out of the park at inappropriate times. (In fact, he could have scattered six or eight singles in that White Sox game and won. If he had been able to avoid the long ball.) His changeup is good, but I did not see breaking pitches anywhere near as dominating as those displayed by Kerry Wood and Mark Prior in their day. (And those days are probably gone.)

The world loves power pitchers. They're fun to watch. But I don't see Reyes' power as getting into the Roger Clemens or Nolan Ryan territory. And over the short-term, I don't think he's even comparable to Kerry Wood or Mark Prior.

Yes, I'll take Weaver over Reyes, next year and five years from now. That's just my opinion, and I truly hope that I'm wrong.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 2:11 PM EST up reply actions  

fair enough
i disagree with your opinion, and my subjective impressions differ from yours. but we are all entitled to see things as we see them.

by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 2:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow,
your characterization of Reyes' White Sox start is one of the best back-handed compliments I've ever seen.  You were able to take one of the best, in fact probably THE best, start by a Cardinal in 2006, and use it to explain why its author ought not be in the rotation.  I tip my cap.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 4, 2007 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

question for lboros
For the sake of debate, let's assume Jocketty isn't done trying to improve the rotation. What's left? Tomo Ohka, John Thomson, Weaver, Brian Lawrence seem to be the biggest names left. None of them are legit #2 guys, obviously. So where do you go? I know you are a big fan of Thompson, but aside from him, I'd like to read your thoughts.
Cards fan in Denver

by Futility Infielder on Jan 4, 2007 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

there are no true #2s available
anymore. zito pettitte and schmidt were the only ones out there. the cards made a good effort on 2 of the 3. there won't be any true #2 pitchers available until midseason, if ever.

i see any of the following as desirable possibilities going forward:

  1. add a low-priced free agent for depth on a short-term deal --- thomson, ohka, armas, etc. nothing longer than 2 years. if weaver would accept a 2-year deal, he'd be fine.
  2. trade duncan for one of the pirates' young starting pitchers, if walt can get the pirates to bite.
  3. trade some combination of encarnacion, looper, and/or other spare parts before the season for a league-average pitcher like kris benson, jon lieber, or mike maroth. if they can get carl pavano for low-grade prospects, and the yankees pick up a reasonable chunk of the remaining salary, that'd be ok.
  4. wait until midseason and go after a rent-a-pitcher. this is the likeliest time to find a true front-of-rotation pitcher --- depending on who is in the race and who isn't, guys such as tim hudson, smoltz, buehrle, dontrelle, and freddie garcia might be available. also perhaps some lesser lights such as brad penny, livan hernandez, jake westbrook.

by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 4:31 PM EST up reply actions  

My problem w/ the trade option
is that most any trade for pitching will involve trading our own pitching prospects -- Hawksworth and/or Garcia.  I just don't see that as a very good idea considering our lack of depth in the farm system.  To me, Mulder may be the best in season acquisition we could get since he wouldn't cost us Hawksworth or Garcia.

Pavano or Lieber also seem like decent ideas since we could get Pavano w/o giving up a major prospect and Lieber, I think, could be had for Looper.

by chuckb on Jan 4, 2007 6:25 PM EST up reply actions  

i bet they can get maroth
without giving up anything too special. the tigers still haven't replaced jamie walker in the bullpen; they need a lefty, and the cardinals have three with mlb experience (flores johnson rincon), plus the up-comer in troy cate. maroth's not very good, he's in his walk year, and the tigers already are set in their rotation. i can imagine flores being enough (or close to it) to fetch him.

by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 6:38 PM EST up reply actions  

The only
prospects of note that Jocketty has ever really given up are Jack Wilson (no thanks) and Coco Crisp (who could be handy this year, I guess). Otherwise, Edmonds, Finley, Walker, Rolen, McGwire, Belliard, Weaver, J-Rod, Jamey Wright, Jeff Fassero, Woody Williams, Will Clark, Jason Chistiansen, Mike Timlin were acquired for peanuts.

I'll chalk up Polanco, Bottenfield, Kennedy and Bud Smith for Rolen and Edmonds as big wins as well.

by plh903 on Jan 4, 2007 7:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed but
I still ache over the loss of Polanco. For Rolen, yes. For anyone else, no.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 9:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Ache over Polanco
The worst part of that episode.

Supposedly his agent didn't tell him the Cardinals had a three-year offer prepared for Placido until after he'd accepted the Phillies' arbitration offer. Incidentally, we've got Adam Kennedy—a better player—for less money two offseasons later.

by liam on Jan 4, 2007 9:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Mark Mulder?
Daric Barton and Dan Haren.

by DanUpBaby on Jan 4, 2007 10:11 PM EST up reply actions  

I thought
we were discussing Spring Training to deadline deals, like we would be involved with this year.

But yeah, that trade sucked. Of course.

by plh903 on Jan 4, 2007 10:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Why Weaver is better than Reyes (my opinion)
I like Weaver because Weaver reminds me a lot of Jeff Suppan when we first got him from KC.

Jeff Weaver I saw in the playoffs was a winner, and I liked that.  

We're winners, Chip!

by redbird2006in on Jan 4, 2007 3:21 PM EST up reply actions  

I want him in the rotation
and he will be. But I don't want to count on him as a top of the rotation guy just yet. One reason Reyes had a disappointing record last year is that he was often matched against another team's ace. That was a compliment Tony paid him. But I don't think Reyes was ready for it.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 9:11 PM EST up reply actions  

oh boy...
So the plan is to acquire a viable starting rotation at the deadline... Don't you have to play about 100 games prior to that?

All we have to do is lose about 55 of those, then maybe a market will develop for Enc and Looper.

Acquire Jon Lieber!

by guayzimi on Jan 4, 2007 9:20 AM EST reply actions  

My worry
is that the market will be for Rolen, Pujols, Eckstein and Carpenter. Surely, they wouldn't do that? The Marlins have done that type of thing more than once.

It's the baseball equivalent of moving your operations to China.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 9:38 AM EST up reply actions  

Get Real
That will never happen, so lets just pretend like that comment was never made.
2006 Cardinals- An underdog story

by Born in 82 on Jan 4, 2007 9:54 AM EST up reply actions  

Apples to Oranges
Thats what comparing our two franchises is like.  Florida continues to dump their salaries because they can't afford or support a baseball franchise.
"Your mom likes Albert Pujols" - Happy Joe

by fatbellyjefferson on Jan 4, 2007 10:03 AM EST up reply actions  

Don't cry for the Marlins.
Pointed out yesterday, Florida's revenue sharing ($30 million) and TV money are far more than the Marlin's $15 million payroll. They could pay more, but they choose not to; and they seem to do well developing young players.

KC and Milwaukee, OTOH, have apparently decided to spend a bit to get better. May work for Milwaukee, probably won't help KC.

by madridbend on Jan 4, 2007 1:49 PM EST up reply actions  

If the Cards...
are clearly out of competition, I would say Eckstein would be a prime candidate to be moved, seeing as they aren't dying to extend him.

Trading Rolen might be remotely possible.

No chance on Carp or Pujols since they have no trade clauses. The Cardinals aren't the Marlins. No one is the Marlins except the Marlins.

Acquire Jon Lieber!

by guayzimi on Jan 4, 2007 10:05 AM EST up reply actions  

Many players traded at the deadline
have no-trade clauses. They are willing to waive them when they're mired on a team that's going nowhere.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

A team with...
Carp, Pujols, a $100mm payroll, and no bad contracts always has a bright future, even if 2007 goes poorly.
Acquire Jon Lieber!

by guayzimi on Jan 4, 2007 1:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Why not?
Pujols, Carpenter, and enough cash to fill out a roster with quality major-league players, not just minimum-level replacements ensures that the Cardinals will be a competitive franchise over the next several years.  Whether they are a dominating team, a la 2004, or are able to win another WS depends a great deal on luck, both getting good (Edmonds having a career year, Weaver catching fire in the playoffs, Rolen staying healthy) and avoiding bad (serious injuries).  The worst thing the franchise could do would be to take on 2 or 3 heavy long-term contracts for middling players that cripple their ability to spend for truly valuable players.

by blove121 on Jan 4, 2007 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree about avoiding the bad contracts
But I trust Tony and Walt to know how to avoid those. The only really bad one I remember was Danny Jackson. Tino never played up to par here, but that was not a bad contract.

As for acquiring the rest of your team, that is not as easy as it sounds. The right player may not be available at the right time...or may cost too much.

With baseball salaries escalating and St. Louis trying to buck the trend, I don't like the prospect of building a team. What worries me is that if the team takes a deep nose dive that Pujols will eventually lose interest in playing here. He is a very competitive player and wants to win more than anything in the world.

by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 9:17 PM EST up reply actions  

I would hope that
The 563 regular season games Alberts teams have won in the last 6 years, plus the two pennants and one world championship would be enough to prove to him that the org is commited to winning.
Cheers

by Alxfritz on Jan 5, 2007 4:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Eckstein
I am still a believer in the somewhat criptic reports that Eckstein will be extended in spring training.  The word on the street (for what its worth) was that the Cards told Kennedy that Eckstein would be in the fold for his full contract when they signed him.  Either way, unless we are planning to make a play for Guzman next year (or somehow Tyler Greene puts it all together) we need Eck...  

I am guessing a spring training extension is in order...

by Lawless on Jan 4, 2007 2:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Stop, just stop
Wow.  That about sums up your position on ownership.
Pujols > God

by joker24 on Jan 4, 2007 1:41 PM EST up reply actions  

no, the plan is to build a viable rotation
out of the promising young pitchers in the organization, instead of the mediocre (or worse) mid-career pitchers from other organizations.

by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 10:39 AM EST up reply actions  

The problem is...
we only have two promising young pitchers. They should definitely be in the rotation, but who do we have after that?

Brad Thompson? A year ago after a very nice 2005 season in the pen he was declared unfit to start by Dave Duncan because he didn't have enough of a repertoire to go with the sinking fastball. Since then he's lost his sink, been demoted, got the sink back sort of, returned to the bigs and pitched ok not great. That's not a particularly promising starting pitching prospect.

Chris Narveson? He's no one's idea of a prospect and La Russa flat out said he is not an option for the rotation. He doesn't fit in the pen with Rincon, Flores, and TJ, and he's out of options. Good bye Chris.

Garcia? Lambert? Hawksworth? None of them have even mastered double A over a whole season. I don't think a team with world series aspirations can hand the reigns over to guys like this.

Even if we acquired Lieber or overpaid for Weaver, Reyes and AW would still be in the rotation and Wells' spot would open up for Garcia or Hawksworth in '08.

I'm fine with youth movements, but aren't quality youths necessary to make it successful?

Acquire Jon Lieber!

by guayzimi on Jan 4, 2007 1:26 PM EST up reply actions  

they need to develop some depth
we don't disagree about that. we only disagree about how to solve that problem. i think they are best served to find somebody on a short-term deal (eg john thomson or tony armas), or rely on the replacement-level arms within the organization, rather than making a 3- or 4-year commitment to a pitcher like weaver or suppan.

if they can get somebody on a short-term deal before the season, that's fine. if they can't, i believe they can make do with thompson or narveson until the trade market opens up. there's no great hurry; it doesn't have be done today, and it certainly doesn't have to involve a multiyear, multimillion-dollar signing.

by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 2:04 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm taking a glass-half-full approach here.
This is the first time in a long while in which we can say "we only have two promising young pitchers."  To my mind, that's a damn fine thing.

It's not about 2007.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 4, 2007 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Amazing
How you can be so negative on a player thats never had an era or 4.0 in the Majors.  I wish we could have a few more failures like that.

by DriverZn on Jan 4, 2007 8:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Bring back Wilson
I think he would continue to be a great fit for this team.  I'd be willing to bet that if he wasn't on our roster last year, people would see his signing this year as a positive move.  There's just something about resigning the same guys that doesn't get people that excited.
As far as the rotation:
I have a lot of confidence in Wainwright and Reyes to put up solid numbers from here on out.  Both have proved they can pitch well at this level...and in the biggest games.
Weaver would have to give us a hometown discount for his signing to be worth while, and I'm still on the fence about Mulder.  I think as long as his contract is heavily incentive based, then I would like him to come back.  From what I heard on the radio this morning we may find that out today.
"Your mom likes Albert Pujols" - Happy Joe

by fatbellyjefferson on Jan 4, 2007 9:55 AM EST reply actions  

Intangibles
I am with you.  To me you need a RH 4th outfielder with PH power and Wilson (either)fits the mold.  I like Preston b/c my master plan would be to get either a Preston or a Reggie Sanders then trade for Elijah Dukes and see if these guys could do a mentoring job.

Bottom line:  More guys like Sanders, Eckstein, W. Williams, Carpenter, Matheny, Morris, (insert any other character guys here - Trot Nixon) would always be a good thing.  Especially if you could use those intangibles to potentially develop a guy slightly off the tracks like E. Dukes, or BJ Upton....

by Lawless on Jan 4, 2007 3:01 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't care
if he pulled the tracks out of the ground, you're right--the kid can hit. I'd rather have Baldelli, but Dukes (or maybe BJ Upton) is just the kind of guy teams should be circling around.

by DanUpBaby on Jan 4, 2007 4:17 PM EST up reply actions  

They want the world
for Baldelli, and I'd rather have Gomes...who could probably be had for considerably less.

by RedbirdRay on Jan 5, 2007 10:43 AM EST up reply actions  

not me
Wilson does nothing for me.  His OBP is terrible and his defense as bad or worse.  He can steal a base, I guess.

To me, John Rodriguez is superfluous w/ Duncan and Speizio on the roster.  I wonder if he couldn't be moved for a comparable right-handed hitting OF to play 40-50 games in left and right.  No particular players in mind but it would make more sense to me than Rodriguez or a 35 year old Preston Wilson.

by chuckb on Jan 4, 2007 6:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Then give me a better option
Who would fit in better than Wilson?

I agree.  J-Rod's left handed bat, below average defense and base-running are not much help to us with the other guys ahead of him on our depth chart.  I wonder if he'll be involoved in trade talks this year.

"Your mom likes Albert Pujols" - Happy Joe

by fatbellyjefferson on Jan 5, 2007 2:03 PM EST up reply actions  

waiting for the deadline
what are the odds the cards would actually pony up for a good pitcher at the deadline?  i think its pretty likely they would end up dumpster diving, just as they did with weaver.  mulder, assuming his medical reports look good, would probably be about as good as anyone the cards could afford at the deadline and wouldnt require giving up any prospects.  i know we are all disappointed with the 2005 mulder, but doesnt someone who went 16-8 with a 3.64era/1.38 whip look pretty good about now?

by dmb60614 on Jan 4, 2007 10:00 AM EST reply actions  

According to those projections...
the Cards would have the best pitching rotation in all of baseball, allowing the fewest runs of any team. It's hard to trust that though, as they predict Philly finishing below Washington in the NL East.
Miller sucks.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Jan 4, 2007 10:01 AM EST reply actions  

also
wainright's only pitching 78 innings. Sounds like those projections have him as a reliever. Narveson has more IP than wainright. Thats a bit fishy.

by Birds on the Matt on Jan 4, 2007 10:19 AM EST up reply actions  

and
looking further they have tankersly and john webb pitching a significant amount of innings as well. really fishy.

by Birds on the Matt on Jan 4, 2007 10:22 AM EST up reply actions  

sorry to keep replying to myself
but those win projections for the cardinals just don't make sense. There are 3 minor league pitchers putting up over a 5.0 era and getting more innings than reyes and wainright. How does that translate into a 90 win team? I think that sim software is using wainright's reliever projections in a starting pitcher role. Something isn't adding up.

by Birds on the Matt on Jan 4, 2007 10:28 AM EST up reply actions  

The sim doesn't use every player
All projection systems develop numbers for many more players than will actually play in a particular season. That's why you see numbers for minor league players. (And also why you see ERAs above 5 and losts of innings pitched.) The projections are just that, an estimate on how that particular player would perform if he played in the major leagues next year.

To run a simulation, you have to pick a subset of those players for your roster and make adjustments for playing time so you don't end up with every batter getting 600 ABs, for example.

by kjblair on Jan 4, 2007 11:38 AM EST up reply actions  

I can understand that
but the sim projections are using projections based on some false assumptions - a big one being wainright still in the pen (assumption on my part based on his only pitching 78 innings). Take a look at the CHONE projections and then at the simulated cardinals record. Something is out of wack. There's only one pitcher going over 200 innings. only 4 above 150 (reyes being right below) 2 of which are john webb and dennis tankersly.

by Birds on the Matt on Jan 4, 2007 12:16 PM EST up reply actions  

He's not using all the players
My guess is that he used the numbers for Carpenter and Reyes "as is", adjusted the innings upwards for Wainwright and possibly for Wells and adjusted the innings downward for Narveson and Hawksworth (since they were splitting time as the number 5 starter). He then filled in the rest of the innings with the bullpen guys from last year, with their usage adjusted to come up with a reasonable estimate for the total number of innings pitched for the entire season. He might have left Wells' numbers unchanged and just increased the bullpen innings. (Probably a more realistic approach.) Webb and Tankersly (and all of the other minor league players) would never enter the picture.

He probably should have downgraded Wainwright's performance since a pitcher can put up better numbers in relief than starting. The other pitchers' numbers are projected based on their current roles which aren't expected to change.

I'm more interested in seeing sims run using ZIPS and PECOTA projections as they tend to produce better (more accurate) performance estimates.

by kjblair on Jan 4, 2007 1:33 PM EST up reply actions  

agreed CHONE a joke
These are terrible. 8 pitchers with 100 plus innings; Carpenter 204, Dennis Tankersley 154, John Webb 153, Reyes 149, Jorge Sosa 119, Chris Narveson 118, Randy Keisler 117, Stuart Pomeranz 115, and Kip Well 114.  Uh, what?    
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 4, 2007 7:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Think we disagree
CHONE doesn't project what will happen, it projects what should happen if 1) these players actually play for the Cardinals and 2) they play about as well as players have performed who have had similar careers.

Criticizing a projection system for having IP numbers that sum up to many more innings than a team could possibly pitch in a season is like criticizing a menu for having more entrees than any one customer could eat in one sitting. (But I'm not sure that's the problem you're pointing out...)

by liam on Jan 4, 2007 7:25 PM EST up reply actions  

More CHONE Defense...
CHONE did a decent enough job projecting last year's performances. Chone Smith, the fellow who developed CHONE, published some evaluations of the various systems—CHONE's coming along just fine. It's only the second year that he's been working on it.

Regardless, it's a pretty lousy thing to say that his projection system's a joke when he publishes its results for free. If we would all tell such helpful jokes.

by liam on Jan 4, 2007 7:36 PM EST up reply actions  

They project the player
not the player's role on the team? Does that makes sense?

by plh903 on Jan 4, 2007 7:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Thanks
You explained that much better than I did and with less key-pokey.

by liam on Jan 4, 2007 8:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Not a problem
I guess it's much easier to trash something than to spend 20 minutes figuring out how something works, that smart people spend 100s of hours on annually.

Of course, maybe PECOTA will be able to predict sprained ankles this year and we won't even have to watch the games.

Hmm, that's no fun, I guess we are better off with a reasonable projection of how most players will perform if given the opportunity based on regression analysis, performance at different levels, maybe comparable players...

by plh903 on Jan 4, 2007 8:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Sorry this CHONE a joke
It appears to have yet compensated for its deficiencies.  Better?  The author admits it's an early model.  I was only commenting on the content of the rating which seems based on old data.
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 4, 2007 9:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Like
the fact that he ran a projection for Tankersley? Or John Webb? I am sure that the guy that ran the Sims in Diamond Mind didn't include them on the roster.

How are those eight innings totals you posted deficient? That's what the computer projects them to.  

by plh903 on Jan 4, 2007 10:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Mulder
Is his injury the same as Carps? Carp did come back and become a Cy winner...
Jimscobert Purolmonds - MV3

by OKCardsfan on Jan 4, 2007 10:18 AM EST reply actions  

carp didn't throw a pitch
for 18 months after he injured himself . . . .

by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 10:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Nope...
...different injury from what I understand.  Carp had shoulder muscles separate from the bone.  They were able to staple/screw/pin the tendon to the bone and the scar tissue held it together.  Mulder had his rotator cuff torn, usually there is a tear in the tendon not the tendon comming off the bone.  Since the tendon doesn't have any live tissue, you can only sitch it together and hope the scar tissue will replace some of the strength.

by BigJawnMize on Jan 4, 2007 10:36 AM EST up reply actions  

woah BJM
going all medically on us.  Are you VeB's resident Will Carroll for 2007?

Because I'd be ok with that.  Labrum, rotator cuff, shoulder, elbow, ankle, etc. are all synonymous to me.

by azruavatar on Jan 4, 2007 10:46 AM EST up reply actions  

Nah...
...just pitched for a long time and had a varying array of injuries, so I have had the shoulder and elbow explained to me be a variety of medical professionals.  

I would have pitched college aside from the fact I have a severely strained elbow.  Similar to what Liriano had before surgery.  I chose just to shut it down.

by BigJawnMize on Jan 4, 2007 11:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Okay then
Plan B. Midseason trade is the best option right now. IMHO Weaver is replacement level. Why really fret over him. I like the walk-year scenario the best. If that doesn't work out, then we reaquire Weaver when he posts a +6 ERA for his new team and is DFA'd.
Jimscobert Purolmonds - MV3

by OKCardsfan on Jan 4, 2007 11:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Carp tore his labrum
Labrum tears are almost always the kiss of death for pitchers as #1 they are hard to detect and the "pitch through it" mentality worsens the injury to the point of destruction, #2 the labrum is basically a chunk of cartilage in between the humerus and shoulder joint that helps provide stability, strength and lubrication to the shoulder joint: cartilage is a tough thing to fully repair and can't be strengthened with training.  Carpenter is one of the few guys to even come back to his previous level from a torn labrum, let alone go from mediocre to Cy Young.  It cannot be understated: he is a medical miracle.

Mulder's torn rotator cuff is technically less devastating, but the slow motion analysis done by a BTF guy leads me to believe he is toast.  The rotator cuff is a group of muscles/tendons that basically provide shoulder stability front and back.  The group of muscles and to a certain degree the connecting tendons can be strengthened and improved, but it's far from a sure thing.  But the hitch in his arm action will be a tough thing to solve, let alone solving it while rehabbing.  

There's no way I take on a 2 year commitment to a guy coming off rotator cuff surgery and with his mechanical degeneration unless it is absolutely bargain basement (ala Carp's initial contract).

Pujols > God

by joker24 on Jan 4, 2007 2:12 PM EST up reply actions  

did he tear his labrum?
I thought that was the initial diagnosis but when they opened him up they found tendon damage.  I can't find any of the original articles, but remeber the course of action for repair was re-pin a series of shoulder tendons to the bone.  This didn't jive with the idea that the labrum was damaged.  I am not a surgeon, but I can't think of anything you really can do to repair a labrum.

by BigJawnMize on Jan 4, 2007 2:57 PM EST up reply actions  

2 surgeries
1st was to repair the torn labrum and then prior to the 2003 season he had a 2nd surgery to "clean out scar tissue" around his shoulder.  Total theory as I'm not anything close to a med: that 2nd surgery may have actually help him recover from the labrum injury as it gave even more time for the shoulder joint to rehab as best it could i.e. there was no push to get him back on the mound.

Rolen's shoulder injury last year was a torn labrum (non-throwing arm so far less serious).

Pujols > God

by joker24 on Jan 4, 2007 7:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Mulder to Cleveland...
would be the perfect scenario for the Cards.

Then, the Indians instead of the Cards, would be the team looking to trade a pitcher at mid-season to make room for Mulder. Can anyone say Jake Westbrook?

IMO, Mulder is a total unknown. No one knows how he will pitch when he comes back. Let them spend the money on a guy who will be coming off major shoulder surgery.

"Don't fail to miss tomorrow's game!" - Dizzy Dean

by jdubya on Jan 4, 2007 10:46 AM EST reply actions  

not perfect
Trading for any pitcher at the trade deadline would probably cost us at least Hawksworth.  Mulder is an unknown, but, if he's healthy, him and Hawksworth are better than just Westbrook.

by chuckb on Jan 4, 2007 9:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Odd.
Surely they aren't gonna platoon him at 2nd.   Is Ensberg entrenched at 3rd?  Loretta's got no power, does he?

by sdrone on Jan 4, 2007 11:24 AM EST up reply actions  

ask roger clemens
about how much the astros value power, given their lineup the past couple of years and the run support it provided him.

by nycbirdo on Jan 4, 2007 11:56 AM EST up reply actions  

Wierd to say the least
So what is that 3 2nd basemen the Stros have now? Burke is clearly a bench guy, but where does Loretta and Biggio play?

by JMedwick on Jan 4, 2007 12:26 PM EST up reply actions  

I think Burke is their starting CF
with Taveras moving to Coors.  Loretta would be the backup at 2b.  I think Lamb is the backup at 1b and 3b...maybe Loretta backs up SS too (which could be ugly if Everett gets hurt).

by azruavatar on Jan 4, 2007 12:30 PM EST up reply actions  

From 2006 All-Star
to 2007 backup to Biggio, baseball is a strange sport. Why would Loretta do that unless Biggio is playing his last season?
A walk is a waste of three pitches-Bob Gibson

by orlando card on Jan 4, 2007 2:03 PM EST up reply actions  

this signing
pretty much says to me that either biggio will only get enough playing time for those hits he needs for 3000, or loretta will be the scott speizio for the stros, backing up at first, 2nd, 3rd, and possibly a little in the outfield

i can see him being a guy who could play 30 games at any of those places if someone got hurt

Pujols is the greatest Cardinal in my lifetime.

by bigcardsfan5 on Jan 4, 2007 4:45 PM EST up reply actions  

right
at one point, the Yanks were considering signing Loretta to play 1st. i'll bet that Berkman still plays some in OF, and Loretta plays some at 1B, plus significant time at 2B, and some a SS and 3B.

i'll bet Biggio isn't happy.

by kindred on Jan 4, 2007 5:00 PM EST up reply actions  

I'd bet
he sees a lot of time at SS.  Everett is just not a big league hitter, especially w/ Biggio and Ausmus in that lineup.

by chuckb on Jan 4, 2007 9:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Sucks for Brooks Conrad
I thought Conrad was finally going to get his shot this year. Looks like some team is going to get a nice-hitting utility infielder off the waiver wire.

by liam on Jan 4, 2007 6:05 PM EST up reply actions  

wow
15 triples.
"...in winter, when there's no baseball... I stare out the window and wait for spring." -Rogers Hornsby

by SleepyCA on Jan 4, 2007 8:25 PM EST up reply actions  

On Craig wilson
He seemed undervalued last year when the Yankees picked him up for Chacon and he seems undervalued this offseason when there have been rumors that he might return to Pittsburgh.  Given that our bench lacks an obvious choice to face left-handed pitching (JRod doesn't seem to be favored and Spiezio has almost a .200pt OPS drop when facing lefties) picking up Craig Wilson for 2-3M for a year seems like a solid commitment.  He has posted good numbers prior to last year and I'd rather take my chances with him getting 200-300 ABs versus lefties than Gooch receiving those ABs.

If we signed him that would seem to make JRod expendable as there isn't a spot on the bench for him.  I've been a big JRod advocate for some time now but if he isn't going to be utilized then I'd rather move him while he can still get us something.  Sending JRod and Flores to say the Tigers for some minor leaguers or Maroth seems like a trade that could work.  It's an exchange of complimentary parts to fill needs.  

It's not a world beater but Craig Wilson getting time in LF and pinch ABs (as well as a 1b backup) and picking up a cheap backend starter strikes me as a solid move that would improve the club and cost us little as Flores moves into arbitration in the next year.  It also allows for Rincon or Narveson to be in the pen as a LH reliever.

by azruavatar on Jan 4, 2007 11:37 AM EST reply actions  

well put
you beat me to the C. Wilson thing.  I can't believe Walt wouldn't go for him.  He also could serve as an emergency backup catcher, for whatever thats worth...

by eglasier on Jan 4, 2007 12:23 PM EST up reply actions  

actually
if your giving props on wilson I along wiht others mentioned him a week or so ago...anyway I'm right with you guys..why talk abotu trading for a guy one season and losing out, but not go for him for cheap the next...I'm not confident in the OF at all.
Kenny is a "dirt" bag?

by punchinjudy on Jan 4, 2007 4:31 PM EST up reply actions  

We've been talking
about him for 2 years, but whatever.

by RedbirdRay on Jan 5, 2007 10:48 AM EST up reply actions  

Sorry
you are right.  keep giving yourself props.  it's cool.

by RedbirdRay on Jan 5, 2007 2:43 PM EST up reply actions  

craig wilson
I like Craig Wilson as a platoon partner for Duncan in left.  We need a right-handed bat on the bench that mashes left-handed pitching.  The problem is his defense.  This would give us two halves of a left field platoon who play below average defense ... a TLR bugaboo.  Also, on the following comment--

>>If we signed him that would seem to make JRod expendable as there isn't a spot on the bench for him.  I've been a big JRod advocate for some time now but if he isn't going to be utilized then I'd rather move him while he can still get us something.<<

Not sure JRod will get us anything in trade (maybe the Angels would give us back Terry Evans for him!) but if we sign Wilson that leaves one OF bench job open.  Personally, I would be against giving that last bench slot to So T or JRod.  So T's defense is in decline and he's a right-handed bat.  We would need a left-handed bat for the last bench slot. I am also a JRod fan and do not believe they have given him a fair shot in the OF.  Be that as it may, TLR has no faith in JRod as anything but a pinch hitter.  However, we do have a plus defensive OF in our system who bats left--Skip Shumaker.  Skip has better range and a better arm than So T.  If we got C. Wilson, I'd be for giving the last OF slot to Skipper.  

by jjray on Jan 4, 2007 6:21 PM EST up reply actions  

maybe I wasn't clear
I view the bench as:
  • Spiezio getting pinch ABs against RHPs
  • Duncan starting until he proves he can't hit LHP
  • Craig Wilson getting any require pinch ABs against LHP
  • Aaron Miles as getting all the middle infield sub
  • Either Gooch or Skip as the OF defensive replacement
The differences between Gooch and Skip are, imo. minimal besides age and about $600k.  Whoever goes out there doesn't matter to me.  There really isn't room on the bench for JRod unless you want to see Miles/Gooch/Spiezio batting against lefites which isn't something I want.  Moving Flores and JRod to Detroit who is looking for a lefty off the bench and in the pen seems like a good fit if they hand back Maroth and spare parts.

There are two players that the organization doesn't seem to want to commit to this year: Narveson and JRod.  There doesn't seem to be room on the active roster and I don't think we can send them down to AAA so I'd rather move them than lose them to waivers if we aren't going to utilize them ourselves.

by azruavatar on Jan 4, 2007 7:12 PM EST up reply actions  

maybe I wasn't clear
>>maybe I wasn't clear<<

Strange post, as if some transmitted wisdom was missed.  Spezio is a corner IF.  Might gets some starts in OF but he takes the corner IF slot on the bench roster.  There are two OF bench slots.  Wilson would take one.  IMHO, it makes no sense to fill them both with right-handed batters (especially given that that Juan E, a right handed batter, is in right and we will probably want to give a left handed batting OF a chunk of starts there).  It would hurt platoon and pinch hitting possibilities for that bench position to have two RH bench OFers.  That knocks out Taguchi if we get C. Wilson (or P. Wilson for that matter).  One OF spot left to be filled by a left-handed batter.  Who?  Should be a defensive OF given that C. Wilson and Duncan are both defensive liabilities.  Don't tell me you view Spezio as a defensive OF.  He's got range #s in line with Duncan ... meaning below average at best.  It's Skip or JRod.  Skip is the plus defender.  He should get the nod ... but TLR loves So T like his own son so I'd never bet against him despite the irrationality in bringing him back with another right-handed bat on the OF bench.

by jjray on Jan 4, 2007 9:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Johnny Rocket and Options
He's got one option year left, so the Cardinals can feel free to start his season at AAA—I'm sure that's what will happen, barring an injury in Spring Training.

I thought we should have traded Rodriguez for whatever we could get after 2005. It'd be nice if he didn't spend any time in our minor system this season so he'd be slightly more valuable in trade by virtue of having options left. It looks like we'll have Taguchi and P-Dub/C-Dub as our 4th and 5th outfielders with Troll-tee available as a lefty OF.

by liam on Jan 4, 2007 10:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Walt says...
Taguchi is back.  In Walt's words (interview with Bernie Miklasz last month on StL radio), "we'll make sure he's comfortable."  

Ack.  

   

by meat on Jan 4, 2007 7:26 PM EST up reply actions  

I think it's time
that we come to grips with the fact that So Taguchi is to the Cardinals now what Willie McGee was to the Cardinals in the late 90's. Fan favorie, great guy, great teammate, replacement level player.

Of course, So doesn't have an MVP season in his past, nor does he have one and a half batting titles. However, his blast against Farnsworth in '04 and against Wagner in the NLCS were both awesome. So he's got that going for him...

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Jan 5, 2007 4:39 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't know why
but I always sing So Taguchi's name to "Rock Me Amedeus"
Jimscobert Purolmonds - MV3

by OKCardsfan on Jan 5, 2007 12:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Nice...
That's pretty good.

Personally, I can't seem to resist matching his name to "My Sharona" from The Knack.  It just scans so well...

Not that it's a better mental connection, but astute baseball/musical observers might also note the symmetry of matching a band's "one hit wonder" song to So Taguchi. ;-)

Also, I would like to add that I think Alxfritz's observation about So being this decade's Willie is amazingly apt.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Jan 6, 2007 9:43 PM EST up reply actions  

maybe I'M the dream weaver
but i'm just sold on weaver being reborn, or, rather, resurrected. i think he was in a funk for a year and a half for whatever reason, whether it was mental, mechanical, or a combination of both, before he got to stl.

but once he worked it out (with dunc's help), he was really, really solid. he was a very good 2/3 spot for some time before his october performance. his era the last two months of the season (and yes, i'm carefully sidestepping a terrible august 2 start) was 4.21, and that's over 11 starts.

there was a dramatic change in jeff weaver last year. it was evident not just in the stats, but in his demeanor on the mound (happier, more relaxed, more confident) and his comments in interviews (about his confidence, about how dunc was helping him relax and just pitch rather than worry about having the perfect arm angle, etc.). obviously we can't be sure that change was permanent rather than temporary. but especially if he comes back to stl, i think the gamble on permanence is worth it. i'm willing to be a believer. a believer in weaver.

my guess is he ends up somewhere around 4.5 next year. i think he's worth more than what marquis got, and certainly represents a jump over thompson/narveson. whether we think he's enough of a jump to justify $8 million per, i understand that's debatable, but i think it is. especially given this: i don't buy the CHONE projections. i think right now this team projects to make us really, really nervous at the end of the season, and maybe miss the playoffs. i understand we just won and we should focus on good contracts and rebuilding from within. i'm all for that. but i don't think signing weaver to 3/24 is a bad contract.

by nycbirdo on Jan 4, 2007 12:22 PM EST reply actions  

3/24
would be great but there's no way after the Marquis deal that Weaver gets less than 4/40ish, something like what Suppan got.

by eglasier on Jan 4, 2007 12:26 PM EST up reply actions  

meh
i don't think we're the only ones who think the cubs are stupid and overpaying this offseason. i don't think the jason marquis contract necessarily sets the market. and (though i disagree) most of the conventional wisdom i've seen since november has had suppan rated significantly higher than weaver. weaver wasn't considered anyone's "plan b" if they didn't get zito. i think weaver gets a few mil less per year than suppan, and i think he can be had for 3 years. if i'm right, i'm right; if it's 4/$40, then i think you're right, that is too much.

by nycbirdo on Jan 4, 2007 12:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Wilson sounds like
John Mabry, Right-handed Version, with a 300-percent higher list price.

by Red in Chicago on Jan 4, 2007 12:29 PM EST reply actions  

I disagree
Here are there lines, Wilson is much younger and significantly more valuable

Mabry's line

BA     OBP    SLG
.265  .323  .407

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mabryjo01.shtml

BA     OBP   SLG
.265  .354  .480

Wilson's

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wilsocr03.shtml

by eglasier on Jan 4, 2007 12:39 PM EST up reply actions  

sorry
wilson's stats should be under his name

by eglasier on Jan 4, 2007 12:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Wilson is good
However, I am wondering if Walt is just saving his money and spending it on one big salary dump A LA Larry Walker
2006 Cardinals- An underdog story

by Born in 82 on Jan 4, 2007 1:40 PM EST up reply actions  

I wonder if the Red Sox are willing to dump
Beckett after the Matsuzaka signing, and them moving Papelbon into the rotation.

by Valatan on Jan 4, 2007 2:48 PM EST up reply actions  

After giving up Hanley Ramirez to get him
that'd be a pretty bad PR move imo.  He wasn't as bad as his ERA last year and that was a very odd season with some up and down starts.  I think they expect to have Beckett, Matsuzaka and Papelbon be their pitching core for the next 5+ years (along with Jon Lester).

They signed him to a 3 year contract w/ club option in July of last year

by azruavatar on Jan 4, 2007 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

not to mention
that he's worth several pretty good prospects.  They're not going to dump Beckett the way the Yanks will dump Pavano.

by chuckb on Jan 4, 2007 9:38 PM EST up reply actions  

All you need to know
about Craig Wilson, is that he can play corner OF, and he has a career OPS vs. LHP of .938.

Sold.

by plh903 on Jan 4, 2007 4:37 PM EST up reply actions  

agreed...
... plus, we don't have to trade prospects to get him, and his contract will be similar to Spiezio's.

by kindred on Jan 4, 2007 5:06 PM EST up reply actions  

RF
Right Field, please.
Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Jan 4, 2007 6:52 PM EST up reply actions  

ZIPS Projections
Not up yet but in the comments about the Mariners projections Dan makes the comment that Zips is generally kind to the Cardinals except over their lack of pitching depth.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2007_zips_projections_seattle_mariners/

so it appears that the projections for our youth movement are not going to be in the range proposed by the CHONE projections.

by realbrit70 on Jan 4, 2007 1:52 PM EST reply actions  

anybody know when the cards' zips will be posted?
somehow i was under the impression they'd be available sometime yesterday, so i've kept checking again and again to no avail.

all this realism and critical discussion about our pitching next year is seriously killing my world series buzz... thanks a lot, informed and intelligent cardinals blogging community.

(translation: great site, i always learn a ton from reading what everyone here has to say)

by mattybobo on Jan 4, 2007 3:11 PM EST up reply actions  

To keep your "buzz" up...
I recommend the following mantra:

"Wuuuuurrrrrld Champion St. Louis Cardinals!"

"Wuuuuurrrrrld Champion St. Louis Cardinals!"

"Wuuuuurrrrrld Champion St. Louis Cardinals!"

Repeat as often as you like! (I dunno if this mantra is as effective as "OM"-ing, but I always find myself smiling when I repeat it!)

Meanwhile, I'll take Weaver for three years at $24 mil and takes my chances after that... I'm definately in the "he pitched better from August on" crowd. I think Weavs could be a strong #3 guy.

"A man should live forever, or die trying." -- Mike Callahan

by The Ol Goaler on Jan 4, 2007 6:30 PM EST up reply actions  

David Wells?
i read somewhere that the Padres were trying to bring back Wells for 3-4 million for one year. i don't know if he'd be willing to play in StL, but wouldn't he be worth 5 or 6 million for one year (assuming we'd have to overpay some to get him to leave SoCal)?

by kindred on Jan 4, 2007 5:07 PM EST reply actions  

unlikely
he said last year at the trade deadline that he wouldn't waive his no-trade to come to STL.  
"...in winter, when there's no baseball... I stare out the window and wait for spring." -Rogers Hornsby

by SleepyCA on Jan 4, 2007 5:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Wells Hates Tony
He has said things in the past that gives me this impression, including one remark in regards to Edgar Renteria being 'shoved in a corner' in the Cards' clubhouse by Tony. Very bizarre, but I give credence to Wells' dislike of Tony. They seem like polar opposites.    
A walk is a waste of three pitches-Bob Gibson

by orlando card on Jan 4, 2007 6:20 PM EST reply actions  

Gooch is going to be re-signed
according to the P-D, so I don't see why you would even suggest he isn't getting one of the spots. LaRussa likes him and he did well in the playoffs.

It's done.

by Red in Chicago on Jan 4, 2007 7:16 PM EST reply actions  

Rotation
Cardinals lack depth in their rotation.  I understand the enthusiasm for Weaver and the disinterest in Mulder.  Weaver has obvious ability in terms of stuff but plenty of questions in terms of long term make-up.  However, he is the last good bet on the market to produce 200 plus innings next year. Another project is not in the Cardinals interest unless it comes cheap and in bulk for next year. Reyes, Wainwright, and Wells will keep Duncan plenty busy next year.  Thompson and Narveson don't look to have enough quality stuff to be effective as big league starters to me. Last I checked, Ohka wanted three years and Thomson had a fork sticking out of his back.  Calling Simontacchi and Stephenson. Jason Simontacchi and Garrett Stephenson. Role up your sleeves boys.      
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 4, 2007 7:43 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

N1046613005_8392_small
Our 2010-2011 strays
649494__1__small
Hall of WAR: Part 2

Recent FanPosts

Hahaha_small
These were a few of my favorite things (fink reminisces about the 2011 regular season)
Dsc01844_small
Cardinals take the Governor's Joplin Challenge, will help build 35 homes for torando victims
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Relief Pitching Edition
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Starting Pitching Edition
Small
Two Trades That Set the Cards Back in the 70s
Nyc_small
Cardinals Offense vs. Reds Offense - 2012
Nyc_small
Cardinals Rotation vs. Reds Rotation - 2012
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals by Position - Center Fielders

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Jack_benny__1__small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bendermad_small azruavatar

Trigun_001_small the red baron

Images_small tom s.

Authors

1989_bgh_cropped_small bgh

Valverde_medium_small vivaelpujols