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.
0 recs |
136 comments
Comments
Insomnia does suck
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...
by Alxfritz on Jan 4, 2007 4:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Optimistic here also
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 0 recs
Not optimistic here
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 0 recs
So if I read your last paragraph right,
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 4, 2007 9:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
rotation
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.
by TurdFerguson on Jan 4, 2007 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The rotation with Weaver
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 0 recs
fred, i'm having a hard time
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 0 recs
more
And I read today where Mulder is being offered two guaranteed years by Cleveland and Texas. I hope Jocketty is backing away slowly.
by TurdFerguson on Jan 4, 2007 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i would ask the same thing
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 0 recs
I think the answer has to be
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 0 recs
but couldn't you say the exact same thing
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 0 recs
Do you think the ups and downs are really random?
Marquis' bad pitching, in my view, was related to:
- his sinker flattening out (for whatever reason) and
- his failure to follow pitching advice he was being given.
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 0 recs
I sorta agree with you
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 0 recs
To sign him for four years, you have to believe
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 0 recs
Well, it's never solely on the basis of money
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 0 recs
If I'm not mistaken
by joker24 on Jan 5, 2007 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well then
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.
by joker24 on Jan 5, 2007 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We're seeing different Weavers
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 0 recs
Boras lets the market for pitching establish
by joker24 on Jan 5, 2007 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
weaver did make strides under duncan
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 0 recs
Ability or maturity?
by Fred McTaggart on Jan 5, 2007 8:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What does Dave Duncan think?
by nybirdfan on Jan 4, 2007 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm basing my view on my subjective judgment
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 0 recs
fair enough
by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow,
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 4, 2007 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
question for lboros
by TurdFerguson on Jan 4, 2007 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there are no true #2s available
i see any of the following as desirable possibilities going forward:
- 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.
- trade duncan for one of the pirates' young starting pitchers, if walt can get the pirates to bite.
- 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.
- 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 0 recs
My problem w/ the trade option
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 0 recs
i bet they can get maroth
by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 6:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The only
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 0 recs
Agreed but
by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ache over Polanco
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 0 recs
Mark Mulder?
by DanUpBaby on Jan 4, 2007 10:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why Weaver is better than Reyes (my opinion)
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 0 recs
I want him in the rotation
by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
oh boy...
All we have to do is lose about 55 of those, then maybe a market will develop for Enc and Looper.
by guayzimi on Jan 4, 2007 9:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
My worry
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 0 recs
Get Real
by Born in 82 on Jan 4, 2007 9:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Apples to Oranges
by fatbellyjefferson on Jan 4, 2007 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't cry for the Marlins.
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 0 recs
If the Cards...
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.
by guayzimi on Jan 4, 2007 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Many players traded at the deadline
by Fred McTaggart on Jan 4, 2007 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A team with...
by guayzimi on Jan 4, 2007 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not?
by blove121 on Jan 4, 2007 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree about avoiding the bad contracts
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 0 recs
I would hope that
by Alxfritz on Jan 5, 2007 4:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Eckstein
I am guessing a spring training extension is in order...
by Lawless on Jan 4, 2007 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stop, just stop
by joker24 on Jan 4, 2007 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no, the plan is to build a viable rotation
by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is...
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?
by guayzimi on Jan 4, 2007 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
they need to develop some depth
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 0 recs
I'm taking a glass-half-full approach here.
It's not about 2007.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 4, 2007 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bring back Wilson
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.
by fatbellyjefferson on Jan 4, 2007 9:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Intangibles
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 0 recs
OK - Dukes is more than slightly off the tracks...
by Lawless on Jan 4, 2007 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't care
by DanUpBaby on Jan 4, 2007 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They want the world
by RedbirdRay on Jan 5, 2007 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not me
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 0 recs
Then give me a better option
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.
by fatbellyjefferson on Jan 5, 2007 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
waiting for the deadline
by dmb60614 on Jan 4, 2007 10:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
According to those projections...
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Jan 4, 2007 10:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
also
by Birds on the Matt on Jan 4, 2007 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and
by Birds on the Matt on Jan 4, 2007 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry to keep replying to myself
by Birds on the Matt on Jan 4, 2007 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The sim doesn't use every player
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 0 recs
I can understand that
by Birds on the Matt on Jan 4, 2007 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's not using all the players
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 0 recs
agreed CHONE a joke
by wannabeGedman on Jan 4, 2007 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Think we disagree
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 0 recs
More CHONE Defense...
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 0 recs
They project the player
by plh903 on Jan 4, 2007 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
by liam on Jan 4, 2007 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not a problem
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 0 recs
Sorry this CHONE a joke
by wannabeGedman on Jan 4, 2007 9:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Like
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 0 recs
Mulder
by OKCardsfan on Jan 4, 2007 10:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
carp didn't throw a pitch
by lboros on Jan 4, 2007 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope...
by BigJawnMize on Jan 4, 2007 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
woah BJM
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 0 recs
Nah...
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 0 recs
Okay then
by OKCardsfan on Jan 4, 2007 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Carp tore his labrum
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).
by joker24 on Jan 4, 2007 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
did he tear his labrum?
by BigJawnMize on Jan 4, 2007 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
2 surgeries
Rolen's shoulder injury last year was a torn labrum (non-throwing arm so far less serious).
by joker24 on Jan 4, 2007 7:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mulder to Cleveland...
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.
by jdubya on Jan 4, 2007 10:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
not perfect
by chuckb on Jan 4, 2007 9:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Loretta to the Astos
by azruavatar on Jan 4, 2007 11:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Odd.
by sdrone on Jan 4, 2007 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ask roger clemens
by nycbirdo on Jan 4, 2007 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wierd to say the least
by JMedwick on Jan 4, 2007 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Burke is their starting CF
by azruavatar on Jan 4, 2007 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
From 2006 All-Star
by orlando card on Jan 4, 2007 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this signing
i can see him being a guy who could play 30 games at any of those places if someone got hurt
by bigcardsfan5 on Jan 4, 2007 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sucks for Brooks Conrad
by liam on Jan 4, 2007 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On Craig wilson
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 0 recs
well put
by eglasier on Jan 4, 2007 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
actually
by punchinjudy on Jan 4, 2007 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We've been talking
by RedbirdRay on Jan 5, 2007 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i was referring to this off season
by punchinjudy on Jan 5, 2007 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
by RedbirdRay on Jan 5, 2007 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
craig wilson
>>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 0 recs
maybe I wasn't clear
- 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
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
Johnny Rocket and Options
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 0 recs
Walt says...
Ack.
by meat on Jan 4, 2007 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's time
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...
by Alxfritz on Jan 5, 2007 4:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And he doesn't have a nickname anywhere near as
by Valatan on Jan 5, 2007 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know why
by OKCardsfan on Jan 5, 2007 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice...
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.
by Mr Clean on Jan 6, 2007 9:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe I'M the dream weaver
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 0 recs
3/24
by eglasier on Jan 4, 2007 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
meh
by nycbirdo on Jan 4, 2007 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wilson sounds like
by Red in Chicago on Jan 4, 2007 12:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
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
by eglasier on Jan 4, 2007 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry
by eglasier on Jan 4, 2007 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wilson is good
by Born in 82 on Jan 4, 2007 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if the Red Sox are willing to dump
by Valatan on Jan 4, 2007 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
After giving up Hanley Ramirez to get him
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 0 recs
not to mention
by chuckb on Jan 4, 2007 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All you need to know
Sold.
by plh903 on Jan 4, 2007 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RF
by STLCardinalsFan on Jan 4, 2007 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ZIPS Projections
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 0 recs
anybody know when the cards' zips will be posted?
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 0 recs
To keep your "buzz" up...
"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.
by The Ol Goaler on Jan 4, 2007 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
David Wells?
by kindred on Jan 4, 2007 5:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wells Hates Tony
by orlando card on Jan 4, 2007 6:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Gooch is going to be re-signed
It's done.
by Red in Chicago on Jan 4, 2007 7:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Rotation
by wannabeGedman on Jan 4, 2007 7:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs



















