short list

anybody interested in a VEB meetup at a cardinal game next summer? see alex fritz's diary. a number of other SBN blogs have held events of this type, and they always seem to be a hit. lot of interest so far; plus, fritz has committed to entertaining us all with either a standup routine or a powerpoint presentation.

let's do a little parsing of joe strauss' article yesterday about the options the cardinals are considering at shortstop. the nut graph says "the Cardinals continue to explore alternatives that include the Baltimore Orioles' Miguel Tejada, the Pittsburgh Pirates' Jack Wilson and free agent Cesar Izturis." how realistic are those alternatives? how desirable are they?

miguel tejada: according to strauss, "a club source described as the chances of landing Tejada as `slim to none.'" agreed. in an interview at MLB Trade Rumors this morning, baltimore sun beat writer jeff zrebiec says the orioles want "two high-level prospects" for him; the cardinals don't have two guys like that to spare. however, both los angeles teams can afford that price, both of them are looking for right-handed power at 3d base (and can move tejada there), and at least one will fail to land miguel cabrera. ergo that team (or teams) will surely trump any offer the cards can muster. moreover, the orioles are standing pat until cabrera gets traded, and the cards appear to be in a bit of a hurry to get this hole filled. so forget about tejada.

cesar izturis: should be available for cheap, which is his prime appeal. he's a free agent, so wouldn't cost any prospects; if they signed him to a 1-year deal for, say, $3m, i could live w/ it. he'd make a reasonable platoon partner with brendan ryan; the switch-hitting izturis actually isn't so terrible as a left-handed hitter --- .272 / .318 / .352 as a lefty since 2004, vs .258 / .295 / .323 as a right-hander. with proper platoon management pujols batting behind him, a .330 on-base pct wouldn't be out of the question. if you got that, plus a few stolen bases and superior fielding for your $3m, you'd make out ok. indeed, as a stopgap he's probably about on a par with eckstein ---- weaker hitter but better in all other phases (younger, faster, healthier, better fielder).

jack wilson: this guy has been on the block since midsummer, when he nearly got dealt to the tigers; i mined MLB Trade Rumors' archives to reconstruct the way that thing went down. tim brown of yahoo sports started gauging wilson's trade value as early as june 14: "I asked an American League baseball operations man what kind of interest there would be in Wilson in a trade. His report: `Wilson is a solid everyday shortstop who's got value, especially defensively.'" a month later the blue jays (who were still in playoff contention but were playing royce clayton at short) inquired; dave littlefield asked for troy glaus, and the jays were so annoyed they dropped their pursuit of wilson altogether. as the trade deadline approached the tigers came calling, and for more than two weeks they haggled with littlefield. one report in the pittsburgh post-gazette said the pirates would have received two of detroit's top six prospects, "including an unnamed pitcher ready to join the major-league staff." a subsequent article identified the pitcher in question: "The deal on the table at the July 31 non-waiver deadline would have netted the Pirates one of two 21-year-old pitchers, Jair Jurrjens or Dallas Trahern, and another prospect in the Detroit system." jurrjens was still in double A at that time; he ended up making 7 late-season starts for the tigers, then got traded with another prospect last month to atlanta for edgar renteria. mitch boggs would be an analogous pitcher in the st louis system.

the pitching-rich tigers can afford to lose an arm like that; the cardinals can't. moreover, the tigers --- a championship-ready team with very narrow needs --- might actually benefit from a one-dimensional player like wilson, whereas the cards' lot isn't improved by an expensive, good-field no-hit shortstop. now, it's true that the pirates are under new management; they should be easier to deal with now that dave littlefield has departed. but then, wilson's value has only gone up since the near-miss w/ detroit. his ops was in the .660 range at the trade deadline, but he ended the season with 2 months of flukishly monstrous hitting (.409 / .467 / .697 after august 1), creating the false impression that he can actually hit. between that and his highly regarded glove, the pirates have no reason simply to give wilson away. but he's not good enough (particularly at his salary) to justify the expenditure of any young talent. the cards' expressions of interest are mildly worrisome; even a fringe-y prospect like joe mather would be too high a price, imho.

but i don't take their flirtation w/ wilson at face value, and here's why ----

david eckstein: quoting the strauss article:

let me make it clear that i don't really like any of these options. i don't see any of them as being that much better (if at all) than brendan ryan, and if i were in charge i'd just give him the job and spend my energy / resources addressing other positions. indeed, i don't agree w/ the whole notion of using position to analyze the team's needs. simply plugging in the best available veterans at shortstop, right-fielder, and starting pitcher won't get the team anywhere; at best, it'll extend the reign of mediocrity for another year. the focus should be on acquiring players who have the qualities the team needs. the qualities the cards should be looking for (imho) are youth, speed, upside potential, and payroll flexibility -- regardless of position. it so happens that the cards have a shortstop --- brendan ryan --- who exemplifies all those qualities; izturis offers the same, to a lesser extent. either one would suffice as a short-term strategy; they might not get the cards back to the top of the league, but they won't keep the cards from getting there in 2 or 3 years. that's their appeal.