Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jeremy Lin And How The Pac-12 Missed Him

giant implications II

little-known fact: the cardinals still hold an option on anthony reyes. this was pointed out to me by a member of the cardinal front office, who provided this link to explain the circumstances:

A player may be eligible for a fourth option year if he has been optioned in three seasons but does not yet have five full seasons of professional experience.
reyes has less than 5 years of pro experience --- he was drafted in 2003 but didn't debut until 2004. so even though the cardinals have used up their 3 standard options on him (in 2005, 06, and 07), they can still option him to memphis in 2008. that changes the calculus quite a bit; if the cards can't get fair value for him in trade, they can send him down to memphis without having to expose him to waivers. now mind you, i don't think the kid should be at memphis; 2-14 record and all, i still think he's better than the likes of josh fogg and kris benson, who represent the class of pitchers the cards are now considering (per joe strauss's sunday article). but that argument has been done to death; tony / dave don't want him, and they're the ones who get paid to make the decisions. the 4th option on reyes is still good news because it provides one last chance for the cardinals to salvage some value out of this once very valuable asset. maybe he'll pitch his way back into the organization's plans; maybe he'll or makes himself a more attractive trade target. either outcome would be better than having to trade the kid for nothing or lose him on a waiver claim.

i used to edit a history journal, and i ran an article once about a guy who got rich mining the slag heaps in central city, colorado, during the gold rush --- squeezing the last few ounces of paydirt out of the discarded ore. reyes is now slag-heap material --- not the shiny vein we hoped he might be, but still potentially profitable. the 4th option gives st louis a chance to mine whatever's left in the resource.

the strauss article also made passing mention of a scenario that had the cards trading all of their good prospects for erik bedard. while it's dismaying even to see such a suggestion in print, i don't take it very seriously. that little item fell in the 18th paragraph of a 22-graph story --- not exactly front-burner stuff. contrast that with the coverage in cincinnati, where the trade-for-bedard discussion is serious enough to merit its own article and an accompanying blog post. meanwhile, mariners beat writer geoff baker of the seattle times has been all over the bedard marketplace for days at his blog; an orioles team official told the baltimore sun that the mariners have emerged as one of the front-runners to land bedard by dangling cf prospect adam jones. here is how baker sizes up the situation: "The Orioles are feeling out offers and trying to figure out what they'll settle for." that is probably all the rasmus-for-bedard thing amounts to --- a blip in andy macphail's market research.

let's hope so. bedard is a wonderful pitcher, but the cards can't afford the cost in terms of talent; a trade like the one sketched out in the strauss article would set the organization back several years. i don't see it happening.

the paragraph after the rasmus / bedard mention is what caught my attention. it says: "Unable to decide whether Rolen is coming or going, the Cardinals are unable to deal either of their power-hitting, lefthanded-hitting outfielders, Chris Duncan or Rick Ankiel." poppycock. duncan and ankiel are the two most redundant players on the team --- they are the most tradeable commodities, not the least. the cardinal roster has three left-handed power-hitting outfielders (duncan ankiel and edmonds), and a 4th (rasmus) will probably be ready to join the club by midseason; skip schumaker (another lhb of) is also on hand for short-term duty / bench help. if the cardinals can even remotely conceive of trading rasmus, then duncan and ankiel have to be considered "touchable" as well. i'm still mystified that the cards haven't approached the giants, who are chockablock with young pitchers and desperate for young position players. san francisco currently lists dan ortmeier (a john gall knockoff) as their starting first baseman and have nobody on the horizon; duncan would solve that position for them for four years, while a guy like matt cain or tim lincecum (both of whom seem to be available --- their names appeared frequently last week in winter-meeting rumor roundups) would fill one of the cards' rotation holes. i doubt that duncan alone would be enough to land either of those pitchers, but he'd be a good start; if the cards added ankiel and / or reyes, or perhaps some prospect(s) outside the cards' top 4 (rasmus anderson garcia perez), it just might work. and if it didn't, the cards could still offer duncan in exchange for one or more of the less studly, but still useful, cost-controlled pitchers from san francisco's stable (as proposed here weeks and weeks ago).

we know the cards and giants have discussed rolen, but i've never read a report that duncan's name came up between the two clubs. if it hasn't, it should.

if the cards dealt duncan, who then would play left field in 2008? first of all, i'd pencil in rasmus for a 2d-half callup --- that'd take care of 1/2 of the vacancy. they could start the season with schumaker / barton time-sharing in left, with edmonds in center and ludwick platooning with ankiel in right-field. alternatively, they could sign a one-year free-agent rental. my first choice for the latter, milton bradley, signed with the rangers yesterday (after a near-miss with the padres), but there are plenty of candidates still out there --- cliff floyd, shannon stewart, luis gonzalez, brad wilkerson, shawn green, geoff jenkins . . . . just go down the list and sign the best one who will agree to a 1-year contract. here's how that roster matrix might look:

2008 ROSTER MATRIX
MATT CAIN FANTASY SCENARIO

STARTING 8 BENCH ROTATION PEN
molina c
$1.2m
spiezio ut
$2.3m
wainwright rhp
$600K
is'hausen rhp
$8m
pujols 1b
$16m
barton of
$400K
cain rhp
$900K
franklin rhp
$2.3m
kennedy 2b
$3.5m
ryan if
$400K
looper rhp
$5.5m
springer rhp
$3.5m
rolen 3b
$12m
larue c
$850K
pineiro rhp
$5m
flores lhp
$1m
izturis ss
$2.9m
ludwick of
$400K
mulder lhp
$6.5m
johnson lhp
$400K
green lf
$7m
miles if
$1.2m
carpenter rhp
$10.5m
wellemeyer rhp
$900K
edmonds cf
$8m
rasmus of
memphis
hawksworth rhp
memphis
thompson rhp
$450k
ankiel rf
$1m
encarnacion rf
$6.5m
parisi rhp
memphis
cavazos rhp
memphis
TOTAL
$51.6
TOTAL
$10.8m
TOTAL
$29m
TOTAL
$16.5m
OVERALL PAYROLL: $107.9m

under this rosy scenario you end up with tremendous stability at the front of the rotation --- wainwright, cain, and carpenter all under club control through 2011 --- plus a lineup that's getting younger (five regulars under age 30, once rasmus arrives), and lots of flexibility for 2009 and beyond. if matt cain proves unattainable and you end up with (let's say) noah lowry plus jonathan sanchez instead, the team still comes out ahead --- it expends a replaceable commodity (left-handed outfield power) for a hard-to-find one (cost-controlled starting pitchers).

you trade from your depth. duncan's a good player, but easily replaceable from within. if he's not on the trading block, he damn well should be.

Comment 183 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I agree
It seems hard to get a handle on what kind of GM Mozeliak is going to be.  If most of these rumors are true, then it's not an optimistic sign.

I still have problems believing the organization would move Ankiel after all that has been invested in him, but Duncan should be moved for pitching.

It seems so obvious to us, it makes me wonder what the front office knows that we don't.

by Cardinal70 on Dec 10, 2007 9:23 AM EST reply actions  

It's a sunk cost
I don't think the organization falls into that trap saying we spent so much time and effort on Ankiel thus we cannot trade him.  It makes no difference right now how much was invested, we've already paid that money regardless, just what they can produce.

In terms of the organizations supposed unwillingness.  Didn't we offer Jack Wilson for Duncan to the Pirates and the Pirates turned us down?  That's suggesting to me we are overvaluing these two guys more so than the market actually does.

by enoscountry on Dec 10, 2007 9:37 AM EST up reply actions  

i thought it was the other way around
i thought we asked for jack wilson, the pirates asked for duncan, and the cards said no.

by lboros on Dec 10, 2007 9:51 AM EST up reply actions  

replying to myself
here's a direct quote from the pittsburgh post-gazette:

"The Pirates discussed a deal with St. Louis last month that would have sent shortstop Jack Wilson to the Cardinals for outfielder Chris Duncan, but that is no longer in play."

you can't tell from that report which team brought up duncan, or which team rejected the proposal . . . .

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07340/839587-63.stm?loc=interstitialskip

by lboros on Dec 10, 2007 9:55 AM EST up reply actions  

Yes...
Common sense tells you which team put the nix on that deal.
"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Unless
we're just over-valuing Duncan, which I think we are. After releasing Cesear, the Pirates essentially committed to Wilson at least for another year--there's nobody in their system who can take over full-time next season.

by Forsch31 on Dec 10, 2007 1:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Duncan...
Not worth Jack Wilson?

Come on, that's not even worthy of a debate.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 3:43 PM EST up reply actions  

You're right
I guess it's not clear whether the Cardinals made the offer or the Pirates proposed it.

Although, I would point out the Ankiel vs. Duncan debate below wasn't too favorable for Dunc.  I just don't think either is as valuable of a trade commodity as we make them out to be.  Let's face it, they're the best young redbird hitter - but that's not saying much.

by enoscountry on Dec 10, 2007 5:40 PM EST up reply actions  

In the case of Duncan
I still wonder how delicate that situation with the older Duncan fellow. Imagine for a second that he doesn't want to see his son leave. Then imagine being Matt Cain, traded for your now-disgruntled pitching coach's son. I'm not saying Duncan is going to sabotage him or anything...it just seems like an uncomfortable situation. It's possible Mo is steering clear and that, in the end, Duncan's not going anywhere because Mo doesn't want to piss off the latter half of LaDunc.

by mojowo11 on Dec 10, 2007 9:40 AM EST reply actions  

What's he going to do? Quit?
On no!  We'll have to find a pitching coach without a dogmatic blindness toward methods of pitching that aren't his own!  Please God, not that!  

There's already far too much power over personell moves being conceded to the on field managers.  If this organisation is really so worried about keeping a couple of angry, bitter old men satisfied with the state of things that they refuse to explore all possible avenues for actually improving the team, then we're pretty much sunk anyway.

I'm so tired of the LaRussa/Duncan filter being applied to everything that I could vomit.  

Also, mojo, please don't think I'm trying to lambast you here.  Unfortunately, what you say about the state of things is probably pretty accurate.  I just think it's a bad way to run an organisation.  

Punch. Drink. Cry.

by the red baron on Dec 10, 2007 9:55 AM EST up reply actions  

Agreed
Not the way to go about things...at all.  

Is Matheny looking for a job?

by Beware the Molinas on Dec 10, 2007 10:06 AM EST up reply actions  

double agree
I really enjoyed (and gave an UP fist to) red baron's rant above.  Even tho' I am not that much younger than TLR and Dunc, and therefore in some ways sympatize with them... I don't think they have adjusted to a changing game (altho both would still be terrific scouts.)

AND... Mike Matheny or Ken Oberkfell have been my 1-2 choices for new manager for over a year now.

by the Tewk on Dec 10, 2007 4:23 PM EST up reply actions  

wow
The guys are one year removed from winning a World Championship and now they can't change with the game?

It's amazing how short an attention span some have or how unrealistic expectations are in today's world.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Dec 10, 2007 5:06 PM EST up reply actions  

New Manager
I've been quietly campaigning for Phillip Wellman ever since this video came out.

Like many others around here, I buy into the school that managers, on average, harm their teams more often than help them. Tony La Russa is a good manager because he noticed early in his career how to put players in positions where they would tend to succeed. (Correctly by leveraging platoon splits, incorrectly when relying on individual batter-pitcher samples). But any manager can hire a wiseguy to feed him the right data to make those decisions.

You need a guy with a good spirit to hold the team together—Phillip Wellman looks like a great guy for the job, in that limited sample that I know of him. (When he buries home plate and draws another one two baseballs wider to show his disdain for the homeplate umpire's zone, it warms my heart-cockles.)

by liam on Dec 10, 2007 8:35 PM EST up reply actions  

how about
army crawling to the mound and launching the "grenade" at the home plate ump?  hysterical.

what do you think was going through his mind?  "boy, i must look like a jack-ass right now."  or was it "am i going to have  job tomorrow?"  or "the guys are never going to let me forget this, might as well make it one for the ages."  or better yet, "lou piniella ain't got shit on me!"

great video.

by birdsonthebat on Dec 10, 2007 10:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Those thoughts from his mind...
just got funnier and funnier with each and every one.  Thank you.

stlfan

by stlfan on Dec 11, 2007 9:13 AM EST up reply actions  

duncan/duncan
the topic has been occasionally discussed before and it wouldnt seem to be a problem if little dunc was to be traded.  in fact, it was argued that it might be better for him under the reasoning that there was added pressure playing under his dad and lots of scrutiny about the whole nepotism thing.

by dmb60614 on Dec 10, 2007 10:08 AM EST up reply actions  

Or, how about if we imagine
for a second that Duncan Sr. does NOT feel that way, and that while he would feel some natural disappointment at the departure of his son, he is a baseball lifer and knows that players move around, and would accept it philosophically and then move on and do his job? This scenario, after all, is far more likely.

Where does this idea come from that we have to keep baby Dunc so his old man doesn't get upset?

by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 10, 2007 10:08 AM EST up reply actions  

Good point...
...it's not like Dave is crying in his beer b/c Shelly is playing for the Yanks.  And we know Dave's career is only going to last as long as Tony's.  So we're talking 1-2 seasons more, and Dave can go see his sons play at his leisure.  I just don't think this is much of a factor at all.  I think they want to hang on to Duncan b/c they are really high on him.  D.GOOCH
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Dec 10, 2007 10:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Yes
But it is all, as you say, just a scenario. Who knows what's actually going on? Who knows what Duncan has asked Mozeliak behind closed doors?

I think Duncan is probably grounded enough to understand his son may be traded. But maybe not. Who knows.

by mojowo11 on Dec 10, 2007 11:08 AM EST up reply actions  

In 2006...
Dave Duncan made the comment somewhere that he would have no problem with his son being traded elsewhere. Although this was before Chris was moved to the outfield, I doubt his father would protest to a trade. They're a baseball family, and they understand how these things work....

by Forsch31 on Dec 10, 2007 1:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Trade him! Trade him Now!
I brought this up in one of the Hot Stove diary threads, and I stand by my earlier assertion.  You go to the Giants.  They're strongly considering moving Lincecum straight up for Alex Rios.  The Giants desperately, (and I do mean desperately; we're not well acquainted with a team as truly miserable on offense as that particular outfit) need offensive help.  In that ballpark, lefthanded hitters have the definite advantage, and thus, are more valuable.  You move Duncan in to fill the now vacant left field position.  He's got a great stick, and the Giants have had Bonds patrolling left for the past couple of years, so they're used to making due with so so defense out there.  In the package, you include Mark Hamilton.  Lefty hitter, plays first base, so he's a great fit for them, with absolutely massive power.  That's two bats, which together are much more valuable than Rios alone.  If they ask for a little more, throw in a reliever, I don't mind.  Luke Gregerson or someone comparable.  That has to be an awfully attractive package for a team with such significant offensive needs.  

Approx. ten years of lefty power bats at positions they have no one else to play, plus any kind of throw in they could pull out of the Cards.  The Cardinals get one of the most promising young pitchers in the game.  It's a great move for both sides.  

P.S. If you really prefer Cain, just switch his name in.  It's essentially the same deal, I'm sure.  I just happen to like Lincecum better.  (A little; both are wicked talented.)  

Punch. Drink. Cry.

by the red baron on Dec 10, 2007 9:50 AM EST reply actions  

pitcher
i've read the giants were looking for a major league ready pitcher to go along with rios.  maybe rolen/reyes or duncan/reyes would interest them.  if i were the giants i wouldnt do either of those deals though.

by dmb60614 on Dec 10, 2007 10:11 AM EST up reply actions  

+1
Seriously, if there's a chance you can get either Cain or Lincecum (my preference) for just Duncan and Reyes or Duncan and minor prospects (i.e. not Rasmus or Anderson), then by all means GO FOR IT and be knocking on SF's door to get a deal worked out.  

by Recon on Dec 10, 2007 10:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Duncan + Reyes + Hamilton for Lincecum or Cain
would make me jump with orgasmic joy. The Giants would have to be pretty desparate to do this.

by Hungry Jack on Dec 10, 2007 11:35 AM EST up reply actions  

I have to admit
If the Giants considered any of the above trade suggestions without laughing in our face I'd be shocked.
Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Dec 10, 2007 11:56 AM EST up reply actions  

Heh
Lincecum has to be one of the most valuable commodities in baseball.

BTW, the Jim Edmonds HOF piece is one of my favorite Cardinals related pieces of baseball writing.  

by plh903 on Dec 10, 2007 2:48 PM EST up reply actions  

thanks plh...
too bad edmonds has experienced such a rapid decline -- he's probably destined to join guys like Lankford and Lou Whitaker in the Hall of the Very Very Good
Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Dec 10, 2007 3:24 PM EST up reply actions  

brian and plh, no argument re lincecum
but the giants seem not to recognize what they have. they're considering trading him straight up for alex rios.

i wouldn't suggest that the scenario i've sketched out was worth discussing if not for the sabean factor.

by lboros on Dec 10, 2007 7:09 PM EST up reply actions  

If Sabean makes that trade,
I would fire his a**!  You don't give up young studly pitchers for anything other than a young studly player.  Alex Rios is a nice player, but it's not enough return for either one of them.

I don't think Mr. Duncan could resist tinkering with Lincecum's delivery.  He may not be as good for us as he has been (so far) with the Giants.  Lincecum looks like a tinkertoy man when he throws.  It's fun to watch though.

by jillsinmo on Dec 10, 2007 7:30 PM EST up reply actions  

I think the
market will save him from himself, if he's truly that delusional, but maybe more likely that they are floating something to gauge interest.

Teams (or at least fans) have to be saying, "Rios for Lincecum, we could beat that!"

I also think that Duncan is a liability anywhere on a National League team, and isn't going to be an elite DH, but who knows what teams recognize this. I guess all it takes is someone overvaluing your guy.

I don't see it happening, but I do realize the context of your post, which was a good one as always.

by plh903 on Dec 10, 2007 7:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Agree
First of all, I think Sabean does realize, to some extent, what he has in Cain and Lincecum.  Until recently he'd been singling them out as untouchable.  Secondly, I don't think Duncan and Rios are all that comparable, esp in terms of perception -- they're the same age, but Rios is a two-time All-Star with a far broader skill set than Dunc who's been worth a couple wins more per year.
Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Dec 10, 2007 7:52 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm looking
at ZiPS and Rios' last couple of years, and a .300 EqA in RF from Rios is worth substantially more than  Duncan's .300 EqA in left. That's if we (or more importantly, other teams) believe that Duncan is the real deal at this point. Maybe, but I'm sure there's at least some skepticism there.

There's also something to be said for getting a plus player in one roster spot, instead of someone, and then a couple of other someones making up the difference. I'd probably give up Duncan and do Reyes a favor and ship him out too just for Rios.

To make a further disclaimer, I'm not saying that we couldn't match up with SFG and that Duncan couldn't be the centerpiece (or that the suggestion is that Duncan for Lincecum gets done, I don't see that). Trading Duncan for pitching is an absolutely excellent idea, in my opinion.

by plh903 on Dec 10, 2007 8:04 PM EST up reply actions  

If Duncan hadn't finished hurt
I think Sabean would have had to consider it.  If you just look at his 2007 end-of-year line, he looks like an easily replaceable commodity, but that doesn't do his abilities justice.  He put up a .932 OPS in '06 and peaked at a .955 OPS over the first 4 months of the season (through 7/26, 314PA), and those numbers include the nasty 2 for 36 slump centered around his knee infection in late may/early june.  That's Miguel/Manny territory, well beyond what Rios can do, and no one would have laughed at a GM who traded lincecum for a pre-arb Cabrera plus prospects.  

By ending the season going 17/103 with 45 k's until he had surgery, he effectively took himself off the trade market by handing Mo a sell-low opportunity, but I'll be shocked if his OPS is outside of the {.900-.975} range next season.  If we're going to trade him, we need to do it then, not now.

Christmas lights are an extremely efficient method for converting Christmas Spirit into heat. -anon

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2007 8:07 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree
and I feel today's post by Larry is one of the best suggestions for an acquisition I've seen on this blog.

I agree with everything up there. Having complete control of those 3 pitches for the next years would be absolutely ridiculous. Imagine if Mulder actually comes through . . .

If they could make this deal (Duncan + for Lincecum / Cain) and then sign one of those outfielders, we'd suddenly be a contender again.

C'mon, Mo! Get on the phone!

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Dec 10, 2007 4:02 PM EST up reply actions  

matrix question
why is JuanEnc still included in the matrix? Doesn't insurance take care of a good portion of the salary? Perhaps this question has been handled previously and I didn't catch it.

I understand that as of right now he is still 'uncertain' for the season, much less his career. I also heard that a team can't collect until a certain part of the season has passed (vis Jeff Bagwell). With that in mind, theres no reason for the Cardinals to make a move to remove him from their roster to then be forced to pay the salary and probably deal with a grievance from the MLBPA.

but for the sake of the this offseason would assuming insurance is going to pay for 60% - 75% of this year's salary help in terms forecasting?

by Amberkow on Dec 10, 2007 9:56 AM EST reply actions  

Insurance
I think the consensus among previous posters is that clubs only insure the major, Pujolsian contracts, particularly pitchers' contracts.  A little 3 year deal for JuanE prob. wasn't insured.

by Ray Lankford on Dec 10, 2007 10:00 AM EST up reply actions  

it is the opposite
Its harder to insure a Pujolian contract then JuanE

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/3630161.html

This article doesn't say that a JuanE contract would be insured, but it shows that the previous poster consensus isn't correct. Assuming it really is the poster consensus.

by Amberkow on Dec 10, 2007 12:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Bernie...
He cleared this up a little while back.

The Juan E contract was not insured and the Cards are on the hook for all of it.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Ummm...
I read Bernie's comments on the contract.  As I recall, he said that the insurance didn't cover a whole lot, but that it DID cover some of it.  D.GOOCH
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Dec 10, 2007 2:52 PM EST up reply actions  

From Bernie's 12/6 column:
"And right fielder Juan Encarnacion's eye injury will keep him out of baseball in 2008, and insurance covers but a portion of his salary."

by Forsch31 on Dec 10, 2007 2:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Your post
does not contradict his.  

Yes, obviously a Pujols contract is harder to insure.  But the longer contracts are more dangerous and are exactly the ones you want to insure.

by sdrone on Dec 10, 2007 12:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Well
that's all fine and well, but as you've read from other posters, Juan E is not insured, and you have not contradicted me.  It may be easier to insure Juan E contracts, but that doesn't mean it was insured.  

by Ray Lankford on Dec 10, 2007 12:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Chris Duncan is a First Basemen
That's what makes this such a no-brainer.  He presumably has more value to a team that will play him at first.  Ludwick, Schumaker et al. are all defensive upgrades.  I like Duncan and I realize he's improved his defense, but this is still a square peg - round hole situation.

by bgodar on Dec 10, 2007 9:58 AM EST reply actions  

I'm under the impression that
he was miserable at 1B as well. He throws RH, and as such it's a pretty big indictment of his fielding abilities that he started off as a 1B in the Appy league. He managed to make 56 errors at 1B over his 164 game MWL stint. I know that was a while ago, and that errors aren't a good way to judge a fielder, but .. wow.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's not a better left fielder at this point. All signs point to the fact that he'd be just a terrible ML first baseman. Basically, he's a DH.

by plh903 on Dec 10, 2007 4:26 PM EST up reply actions  

wow!
that is a lot of errors for a 1B!

by ICbirdfan on Dec 10, 2007 6:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Ankiel vs. Duncan
Not that they have equal value, but if I had a choice...  I would trade Ankiel over Duncan.  Duncan has ties to the organization via his Dad and will be easier to deal with for the long run, while Ankiel has the infamouns Boras as agent.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Dec 10, 2007 9:59 AM EST reply actions  

ties to the organization?
ankiel has been with the organization for years, went through hell and back with the club supporting him every step of the way. duncan's dad works for the cards, too.  i don't think there's a comparison.  if we're basing this on ties to the club, ankiel wins hands down, imo.  

now, if you want to say that duncan's on-base superiority outweighs ankiel's defensive superiority, then that's an argument.  personally, i think ankiel's upside is too high for me to comfortably trade him.  the guy's been playing a position for about 3 years and he's displayed great power with a lacking on base ability.  i think that can be learned (or hope) and the difference between the two's on-base abilities will diminish while the defensive gap will only widen as ankiel learns to take better routes and duncan moves to first.

by birdsonthebat on Dec 10, 2007 10:23 AM EST up reply actions  

As a rationalist and a complete
non-superstitionist, I try to repress this thought as best I can, but try as I might, I just can't get the image out of my head of a black cloud following Ankiel around.  I'm waiting for the next disaster to derail his career once again.  Like a season-ending injury during ST.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 10, 2007 10:56 AM EST up reply actions  

Just like
Joe Btfsplk?
"It's always about the money. Anyone who says it's not is lying."- Gene Simmons

by cardsrul on Dec 10, 2007 12:57 PM EST up reply actions  

What a radical suggestion!
trading from depth?  Left-fielders are probably the most fungible commodity in baseball, save backup middle infielders.  Now, power hitters aren't necessarily but there's not a ton of difference between Dunc and Ankiel.  One offers more OBP; the other more defense.  Both will be tested mightily by lefties to the point of a probable platoon.

Making Dunc, effectively, untouchable is idiotic considering our lack of SP, SS, and our ability to replace him, yearly if needed, by the Shawn Green's of the world.

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2007 10:16 AM EST reply actions  

Trade Dunc now
Duncan's defense is plain awful and it isn't going to get better.  We should be shopiing him hard to anyone with OF/1B holes.

And HC, I'd say corner OFers are the most fungible comodity in baseball followed by middle relievers.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Dec 10, 2007 10:33 AM EST up reply actions  

hitting lefties
doesn't ankiel hit lefties much better than duncan?  is this only because of a small sample or did he do this in the minors, too?  i couldn't find any splits from the minors.  

if ankiel can avoid the platoon, which duncan can't seem to do, then that only increases duncan's need to be the one traded.

(i hope that link worked, first time)

by birdsonthebat on Dec 10, 2007 10:42 AM EST up reply actions  

You got it...
He spanked lefties in the minors as well.

IMO, Ankiel is the better player all things considered.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Ankiel > Chris Duncan
Ankiel is much more "toolsy" than Duncan. Right now Duncan looks like a platoon LF with horrid defense. Ankiel's athleticism can help hide some of his inexperience (ie poor route-taking) in the OF. Ankiel also looks like he might be an everyday player.

I like Duncan, but I like Ankiel more, though I must confess to drinking some of the Cool-Aid on Mr. Ankiel.

by Hungry Jack on Dec 10, 2007 1:31 PM EST up reply actions  

im just not convinced on Ankiel
i love his upside and athleticism but he wont hit for an average and doesn't walk plus strikes out all the time...at least Duncan gets on-base to counter his strike outs and has very comparable power...defense is no comparison
"Back in the day when I played, a pitcher had 3 pitches: a fastball, a curveball, a slider, a changeup and a good sinker pitch." - Mike Shannon

by nomar34 on Dec 10, 2007 2:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Ank vs. Dunc
I think that Duncan is the "safer" player: his upside is basically a .280/.360/.500 player who will hit about 26-30 HR per season...which is basically what he prob. would have done sans sports hernia...who doesn't hit lefties terribly well and who is nothing more than a barely passable outfielder.  

Ankiel, on the other hand, is more of a "prospect."  He's a developing hitter w/ minimal OBP skills but tremendous power.  I think he'll always be able to hit HR's, but the AVG/OBP part of his slash line is the key.  If its really low, like a .240/.290 for example, he's basically Rob Deer.  But, considering that he's still learning, its not unrealistic to assume that his "average" hitting and his on-base skills will progress.  In short, Ank is about 50/50...he could be better than Dunc, or he could be so awful offensively that any defensive advantage disappears.  

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 10, 2007 3:37 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree
There's a big factor for us -- with the Cards, Duncan is a platoon player. Not saying I agree with this, but he still hasn't gotten a full starting nod. Remember last year when Ankiel came up? Larussa played him a ton.

There just appears much more willingness to play Ankiel than Duncan.

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Dec 10, 2007 4:08 PM EST up reply actions  

...dunc vs. ankiel
Barring errors of sometimes graphic porportion, playing out of position  and the late string of injuries, I think Duncan would have received the same oppurtunity as Ankiel.

Plus Ankiel is THE investment. The guy they put in a bad spot early on.

Trade for Sean Rodriguez! (But please dont call him S-Rod!)

by cardschinmusic on Dec 11, 2007 5:16 AM EST up reply actions  

better than tejada
after yesterday's depressing (to me) discussion of the round peg/square hole aspects of dealing with the orioles, this is a refreshing change.  the big question is whether the giants would really be interested.  would duncan or ankiel and a prospect, even reyes, be considered equivalent to rios by the giants?  it would be nice if the answer was yes.  duncan (my preference) and reyes would be fine, but i see duncan at first for the giants and maybe even through in schumaker, if they were interested (they should want duncan because he can play first or of).  also, i have little concern about playing ludwick more.  it seemed the more he played the better he performed last year, so i see no need to pay shawn green $7m, which could go to pitching.  i don't see our fate hinging on the difference in performance between green and some combo of folks under contract now.

one more tlr-sr shot.  they are both employees, tell them to shut up and go to work.  if there was some other organization that really wanted either, they would be there by now.

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2007 10:50 AM EST reply actions  

the Orioles' discussion
depressed ME too, for the most part.  Except for two things:
Golly, we DO need a starting pitcher.
And the bitter-sweet one is that I just have this vision that B. Ryan could turn out, for the Baltimore club, to be another Mark Belanger.

I like Ryan probably more than is justified, but I feel the same way about him (sorta) as I do Anthony.  For THEIR sakes, I hope they get moved.

by the Tewk on Dec 10, 2007 4:46 PM EST up reply actions  

1+
and throw Brad Thompson in there too.....

by jillsinmo on Dec 10, 2007 5:34 PM EST up reply actions  

This assumes...
the Giants would actually be dumb enough to trade Cain or Lincecum for a package of Duncan and lesser players. Yes, there's been rumors, but one would assume other teams would get into the mix with something better.
Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 10:53 AM EST reply actions  

no, the giants might not be that dumb
but they might be ---- sabean is not the brightest gm.

and if he's not dumb enough to go for that, the giants have other arms who can help the cards, viz. lowry correia sanchez.

maybe it's not a match, but if the cards don't inquire and pursue that type of trade, it'll never happen. and i haven't heard that they've even made an inquiry yet.

by lboros on Dec 10, 2007 11:04 AM EST up reply actions  

Lowry
I've seen him toss a couple times and I've always been impressed, and I don't think his pricetag would be as big as the other guys.  Dunc' straight up?

If we could get Cain we'd go back to having three Chris Carpenters like we should have before we traded that long haired guy that play for Oakland.

get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 11:10 AM EST up reply actions  

eh...
I'd be careful with taking Lowry out of Pac Bell or whatever they call that place now. He seems like he has the potential to be another Maroth - soft tossing lefty not worth his arbitration number.

I'd go all out for Lincecum or Cain, preferably the former. I'd even toss in Rasmus if absolutely necessary. Baseball players don't get any more valuable than young aces or potential aces and those two fit the bill.

Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 11:20 AM EST up reply actions  

Straight Up
Rasmus for Cain really makes sense.  You don't destroy your farm system and you get a guy that misses bats.  But alas he would never work for us.

GB to Fly Ball

get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 11:41 AM EST up reply actions  

hyperlink
ya! that was my first hyperlink
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 11:42 AM EST up reply actions  

i think they don't care
if he's a fb guy, i just think they forced that stuff on reyes because they don't like him from a scouting standpoint for whatever reasons. they felt like HE could not make it w/o a sinker. i doubt they would feel that way with cain, who's proven himself already...just a guess.

woody williams was a fly ball pitcher, they never put that stuff off on him..maybe because he's a vet.

by erik on Dec 10, 2007 1:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Additionally,
Todd Stottlemyre, Jeff Suppan, etc.

Next year is a new year, perhaps it's time to let the Duncan flyball thing rest for a few months, and let Mo make a few signings before we curse the way that the organization handles pitchers.

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2007 2:03 PM EST up reply actions  

From watching Anthony the last two years
when people get on base, he doesn't miss bats.  So, if you don't miss bats when people are on base, what's the easiest way to get out of it?  Groundball/double play.  The sinker helps that happen.

I believe that if Anthony didn't struggle so much with runners on, they wouldn't force the 2-seamer on him.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2007 2:09 PM EST up reply actions  

But when no one is on
He does miss bats.

So what do you think is more likely?

He can't miss bat when runners are on or

the pitch selection is changed to pitches he can't miss bats with?

This could be a self-fulfilling  prophesy.

Or it could be that up to this point he rarely had runners on so he never learned to pitch with runners on.

by Harknights on Dec 10, 2007 3:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Pitching from stretch
perhaps a flaw in his mechanics, perhaps a loss in mph.
"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2007 4:52 PM EST up reply actions  

agreed
Hardcore...as much as people obsess over the two-seam, four-seam debate Anthony's issue is pitching with runners on base. He is very good with no one on, awful with them on. That's something other than the two-seam, four-seam deal. Although it's easier to blame it on Duncan and LaRussa for not letting him throw what he wants.
SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Dec 10, 2007 5:08 PM EST up reply actions  

From what
I saw last season, his pitch selection with runners on was horrid. You could sit on that 86 mph two-seamer or whatever you want to call that garbage. Also, we've got a real small sample size here of one season.

by plh903 on Dec 10, 2007 8:27 PM EST up reply actions  

soft tossing lefties
speaking of which... I see where Chris Narveson has a shot to make the Milwaukee club.

by the Tewk on Dec 10, 2007 4:56 PM EST up reply actions  

"Sabean is not the brightest GM"...
This from a Bay Area newspaper on the proposed Rios-Lincecum trade:

"Sabean hinted that he was trying to finagle another pitcher to "lessen the pain" of losing Lincecum. While it's rumored that Detroit is looking to deal newly acquired left-hander Dontrelle Willis, the Giants probably don't have the chips to get the Oakland native."

Of course it's not Sabean saying Dontrelle would "replace" Lincecum, but the mere suggestion that the two are even in the same universe is ridiculous.

Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 11:26 AM EST up reply actions  

the giants are seriously considering
alex rios straight up for linceum. 5 years of lincecum for 2 years of rios, who will then be FA eligible.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/06/SPPQTONRV.DTL

rios was worth 10 WSAB each of the last two years. duncan was worth 5 WSAB in a half-season (2006) and 10 WSAB last year. he's cheaper than rios (still pre-arb) and under club control for 3 more years than rios --- can't become an FA until after 2012.

if the giants are seriously mulling rios for lincecum, i don't know why they wouldn't seriously consider duncan plus prospects for one of those pitchers.

by lboros on Dec 10, 2007 12:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Rios straight up?
Duncan then take your pick of Garcia/Ottavino/Herron/Boggs?

That would be great, too great to happen it seems.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Sabean is an odd duck...
He takes a preference for veterans to an extreme. I believe he was quoted a few years back as saying that losing first round picks when signing free agents is actually a benefit b/c you save money on a risky proposition. Of course, Lowry, Cain, and Lincecum were all drafted in the 1st round by the Giants, so maybe he's rethought his stance.

Bottom line: I don't think he wants any prospects for Cain/Lincecum.

Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 12:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Rolen
Do you think he would want our miserly 3B then?
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 1:14 PM EST up reply actions  

better yet
If they're looking for a pitcher to replace whomever we get. Why don't we just give them Duncan and Reyes? That way we're not giving up any of our super young prpspects, but they're gaining two solid players (who can start for their team) in return.
On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Dec 10, 2007 4:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Brain Scramble
These GMs heads must be constantly spinning with all these different options.
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Just to confirm Sabean's stupidity
mlbtraderumors has a link from a Jerry Crasnick article saying that the Giants are interested in Luis Gonzalez.

Is it possible he's too stupid to even be interested in a young power hitting corner OF/1B?

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2007 5:47 PM EST up reply actions  

You hit the nail on the head
I don't assume that the Cards have not been speaking to the Giants, since I am not a fly on the wall.  The news does not report every GM discussion as GM's are working pretty much around the clock.  The media only gets info the teams want them to get.  

I am not going to suggest that the Cards have not shopped Duncan and others for Lincecum or Cain.  Now if Linceum and Cain are up for trade I think every team in baseball is obviously going to drop a line to San Fran.  I think Dunc is a good player and I have advocated letting him play 150+ games to see what he can really do.  But at the same time I have no problem with STL trading him for a Lincecum or Cain.  However I think a Duncan/Reyes offer is kind of a joke compared to what other teams could offer.

I don't think Dave Duncan being around has anything to do with the Cards not wanting to trade Duncan.  It is about the stupidest thing I hear on this board.  Dave Duncan has been in pro ball foever and he knows things happen.  He is a 61 year old man please give him more credit.  Of course he enjoys his son being on the team but if trading his son helps the team he would be for it.  Nor would he have some grudge about the guy Chris was traded for.  

by ICbirdfan on Dec 10, 2007 11:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Lincecum/Cain
C'mon desperate doesn't mean stupid.  Maybe Rolen/Duncan/Reyes/and someone else. Alex Rios is an all star and they won't take him for Lincecum. Lincecum would be AWSOME in a Cardinal uniform but I don't see San Fran giving up either of those kids for Duncan. Duncan is a serviceable outfielder at best he's a left handed Kevin Mench. People on here think that he's this amazing talent he's not. He's got great pop and can play a few positions, plays terrible D strikes out a lot. You could get Kevin Mench to do that. If he's not a trade piece somewhere Mo would be a fool.

by GhostofJimLinderman on Dec 10, 2007 3:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Lincecum Cain
C'mon desperate doesn't mean stupid.  Maybe Rolen/Duncan/Reyes/and someone else. Alex Rios is an all star and they won't take him for Lincecum. Lincecum would be AWSOME in a Cardinal uniform but I don't see San Fran giving up either of those kids for Duncan. Duncan is a serviceable outfielder at best he's a left handed Kevin Mench. People on here think that he's this amazing talent he's not. He's got great pop and can play a few positions, plays terrible D strikes out a lot. You could get Kevin Mench to do that. If he's not a trade piece somewhere Mo would be a fool.

by GhostofJimLinderman on Dec 10, 2007 3:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Bryan Anderson
possibly a stupid question, but with Molina's bat improving, has there been any talk of moving Anderson to 2B?  I would be nice to have a guy with a stick be ours at 2B for 5 years on the cheap.  
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 10:56 AM EST reply actions  

Meant to include
I've been formulating this thought over the weekend. I think it makes more and more sense to trade Duncan and open up a hole in LF.  Duncan clearly is not a RF, while Ankiel is serviceable.  If we're going to throw in the towl for 08 (and even if we're not) why not let Barton and Rasmus take their hacks in LF.  I think most people that have played baseball would agree that LF is the easiest position to play in baseball, therefor these guys would not have a lot of pressure fielding wise on them (see Molina who couldn't hit at all the first half of his first starting year).  This way Rasmus gets better training, you give Barton a chance to prove himself, and I think they both benefit from playing alongside Jimmy.

Is there any question that Barton is better than the other OF idiots we have on our bench?

Just to check myself, if we trade Duncan and keep Barton or OF spots are: Barton, Jimmy, Ankiel, Skippidooda, Ludwick and Spieztrain with Rasmus as a possibility.

get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 11:06 AM EST up reply actions  

Anderson...
moving him to 2B diminishes his value greatly.  Having a catcher that can bat .300 with a .350 OBP is much rarer than a 2B than can do the same.

You don't switch his position.  If you are absolutely dead-set on keeping Molina regardless of what Anderson turns into, which you shouldn't be btw, then you trade Anderson.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Good argument
You've convinced me.  
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Dang
Another good argument.
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 1:04 PM EST up reply actions  

You know,
This idea hadn't even begun to occur to me until I read this today, and my first thought was "Hey, like Craig Biggio." Doing a little research, Anderson is darn near exactly the same size as Adam Kennedy. Kennedy's got about 5 lbs on him, but both are 6'0"-6'1", 190ish. Gosh darn it, I think this idea is worth some exploring. BA threw up a .298 avg last year in AA, and he's hitting right at .300 so far for Team USA. I'd love to see him get some time at the keystone sack in spring training, just to see if this idea is feasible. Hooray for thinking outside the box!

by Jhusk on Dec 10, 2007 2:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Thanks...
You've proven my point for me.  If Biggio stays behind the plate and puts up similar numbers he could be considered the best catcher to EVER play.

Granted, he's still a hall of famer because of the 3000 hits, but you'll never see him mentioned as the best EVER anything.

Catchers that can hit are more valuable than 2B that can hit.  

You don't switch Anderson positions.  If he has no future here behind the plate, which he should, but if he doesn't...you trade him.  His value in trade would be higher than his value as a 2B.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 3:51 PM EST up reply actions  

there's a reason
Biggio was moved in the first place. Catchers' careers--even more so than for middle infielders--are nasty, brutish, and short. There's a reason very few outstanding hitting prospects who are catchers, like Dale Murphy or Carlos Delgado, stay there, and why the ones who do are constantly threatened with being moved away.

Biggio wasn't moved because he couldn't catch, he was moved because the Stros were convinced he'd decline much faster as a hitter and a runner at catcher. And they might well have been right.

by DanUpBaby on Dec 10, 2007 4:42 PM EST up reply actions  

maybe not 'best' ever
but I would say being FIFTH in all-time DOUBLES is pretty impressive.

by the Tewk on Dec 10, 2007 5:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Anderson, a long way from there....
....watching Anderson at Hammons made me wish he WOULD hit for extra bases more often. One EBH in every 17.6 trips to the plate.
Trade for Sean Rodriguez! (But please dont call him S-Rod!)

by cardschinmusic on Dec 11, 2007 5:30 AM EST up reply actions  

No.
this guy would still be head and shoulders above Biggio, both for defense, and for power.

this guy's offensive numbers are pretty similar to Biggio' career numbers, and he, too, is a superb defensive player.

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2007 12:31 PM EST up reply actions  

he actually talked about this
in his Team USA diary:

Since Yadi would seem to be with the Cardinals for years to come, can you play a secondary position like an outfield spot as well as catcher?
-- Ryan G., Ellisville, Mo.

The only position I have ever really played other than catcher is outfield and that was back in 10th grade. It was pretty ugly. You can ask anyone on my old high school team.

Christmas lights are an extremely efficient method for converting Christmas Spirit into heat. -anon

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2007 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

I love the Roster Matrix!!!
I always look forward to it's return this time of year...maybe this has come up, but hasn't Cavazos been released or outrighted?  If he hasn't, he should have been.

by tbell61 on Dec 10, 2007 10:59 AM EST reply actions  

Pitching
wins World Series.  We've seen it over and over again.  Just ask the Mets of 06.  The Cards brass should be on one of those cellular walkie-talkies with the Giants for as long as it takes to either grab Cain or Lincecum.  I would be happy if that was the ONLY thing they did until spring training.  We  can afford to deplete a little OF depth for a #2 starter.  DeWitt is such a waffling asshole.  If anyone saw SportsPlus on Channel 5 last night you would have seen him say that they aren't going to do anything but hope that Rolen, Edmonds, and Mulder come back and party like it's 2004.  Ain't happnin'.

Duncan
Reyes
Schumaker
Mather and/or Hamilton

Pull the string!  Pull the string!  

by RonGant on Dec 10, 2007 11:01 AM EST reply actions  

even more pitching
for sure, pitching win world series, but really the pitching you need is 3 number 1-2 starters.  4 and 5 aren't that important in the short series.  you need to invest heavily in 1-3 and much less so in 4-5.  this is good for the cards because a) they don't have a $180m payroll to play with and b) in the nl central you can get to the playoffs with this strategy.  if the cards were entering this year with healthy carp, mulder, and wainer, then they should be auditioning young arms in 4 and 5, or at least 5 and would be in good shape.  if we can get to that position by the end of the year, we may still have a chance.  if we can somehow get lincecum or cain for duncan et al (exclusive of rasmus), then it won't matter that much if its the current players in the OF.

ps, if mensch would accept a minor league deal with invite to spring training and a guarantee of no arbitration in the long run, i'd do it asap.

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2007 1:12 PM EST up reply actions  

cavazos
is gone, free agent. not that it really matters to the matrix $-wise. ron flores, randy's brother has signed. being he's left handed, i'm sure we'll see him at some point.

by erik on Dec 10, 2007 11:04 AM EST reply actions  

Awesome
Did Ron walk on at USC too?  Gotta love family's that name all their kiddies with the same first letter.
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 11:08 AM EST up reply actions  

Ron
I thought he was right-handed...are you sure he is a lefty?
How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Dec 10, 2007 1:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Fare thee well, Andy Cavazos
While performing mop-up duty in an ugly blowout to Oakland on June 15, 2007, Andy Cavazos made a memorable behind-the-back snag of a Jason Kendall bounding drive that went for a double play (Jack Cust at second).

I choose to remember that play as representative of his time with the Cardinals.

(That was the game where the only Cardinal pitcher not to allow a run to score was Scott Spiezio.)

by liam on Dec 10, 2007 9:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Going back to the Tejada thing from yesterday
could the Cardinals be dragging their feet because Tejada's value is likely to go down next week when the Mitchell Report comes out?  Tejada most certainly will be named in it one way or another and could prompt the Orioles to drive down their price just to move him.
"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2007 11:29 AM EST reply actions  

Yes
that is a very real possibility. Besides which, we don't know what kind of suspensions might be forthcoming as a result. We'd want some idea how many games he'll play in '08 before we trade for him.

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2007 1:08 PM EST up reply actions  

The more I think about it
if the Cardinals can hold on to Rolen and acquire Tejada without giving up Duncan or Rasmus, they'd have a legit shot at being a contender in the NL Central next year.

While Miguel Tejada isn't the player he used to be, but getting 20+ HR and 90+ RBIs out of the SS position would give us the potential of having 80+ RBI and 20+ HR from 3B, SS, 1B, LF and RF.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2007 1:59 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree 100%
I would add CF to your 20HR's and 80 RBI list.

It's just getting him without giving up Rasmus.

by Harknights on Dec 10, 2007 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Throw in Bedard and we got a shot
at the post season next year.
"Sell the Farm Guy"

by Red Blazer on Dec 10, 2007 5:21 PM EST up reply actions  

While I agree that Duncan would be
very valuable for the Giants, given the Cards lack of clear options for improving the offense in 2008 through free agency, a healthy Duncan with 25 hr 100 rbi upside remains the Cards best prospect (outside of a return to health from Rolen) of adding the middle of the order clout the Cards so desperately need.

While the glut of strikeout prone left handed hitting outfielders is very real, I have a hard time considering moving Duncan given:

A. Edmonds will likely be gone after 2008.
B. The Cards still don't know what they have in Ankiel.

Until the Cards know whether Ankiel is little more than a 4th outfielder, they cannot trade Duncan, who has shown he is a capable regular.  

With this in mind, if the Cards want Cain, why not roll with:

Anderson, Ankiel, and Chris Mortenson for Cain?

by JMedwick on Dec 10, 2007 11:57 AM EST reply actions  

That's a heavy burden
Cain is good, but that's a big price to pay.  Who knows, it could end up like the Rolen trade (it was a great trade at the time) or it could end up like the Mulder trade.  Clay Mortensen is raw but apparently has huge upside.  I'd be tempted to go with Rasmus for Cain straight up.  I think you get two years guaranteed of Cain before he's a FA
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Consider Mortensen
The maximum 3rd peice from the Cardinals. Ankiel is not that much to give up and I really think that Anderson's value has peaked. Slot in a 3rd play if you wish, but the first two would make the start of a compelling deal.

by JMedwick on Dec 10, 2007 12:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Cain...
He's signed through 2010 for under 3M a year with a club option of 6.25M in 2011.

That's 4 years.

This is the kind of guy you would consider trading Rasmus for.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:16 PM EST up reply actions  

That's right
I forgot about that. I agree that makes him more attractive (rubs chin pensively).
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:18 PM EST up reply actions  

No it is not...
The Cards are so devoid of talent that there is no reason to trade Rasmus for Cain.

by JMedwick on Dec 10, 2007 12:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Why?
Make a case.

Cain would automatically become the best starter on our team.

I get your point about being devoid of talent, but doesn't adding a 23 year old ace that is cost controlled for the next 4 years help said talent level?

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 3:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Cain/Lincecum
I don't see how you get either without including Colby Baseball.

It doesn't hurt to ask though.  Even if all you can get is Noah Lowry it's still a good deal.  ZIPS likes Ludwick just as much as Duncan and Ludwick is a massive defensive upgrade.

I agree with what you are saying and I've been for trading Duncan the entire offseason.  He's the only chip, of significant value, that we can afford to move.  Trade from depth to improve a weakness, it's a simple concept I hope the Cards will grasp soon...we'll see.

However, why sign Shawn Green?  If you've got the depth there why bring in another overpriced, averagish veteran.  Why not let Ludwick play there? He's likely to be as good or better than Green anyway.  Doesn't it make sense to give Barton an oppurtunity there considering he's the only legitimate leadoff hitter on the roster?

By all means, move Duncan for the pitcher, but don't sign Shawn Green.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:08 PM EST reply actions  

Good Question
About Green over Stweart. The Cards are going to need a leadoff hitter next season.

by JMedwick on Dec 10, 2007 12:12 PM EST up reply actions  

I thought we got one
Isn't that why we signed Cesar?
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:19 PM EST up reply actions  

You have to be joking right?
No way you can consider Cesar as a sure thing lead-off hitter with his OBP.

by JMedwick on Dec 10, 2007 12:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Yep
Cez is definitely a joke.
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 1:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Kevin Mench DFA'd...
platoon partner for Duncan/Ankiel?
Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 12:21 PM EST reply actions  

Mench
I really hope not.  That would be choosing him over Barton.  Save the money.  I would like to say his giant melon up close and personal though.
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:25 PM EST up reply actions  

I assume he'd...
be non-tendered and available for under a mil... His  career line against lefties is .305/.361/.563. We've been needing a guy like this for a while.
Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 12:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Those are impressive numbers
But it would be a move that would only guarantee that we remain mediocre.  I'd rather let Barton take some hacks to see what he can do.  It's the same thing with Cesar.  Why not let these other guys take some hacks (Ryan/Jarret H.) and see what happens.  It seems like DeWitt and Co. are ensuring they put out a 70-80 win product that is really boring to watch.  I'd rather we go for that same product with guys that are entertaining to watch.  
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:39 PM EST up reply actions  

barton & ludwick
neither barton nor ludwick are what you call a sure thing.  mench is a reliable lefty killer.  i think its worth looking in to.  

by dmb60614 on Dec 10, 2007 12:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Kevin Mench
Kevin Mench was just DFA's by the Brewers. Do I smell a Ludwick/Mench platoon? A trade with the Giants just continues to make more and more sense.

by rockin the red on Dec 10, 2007 12:22 PM EST reply actions  

Add On
Forgot to clarify - Ludwick has had substantially more success against righties, Mench against lefties. I suppose a Skip/Mench platoon would work as well.

by rockin the red on Dec 10, 2007 12:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Ludwick's reverse split...
last year was probably just an aberration...
Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Hmmm...
Has anyone done any research on the subject?

Seems to me that it's probably an aberration, and the sample size isn't that large, but I haven't seen anybody actually lay out the numbers.

Maybe I'll do that sometime today.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Ludwick
It's actually the one thing that has remained somewhat constant in his career - he hits righties better than lefties. Not to the degree that Mench does against lefties, but still a notable difference. Ludwick has a .278/.341/.465 against righties and .211/.286/.418 against lefties. Don't ask me to explain why though. I have no clue.

by rockin the red on Dec 10, 2007 1:27 PM EST up reply actions  

I've wondered
If it has something to do with the fact that he throws left-handed.  I can't think of a reason why it would, but it would be interesting to see a study of platoon splits done for guys who bat R and throw L.

Still, according to Tango in "the book" it takes well over 1000 MLB PA's to establish a significant reverse platoon split, and Ludwick doesn't have anywhere near that many yet.  

Christmas lights are an extremely efficient method for converting Christmas Spirit into heat. -anon

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2007 3:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Ludwick's splits
his career splits are
.278/.341/.465 in 419 PAs vs RH
.211/.286/.418 in 285 PAs vs LH

the "redundency" in LF actually seems to be Duncan and Ludwick, their 2007 splits being very similar (Ludwick's actually slightly better against both RH and LH, although composite worse because he had proportionately more PAs against LHs).

looking at their ZiPS projections for 2008:
Duncan .262/.346/.472
Ludwick .262/.330/.476
with the only "major" differences amongst the individual stats (HR, 2B, 3B, RBI, Runs etc)being Duncan projecting to walk more and Ludwick to hit more doubles.

by vances law on Dec 10, 2007 3:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Mench
Who does he replace?  

Edmonds
Duncan
Ankiel
Ludwick  
Barton

All will be on the 25 man.  If Barton isn't, he's gone.  (yes, I know there are ways to get around it, but in all likelihood.)  

Schumaker
Rasmus
Mather

All these guys will be in AAA, (although Skip may be gone)  ready to get called up.  So who gets bumped from this list to make room for Mench?  

Punch. Drink. Cry.

by the red baron on Dec 10, 2007 12:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Can Barton play...
center in a back-up role?
Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 12:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes
it's considered his first position.

by Toddius396 on Dec 10, 2007 2:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Seems to me ...
with a starting outfield of Duncan, Ankiel, and Edmonds, someone like Mench is essential to avoid being shut down by lefties. If Barton is necessary to back up Edmonds then I would say Ludwick has to be left off the roster.

A better answer would be to sell high with Duncan and go with an outfield of Ludwick, Edmonds, and an Ankiel/Mench platoon, with Barton backing up.

Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 3:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Don't be too quick...
either to trade Colby Rasmus or to count on him piling up ABs in The Show quite yet!

The sensible thing to do with Rasmus is get him everyday ABs against both righties and lefties at Memphis. If he rakes AAA, then you can call him up; but let's wait and see... he's still got some development ahead of him. Albert Pujols got his shot because Bobby Bonilla had a sore hammy, remember... and AP is a once-in-a-l-o-n-g-time talent; the best since a fellow named Musial, IMO.

Reyes might be fairly attractive to the Giants, since Telephone Company Park is a pitcher's haven. C. Duncan would "fill" a hole at either 1B or LF for the Giants; I wouldn't mind trading those two plus a bullpen/back-end rotation guy for Linceum or Cain.

The Birds might not find a "fit" before ST; that doesn't mean they can't swing a deal to improve the club after pitchers and catchers report!

"In this game, don't nobody know nuthin' about nuthin'." -- attributed to Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra

by The Ol Goaler on Dec 10, 2007 12:36 PM EST reply actions  

AA
I think I'd rather see Rasmus at AA.  There are generally more highly touted prospects there, as opposed to failed major league players or guys that will never make the show at AAA.  Just a thought.  I think there's a lot to be said for getting experience with the big club because there's a different mentality than playing in the minors.  You don't go to NYC when you're playing in the minors. You don't go to LA.  Let him adjust in 08 and then start him full time in 09.  
get up baby, get up

by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Mark Littel's "Nutty Buddy"
Remember Littel?  I feel like Larry made some mention, somewhere in the past year, of this old Cards/Royals middle reliever.  I thought I'd lighten the mood around here by sharing a promo video for his latest product and an article about it.

The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C9aiWr0Vfg

An article:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gVGhQR-t-3ArmAmCyzuiMERmO_hgD8TE4V400

(Apologies for the long link.)

The video contains some expert analysis from Chris Sabo (remember him with the Reds?), including mention of how a one-hopper from Jack Clark shattered his cup back during his playing days.  Why can't the Cards get hitters with that kind of pop any more?

by jfs on Dec 10, 2007 12:52 PM EST reply actions  

sabo
actually played 5 games for el birdos in '95.  and i'm confused by what you mean by "that kind of pop"...the kind that could shatter a guy's cup, or the kind that would keep playing after a broken cup?

by sdesserman on Dec 10, 2007 4:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Quote
This Billy Beane-ism was included in the BP Week in Quotes. I thought it perfectly summed up the frustrations of so many on this site:

"You're either rebuilding for something special, or you're on the verge of something special. To be in between is foolish."

by sjoshi on Dec 10, 2007 1:51 PM EST reply actions  

My new sig
"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 8:49 PM EST up reply actions  

rios for lincecum rumor?
anyone think this was just sabean leaking this rumor to get better offers from others.  that makes more sense to me than actually giving this proposed trade credence.  maybe sabean wasn't getting any phone calls so he decided to spice things up?

as others said, there are probably more attractive offers out there by now.  i'm sure every gm in baseball called this guy with offers.  it sounds like sabean would prefer a veteran/established pitcher and a power hitting lefty.

now he gets to sit back and sift through the offers.  how well do we think duncan+reyes really holds up?  do you think sabean's preference on veterans makes loop more attractive than reyes?  maybe we add in a bullpen arm?

by FutureMan on Dec 10, 2007 2:28 PM EST reply actions  

sabean's preference for veterans
i think he is trying to shift away from that w/ bonds gone and the team clearly in need of rebuilding.

but as for the idea of looper accomplishing anything in a trade for someone like lincecum or cain ... please. you are among friends here, but that sort of suggestion will often lead to instense flames from more hostile posters. it is amusing to read the comments at mlbtraderumors.com, where people would propose things like jason marquis/jacques jones/matt murton for carl crawford/scott kazmir and then get completely ridiculed.

by willievinceterry on Dec 10, 2007 4:36 PM EST up reply actions  

there
are others on board that think sabean still loves veterans.  wanting to sign luis gonzalez does not show a propensity toward getting younger.

and for the other point, MLBTR had a rumor that the tigers were interested in cain/lincecum and they would head that trade up with willis.

         Willis      Looper      Reyes

W/L -    10-15        12-12      2-14
 ERA -    5.17         4.94       6.04
WHIP -   1.597       1.337     1.76
HR/9 -   1.1          1.0        1.2
 K/9 -    6.1          4.1        6.4
BB/9 -   3.4          2.1        3.1

am i saying i'd rather have looper than willis?  depends on what kind of team i am running.

i have heard many wild rumors on this board, some being pretty recent.  i don't think looper being more valued in a trade than reyes is near the top of that list.  the main things he has on him are age and contract.  i'm trying to argue that age isn't a sticking point with sabean.

by FutureMan on Dec 10, 2007 10:36 PM EST up reply actions  

those are just rumors at this point
there is no way he is trading lincecum or cain without getting a legitimate young star in return.

it's not just whether someone is a veteran, but how many years they have left on their deal, how much they're getting paid, how healthy they are, what their upside is, etc.

the only way looper would have more value to a team than reyes is if that team were in contention mid-year, looper was pitching well, and that team needed to add a "veteran" #4 or #5 starter or swingman for the stretch run. sabean has made poor deals and signed older players in the past, but he is not stupid.

i say it again: there is NO WAY that looper would accomplish anything in a trade for lincecum or cain given the state the giants are in now.

by willievinceterry on Dec 11, 2007 3:38 AM EST up reply actions  

Shawn Green
I don't understand Green in the Matrix?  Are there not too many LH hitters in the OF already?  Why not just plug Ludwick in LF and have him and Barton share time?

by ICbirdfan on Dec 10, 2007 2:47 PM EST reply actions  

i agree totally
even if we trade one of the power-hitting lefties, bringing in another one just creates a more expensive and probably less effective version of the same lefty OF glut. $7m for one year of a shawn green or luis gonzalez doesn't seem like it would accomplish anything.

either the team is rebuilding, in which case they would be taking up money and AB's, or they are really going for it and trying to win (not likely), in which case those guys are not going to put anyone over the top.

and if they were to platoon, we are once again left with the question of who is the RH batter with only ludwick (and his reverse platoon split) and barton (and his 0 major league at-bats) hitting from that side of the plate in the OF. the two candidates in the wings, schu and rasmus, are also LH.

if this team is looking to the future, i think it would ideal to hold on to duncan and ankiel and try to move edmonds, even if he brings little in return. i don't think one-year veteran rentals will do much good for the team, although i would have enjoyed seeing bradley as a cardinal.

by willievinceterry on Dec 10, 2007 4:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Numbers Robot
Name     IP     VORP   FIP
Cain     200    47.6   3.76
Lowry    156    26.6   4.88
Lincecum 146.3  26.5   3.56
Lowry had a 1:1 K:BB ratio last season. The only thing that appears to be keeping him afloat is his HR rate which is being helped by AT&T Park (although Busch III had a similar dampening effect for LH pitchers). I don't think I'd want any part of him. Snagging Cain for some combination of Duncan and prospects (Hamilton & Ottavino) would be quite the coup. I'm not sure it's realistic but the Cardinals have a logjam of outfielders that they should try and convert into a more difficult to find commodity.

Anyone worried about the run drop-off from losing Duncan is missing the fact that you can replace that offense in LF pretty easily. Short-term: Barry Bonds. Long-term: Cody Haerther possibly, FA market, Barton/Ludwick.

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2007 4:26 PM EST reply actions  

Just to wrap that all together
If you give Duncan some improvement based on aging curves and assuming he's healthy, he's optimistically a +40 runs with the bat player -- and I might be reaching there. Then you have to remove 5-10 runs for defense and a positional adjustment of another -5 funs and he's probably more like a 25 run player. That's not to say that isn't valuable but finding someone who is worth 25 runs in LF isn't that difficult of a task.

Someone like Ludwick whose probably +5 defensively only has to produce 25 runs above replacement with his bat to be the equivalent of Duncan. Anyone who has any modicum of ability to catch flyballs is going to be able to approach Chris Duncan's overall run contribution.

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2007 4:37 PM EST up reply actions  

bonds
people can say what they want about his "rate stats" or whatever, but there is just no way he is a realistic option.

by willievinceterry on Dec 10, 2007 4:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Billy Beane seems to think
he's a realistic option. I don't think people talk about his stats enough. He posted a .276/.479/.565 last year for 55 VORP. Let's assume decline claims 20 runs and he's still about as valuable as Chris Duncan. I think the Bonds hatred is overblown. If he was playing for the Cardinals and producing runs would the casual Cards fan really continue to hate him? Would anyone really turn their back on the team? I don't think so.

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2007 5:10 PM EST up reply actions  

it's not even certain
that he would be able to play with the legal stuff going on as well as the possibility of a suspension, either from the mitchell report or due to the criminal charges against him.

he makes a little more sense for oakland because he can dh, because they are otherwise blowing up the team (apparently) and could use a draw of some sort, and because he would be remaining in the one market where people generally like him.

i also think his on-base percentage last year was at least slightly inflated by how awful the rest of that giants lineup was. i don't think he would have been pitched around nearly as much in other lineups. whether he would have hit enough to make up for it, i'm not sure.

other factors to consider: clubhouse issues (a hazy intangible), injuries (obviously), and the fact that he invariably requires a pinch-running / defensive "caddy" late in the game.

by willievinceterry on Dec 10, 2007 6:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow!
that's a lot to consider for a guy who's about a virtual lock to put up a .900+ OPS next year.  

Let's see:
defensive issues:  worse than Duncan?  Duncan was only better in LF than Pat Burrell last year.  That's right, Bonds at about 15 years older than Duncan, is still better than him defensively.

pinch-running: see above

injuries: as opposed to platooning Duncan?
his indictment:  he won't even go to trial before the end of the season so that's not an issue at all.

as for clubhouse issues:  overblown (see Rolen, Scott 2006-07)

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2007 10:26 PM EST up reply actions  

if this were a video game or fantasy baseball
then signing bonds would be a great move. it is not, though, and the array of other factors (not just the three you responded to) have to be considered along with the pure rate-stat situation. i don't think anyone can even be sure what all those other factors are at this point.

numbers matter, but it is not purely a numbers situation. i realize you two are probably playing devil's advocate, but still ...

and i ask again, if the team is supposed to be building for the future ... then what good does signing a one-year veteran rental, especially an expensive one?

by willievinceterry on Dec 11, 2007 3:32 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm not playing devil's advocate at all
bringing in Bonds would be infinitely better than any other FA on the market -- w/o question -- a 1 year deal to a guy who'll have an OPS between .900 and 1.000.  To you that may be insignificant, or may only matter in a video game, but Bonds is a legitimate force in any lineup, bad defense or not.  The fact that fans don't like him is inconsequential.

It would free up the Cards to trade Duncan for young pitching -- to answer your question about how it helps us for the future.  How does it harm us, since he'd be on a 1 year deal?  The answer, of course, is that it doesn't.  If they really want to add an impact player w/o sacrificing the future -- Bonds is the answer.  They won't do it, for reasons like those you allude to -- fans don't like him, whatever.  But he's the impact player they say they want to add.

by chuckb on Dec 11, 2007 8:21 AM EST up reply actions  

Personally...
I agree with what fourstick says, below.

And as for your comment, "The fact that fans don't like him is inconsequential."

Fortunately, this ownership group apparently doesn't share that rather cavalier position.  A recent STL media interview with Lamping (iirc) put this issue to bed when he definitively ruled out any possibility of signing Bonds.

As willievinceterry said, this is not a fantasy baseball team.  This is the real team of living, breathing athletes that is supposed to represent "Cardinals heritage"...one that midwestern parents can bring their kids to come watch without reservation.  Having Baseball's Public Enemy #1 (whether the label is justified or not) and someone currently being prosecuted for a felony on the team would definitely have a negative impact, and I would argue that's hardly "inconsequential" to the owners trying to build their brand.  In fact, I would go so far as to say the negative impact would likely offset any positive advantages gained by Barry's Enhanced offensive stats.

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

by Mr Clean on Dec 11, 2007 6:22 PM EST up reply actions  

ryan franklin used steroids
and no one says boo about that.  Ankiel was linked to HGH.  "Cardinal Heritage" holds about as much water as "Best Fans in Baseball" -- it's totally subjective and a fantastic PR ploy as long as the fans keep lapping it up.

If I was a player on an MLB team, I would want the best players available on my team.  Unless someone has a personal grudge against Bonds, what reason is there to think that they couldn't co-exist on a team.

Fans aren't going to continue to buy out the tickets each season if the Cardinals put a shitty team on the field.  The front office should be more concerned about fielding the best players than maiming some inane PR ploy.  They'll get better PR if they were up front with fans and said, "Bonds is a good player.  We want to field a winner and he helps us do that."

by azruavatar on Dec 11, 2007 6:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Not entirely correct...
I can't speak for anyone else (well, except bretsyboo), but at least a couple of us did say something when Franklin was signed.

Believe it or not, there are some of us who value things like integrity over raw results obtained at any cost.

Naturally, nothing is cut and dry either way, but at some point, many fans (myself included) will indeed draw the line when the player in question is clearly a "bad man," a felon, an egregious cheater, or a father-raper and mother-stabber, etc.

I can respect those who simply want a winning team at any cost.  But you should be aware that there are indeed many of us out here who do not happen to share that particular philosophy.

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

by Mr Clean on Dec 13, 2007 6:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Additionally,
I responded to 5 issues -- defense, pinch-running, injuries, clubhouse issues, and his indictment. So #'s shouldn't be used to judge the quality of that signing, and these 5 things shouldn't be used -- so what should? If we shouldn't care how much he'd produce and the other things I've refuted don't matter, why shouldn't we sign him?

by chuckb on Dec 11, 2007 8:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Wait....
Let's talk $$$ for a second then...

You wouldn't pay Shawn Green $7 million per to come in a play on a one or two year deal, but paying Bonds $16 million for one year (125 games) would be ok?  Does anyone else find that assertion to approaching insanity?

"It would allow the Cards to move Duncan."

--Ummmmm...can't they already do this?  They have Ludwick, Ankiel, Edmonds, Skip, and Barton.  Four of which are going to be on the roster, and Skip can be the utility OF with a LH bat off the bench.  Why would signing Bonds all the sudden make this better?  If anything you'd have to trade Duncan first, because after they sign Barry it would be a signal that we're dealing Duncan because he'd have no place to play.  Effectively, that would be saying that the Cards feel better about having a 44 year old with legal issues and numerous joint problems than a young guy who had a +.900 OPS over good stretches of his first two years.  You don't need to sign a replacement to trade Duncan -- this is one situation where the club has options.

Also, what does signing Bonds really accomplish?  Unless the Cardinals are making a run at the Series next year, which seems implausible, why piss off the fan base and subject your team to the Barry bashing night in and night out?  What's the POINT?  If everything were to break right with the pitching staff (i.e. Reyes turns in a 12-12 season with a sub 5.00 ERA, Mulder pitches like its 2002, Looper repeats this year's performance, Piniero returns to 16 game winner form, and Carp comes back at midseason and is the 2006 Chris Carpenter) the team might have a shot at winning the division WITHOUT Bonds, but unless most of the above happens, I don't think the Cards could be considered contenders even after signing Barry.  It's just bad business in my opinion.  If they were that interested in a player for a couple of years at that money they should have signed Andruw Jones, he solves a lot more issues than Barry does and he just turned 30.

"The Cardinals have won a World Series in THEIR new stadium!" --my Uncle Jim to a heckling Cubs fan

by fourstick on Dec 11, 2007 11:19 AM EST up reply actions  

Hear hear..
Absolutely 100%! It would'nt realistically solve anything in St Louis without other moves working out.

Let Beane have the headache and the Frisco gate money.

Trade for Sean Rodriguez! (But please dont call him S-Rod!)

by cardschinmusic on Dec 12, 2007 7:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Yes...
"If he was playing for the Cardinals and producing runs would the casual Cards fan really continue to hate him? Would anyone really turn their back on the team? I don't think so."

I would, at least for the year he was here.  It's probably not rational, so I won't claim it is.  However, I can answer your question without a doubt...yes.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 6:34 PM EST up reply actions  

OF
ludwick before bonds

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2007 6:03 PM EST up reply actions  

What sayeth thou...
to Rolen, Reyes, Duncan, and $12 million (to help with Rolen's salary) for Lincecum. I think that'd even be worth it.
Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 4:45 PM EST up reply actions  

lowry's risky
the k:bb is troubling, no doubt. but i'm not fully convinced those numbers tell the whole story. i think his low HR rate is the result of a very high groundball rate --- in addition to his low HR total (12) he only gave up 23 doubles. he was always a finesse pitcher, a la glavine; i think there's about a 50/50 chance he can continue to outperform his peripherals.

but if the cards give up duncan, they'd have to get back more than just lowry in the deal. as i described in my sept 27 post, it'd have to be lowry plus sanchez or correia or someone like that; the cards would probably have to throw in hamilton or somebody of that ilk to balance out the trade.

i'd rather have cain or lincecum obviously, but it might not be possible.

by lboros on Dec 10, 2007 4:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Bradley to Rangers for 1 year 5M deal.
Well there goes that idea for 2008.  How about this deal the Rangers did though.  Did they overpay or underpay etc..?

by gostlouis on Dec 10, 2007 4:47 PM EST reply actions  

Ankiel's value vs. Duncan
Also don't forget he has a cannon for an arm...or more like a guided missile launcher.

by Red in Chicago on Dec 10, 2007 6:44 PM EST reply actions  

Missle Launcher?
More like an RPG -- "guided" is a bit of a stretch...
"The Cardinals have won a World Series in THEIR new stadium!" --my Uncle Jim to a heckling Cubs fan

by fourstick on Dec 11, 2007 11:21 AM EST up reply actions  

Duncan
As much as I like Duncan's grit at the plate I think we're really overrating him here.  If he really could reap a decent young pitcher let's do it ASAP.  His defense is such a detriment that one off year at the plate makes him virtually worthless to anybody.  The replacement possibilities in LF are really intriguing.  How a bout a platoon of Skip and Barton batting leadoff? Good speed, potentially good obp and infinitely better defense.  If that doesn't thrill you I think that Ludwick himself could produce as well as Dunc with the better defense.  Like I say I do love to watch Dunc work an at bat but, if he's got trade value now, we should jump on it.

by easy on Dec 10, 2007 6:58 PM EST reply actions  

excellent, lb:
from here on out i will be referring to reyes as "heap of slag" until he proves to be otherwise.

by sdesserman on Dec 11, 2007 1:38 AM EST reply actions  

We have already
mined a huge World Series win out of him.  I remember thinking, "I'm watching the highlight of Anthony Reyes' career right here."  He could have gotten a career-ending injury right there on the mound at the beginning of the ninth inning and I bet at least half the guys in the minors would trade careers with him in a heartbeat.  I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think we win that Series without that Game 1 win.  That was just my gut reaction.
"Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." --Churchill

by lordsummer on Dec 11, 2007 8:53 AM EST up 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

Hahaha_small
These were a few of my favorite things (fink reminisces about the 2011 regular season)
N1046613005_8392_small
Our 2010-2011 strays
649494__1__small
Hall of WAR: Part 2

Recent FanPosts

St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinal Managers EVER!
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