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:
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.
183 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree
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.
It's a sunk cost
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.
i thought it was the other way around
replying to myself
"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
Yes...
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
Unless
Duncan...
Come on, that's not even worthy of a debate.
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 3:43 PM EST up reply actions
You're right
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.
In the case of Duncan
What's he going to do? Quit?
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.
by the red baron on Dec 10, 2007 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed
Is Matheny looking for a job?
by Beware the Molinas on Dec 10, 2007 10:06 AM EST up reply actions
double agree
AND... Mike Matheny or Ken Oberkfell have been my 1-2 choices for new manager for over a year now.
wow
It's amazing how short an attention span some have or how unrealistic expectations are in today's world.
New Manager
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.)
how about
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...
stlfan
duncan/duncan
Or, how about if we imagine
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...
Yes
I think Duncan is probably grounded enough to understand his son may be traded. But maybe not. Who knows.
In 2006...
Trade him! Trade him Now!
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.)
+1
Duncan + Reyes + Hamilton for Lincecum or Cain
by Hungry Jack on Dec 10, 2007 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
I have to admit
Heh
BTW, the Jim Edmonds HOF piece is one of my favorite Cardinals related pieces of baseball writing.
thanks plh...
brian and plh, no argument re lincecum
i wouldn't suggest that the scenario i've sketched out was worth discussing if not for the sabean factor.
If Sabean makes that trade,
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.
I think the
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.
Agree
I'm looking
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.
If Duncan hadn't finished hurt
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.
I agree
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!
matrix question
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
by Ray Lankford on Dec 10, 2007 10:00 AM EST up reply actions
it is the opposite
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...
The Juan E contract was not insured and the Cards are on the hook for all of it.
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
Ummm...
From Bernie's 12/6 column:
Well
by Ray Lankford on Dec 10, 2007 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
Chris Duncan is a First Basemen
I'm under the impression that
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.
Ankiel vs. Duncan
ties to the organization?
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
by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 10, 2007 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
What a radical suggestion!
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.
Trade Dunc now
And HC, I'd say corner OFers are the most fungible comodity in baseball followed by middle relievers.
hitting lefties
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...
IMO, Ankiel is the better player all things considered.
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
Ankiel > Chris Duncan
I like Duncan, but I like Ankiel more, though I must confess to drinking some of the Cool-Aid on Mr. Ankiel.
im just not convinced on Ankiel
Ank vs. Dunc
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 just appears much more willingness to play Ankiel than Duncan.
...dunc vs. ankiel
Plus Ankiel is THE investment. The guy they put in a bad spot early on.
by cardschinmusic on Dec 11, 2007 5:16 AM EST up reply actions
better than tejada
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.
the Orioles' discussion
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.
This assumes...
no, the giants might not be that dumb
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.
Lowry
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.
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 11:10 AM EST up reply actions
eh...
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.
Straight Up
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
hyperlink
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
i think they don't care
woody williams was a fly ball pitcher, they never put that stuff off on him..maybe because he's a vet.
Additionally,
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.
From watching Anthony the last two years
I believe that if Anthony didn't struggle so much with runners on, they wouldn't force the 2-seamer on him.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2007 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
But when no one is on
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.
Pitching from stretch
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2007 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
agreed
soft tossing lefties
"Sabean is not the brightest GM"...
"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.
the giants are seriously considering
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.
Rios straight up?
That would be great, too great to happen it seems.
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
Sabean is an odd duck...
Bottom line: I don't think he wants any prospects for Cain/Lincecum.
Rolen
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
better yet
Brain Scramble
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
Just to confirm Sabean's stupidity
Is it possible he's too stupid to even be interested in a young power hitting corner OF/1B?
You hit the nail on the head
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.
Lincecum/Cain
by GhostofJimLinderman on Dec 10, 2007 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
Lincecum Cain
by GhostofJimLinderman on Dec 10, 2007 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
Bryan Anderson
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 10:56 AM EST reply actions
Meant to include
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.
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
Anderson...
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.
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
Good argument
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
Dang
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 1:04 PM EST up reply actions
You know,
Thanks...
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.
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
there's a reason
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.
Anderson, a long way from there....
by cardschinmusic on Dec 11, 2007 5:30 AM EST up reply actions
No.
this guy's offensive numbers are pretty similar to Biggio' career numbers, and he, too, is a superb defensive player.
he actually talked about this
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.
I love the Roster Matrix!!!
Pitching
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
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.
cavazos
Awesome
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 11:08 AM EST up reply actions
Fare thee well, Andy Cavazos
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.)
Going back to the Tejada thing from yesterday
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2007 11:29 AM EST reply actions
Yes
The more I think about it
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.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2007 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
I agree 100%
It's just getting him without giving up Rasmus.
While I agree that Duncan would be
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?
That's a heavy burden
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
Consider Mortensen
Cain...
That's 4 years.
This is the kind of guy you would consider trading Rasmus for.
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
That's right
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
Why?
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?
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
Cain/Lincecum
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.
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:08 PM EST reply actions
I thought we got one
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
You have to be joking right?
Yep
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
Mench
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
I assume he'd...
Those are impressive numbers
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
barton & ludwick
Kevin Mench
by rockin the red on Dec 10, 2007 12:22 PM EST reply actions
Add On
by rockin the red on Dec 10, 2007 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
Ludwick's reverse split...
Hmmm...
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.
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Ludwick
by rockin the red on Dec 10, 2007 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
I've wondered
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.
Ludwick's splits
.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.
Mench
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?
by the red baron on Dec 10, 2007 12:40 PM EST up reply actions
Seems to me ...
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.
Don't be too quick...
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!
AA
by jimmybaseball42 on Dec 10, 2007 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
Mark Littel's "Nutty Buddy"
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?
sabo
Quote
"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
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
rios for lincecum rumor?
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?
sabean's preference for veterans
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
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.
those are just rumors at this point
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 agree totally
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 3.56Lowry 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.
Just to wrap that all together
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.
bonds
by willievinceterry on Dec 10, 2007 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
Billy Beane seems to think
it's not even certain
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!
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)
if this were a video game or fantasy baseball
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
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.
Personally...
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.
ryan franklin used steroids
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."
Not entirely correct...
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.
Additionally,
Wait....
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.
Hear hear..
Let Beane have the headache and the Frisco gate money.
by cardschinmusic on Dec 12, 2007 7:18 AM EST up reply actions
Yes...
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.
by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 6:34 PM EST up reply actions
What sayeth thou...
lowry's risky
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.
Bradley to Rangers for 1 year 5M deal.
by gostlouis on Dec 10, 2007 4:47 PM EST reply actions
If Bradley is healthy for the whole year (big if)
by wyld stallyns on Dec 10, 2007 8:18 PM EST up reply actions
they just need him to be healthy thru july
by willievinceterry on Dec 11, 2007 3:33 AM EST up reply actions



















