weekend discussion thread

Could we

have an honorable mention as well? If so, I would put the Dodgers there (the AJones signing didn't knock me over, although the price was right) as well as the Tigers. The Tiggs' pitching seems weak, but they should be able to score LOTS of runs. They certainly made the biggest splash so far by snatching up Miggy.

As far as the best, I would rate the D-backs highest for their acquisition of solid starting pitching, then the Nationals for making good moves to improve a woeful team and the Braves for trading from their surplus to add pieces they need.

The worst? Definitely the Astros for trading too much from their already pitiful system.

by cardsgirl95 on Dec 22, 2007 9:55 AM EST reply actions

For the Tigs

From what I've seen they still aren't projected to make the playoffs.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Dec 22, 2007 12:22 PM EST up reply actions

The Tigers...

They've got to be favorites in the AL Central.

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

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 22, 2007 5:02 PM EST up reply actions

Not really

Bonderman was total toast in the 2nd half with quite a bit of injury speculation. Kenny Rogers is 43, Willis has had bad peripherals for 2 years...in the NL, Robertson is a solid #4 with Verlander being a stud. They lost 100% of their pitching depth in Miller/Jurrjens/Durbin so if and when Bonderman or Rogers goes down for extended period of time, the replacement is going to be straight brutal. Even if Verlander makes the leap, that's still a pretty bad rotation.

Does Jones lose it? He's had some...interesting peripherals though he's made it work. He's certainly no lock. There's not gonna be Zumaya to back him up, everyone else is pretty much the same.

The offense gains 60 runs.

And then Cabrera gives at least 30 of those right back relative to Inge on defense.

That's a 90 win team which is not gonna get it done against the Indians.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Dec 22, 2007 5:48 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, Cabrera's defense

is just awful at 3B. I wonder if they've given any thought to putting Guillen at third and Miggy at first. Seems like that would be a good way to hedge against the defensive loss that you note while staying static on offense.

Guillen was still just a tick below average at SS even with his knees. It would seem natural to move him over to third before putting giving him a mitt, but who knows. I'm not really familiar with him injury situation.

by plh903 on Dec 22, 2007 11:29 PM EST up reply actions

Angels and A's

I like what the A's did more than the Angels, even though the Angels clearly will have the better team for the next year or two. I just don't see the Angels doing anything in the playoffs the next couple years, even with Hunter in the fold. Until their prospects start blossoming (which could happen with Kendrick), they just won't have the guns to face loaded teams in the playoffs.

The A's, meanwhile, realized this and rebooted somewhat. The rotation's going to be sketchy for sure in 08, but they needed some impact bats and may just be ready when Barton unleashes his first 60 doubles season :-)

"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." - Jim Bouton

by WillieMcGeeModelingCompany on Dec 22, 2007 10:10 AM EST reply actions

Stuck in Neutral

Is not really a bad thing. I really have no problem with what they have done. The Cards have trimmed the
dead wood to make room for new growth.

I thought it was wrong to trade Edmonds until I read he asked to be traded. Picking up Barton was smart.

I thought Eck should have been offered arbitration but then I figured that Iz2 at 2.8m is better than Eck at 6m.

I also knew at the time of the Pineiro signing that he would be a good bargain. I know now that I was right. Springer was over paid.

Trading Rolen for less than La Roche and Elbert would be a mistake. So good non move on Rolen.

They may not have made any big moves. That was smart. The value of Dave Freese and Brian Barton will take some time to see, and I have a feeling that Iz2 will quiet his detractors with his glove. So the only thing I have a problem with is the Springer money, and that was not that big of a deal anyway.

I give Mo a "B" so far.

PS: If '08 is a transition/re-building year and the Cards play .500 ball I am fine with that. Can we really ask for more? Besides .500 or a little better will compete in our division.

by nybirdfan on Dec 22, 2007 10:23 AM EST reply actions

I agree

if the Cards can just play .500 ball up until the all star break they should have a good idea of their needs to make a run at it and should have the money and resources to pick up a key player or two. I kinda favor the wait and see mode.

by ridgesee on Dec 22, 2007 11:03 AM EST up reply actions

Just because

Pineiro was signed cheaply doesn't mean that he's a bargain. He's a bad pitcher that the Cardinals are going to be stuck with for the next two years.

by ryanisforever on Dec 22, 2007 11:51 AM EST up reply actions

well...

Certainly not a bargain. More like market value. Whether or not he will be an effective innings-eater in the NL central is what remains to be seen.

I have a problem with the fact that he does not believe he is a bullpen pitcher, so if he someday ends up in that role he won't perform. Also, this mental predisposition that has him believing he is good enough to e a starting pitcher could help him out in the end.

And, you have to admit, he had some good starts with us last year, even if they were against teams that were struggling at the time.

by Beware the Molinas on Dec 22, 2007 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

whoo buddy

Well they didn't overpay and it's certainly better than going into the season with Kip Wells or having to aquire another Mike Maroth. I'm sure the Cardinals will be at that point at sometime in the season, but at least not in the preseason.

I think the upside to Pinero is that he is young enough and showed enough remaining guts that Duncan can almost certainly turn this guy into a serviceable #4 or #5 pitcher. He was coming off a mess of a season when the Cardinals got him and he did enough to at least make me suspect he might be able to still pitch a little. I know for a fact he's at least as good as Brad Thompson, another guy who will probably have a job in spring.

I just hope Dunc can squeeze 200 reputable innings out of some of these withered husks of pitchers the Cardinals will have low in the rotation.

by homosaur on Dec 22, 2007 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

Market value (SPs)

Carlos Silva's contract makes Joel's look like jellybeans. The "market value" is ridiculous these days (see: Barry Zito, Gil Meche).

by the w1zard on Dec 22, 2007 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

Not really

If you go read the offseaon thread at the Book Blog, Pineiro was signed for about the right amount, while Silva was signed at about the right amount given their projections and the FA market. Pineiro has been awful for years.

The thing that makes both bad signings is that there are better options, and paying $13M and opportunity cost to a guy who's projected at right over replacement level (5.28 ZIPS ERA) is not something that smart teams do.

Same goes for Carlos, though he does have a nice track record of staying in the rotation and being average (with the exception of 2006 of course as far as performance).

by plh903 on Dec 22, 2007 11:34 PM EST up reply actions

I would be intrested

to know by just what method you use to judge player talent when you declare Pineiro as being worthless and then selecting ryan is forever as a user name. seems like both have something to yet prove.

by ridgesee on Dec 22, 2007 4:55 PM EST up reply actions

Really?

Usernames?

by plh903 on Dec 22, 2007 11:35 PM EST up reply actions

not you plh903

earlier comment. fell out of place. see my post way on down the page...I'm stupid...I quit.

by ridgesee on Dec 23, 2007 1:00 AM EST up reply actions

Oh I know

I was just commenting that it's a weird place to go in an argument on a blog. I don't really care though, just a reactionary post.

by plh903 on Dec 23, 2007 3:00 AM EST up reply actions

Pineiro

Will suprise a lot of people. Remember 9/27/07? That was a wonderful performance a sign of things to come.

by nybirdfan on Dec 23, 2007 2:23 AM EST up reply actions

springer

after seeing what linebrink got, in both money and years, springer looks a lot better

Pujols is the greatest Cardinal in my lifetime.

by bigcardsfan5 on Dec 22, 2007 12:04 PM EST up reply actions

well

they did say that the "market value" was going to skyrocket because of the MLB.com and the other stuff from the 6 billion dollar revenue mark. Like I've said many times, some teams are choosing to spend that 30 mil they got on players and not houses in the alps. The "over priced" thing is really realtive, especially to years past.

"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"

by rocKStark5 on Dec 22, 2007 8:31 PM EST up reply actions

over paying

Unless people see a teams books, it is hard to say teams are over paying for guys.

You are only over paying if a contract stops you from getting someone else.

I think the over paying line gets way over used on this board considering no one has access to teams books. Who cares if the Angels paid Hunter 90 million? It only matters if it affects their ability to sign other players they need and since no one has the books it is pretty hard to say a team over pays.

That is my take on things. I also agree with you every team got $30 million and some actually are spending the money on players.

by ICbirdfan on Dec 22, 2007 8:50 PM EST up reply actions

This is still the time of year...

when most player acquisitions are either "ho-hum" or designed to sell season tickets (I'm looking at you, Houston!)

It's pretty obvious the Cardinals are hitting the "reset" button; we'll see if that hurts season-ticket renewals. (A healthy and effective Mulder makes the rotation much more palatable... whether Mulder will actually be healthy and effective can't be determined until April, May, or June!)

Detroit's made the most obvious improvement for 2008; but will it be enough to beat out Cleveland in the AL Central? (The playoffs are a crapshoot... even for the BoSox and Yanks, even if one of 'em gets Santana!)

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

by The Ol Goaler on Dec 22, 2007 10:36 AM EST reply actions

re-set with intelligence

(and youth)... that's the camp I am in.
As for attendance (or even disgruntlement) I can't ever remember the Cardinals having anything like a serious problem there... and I go back as far as 1957.
And we surely have had some crappy and/or re-building years during that time.

* on a 'personal' note... players come and players go, but the two biggest blows *I have sustained over the years were... first, losing Jack Buck, and then KMOX.

by the Tewk on Dec 23, 2007 11:21 PM EST up reply actions

My only issue with the Cards

is that the direction the ballclub seems to be taking is inconsistent with the desire to retain TLR. I am not a TLR hater, but since the club has clearly decided to get younger and probably will not contend in either 2008 or 2009 I don't see the logic in bringing Tony back. Maybe there will be more truth in his comments about liking a young roster than in his assertion that he would be able to mend fences with Rolen.

Do you think Rolen's trade value would be any different if TLR was not the manager?

As far as player movement is concerned, I don't think any major mistakes have been made. I think it may have made sense to delay the Edmonds move a bit, but not really a big deal. I do believe Edmonds will have a relatively decent year in line with his production over the last two months of '07. I think he will do well enough in '08 to continue for a couple more years.

I look forward to the remainder of the lukewarm stove league.

Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...

by giveml on Dec 22, 2007 10:46 AM EST reply actions

i thought the same

but we all know tony will drive the team to win every day without excuse. maybe the front office believed that if anyone could push this team into contention, it would be tony.

by birdsonthebat on Dec 22, 2007 12:16 PM EST up reply actions

They probably wouldn't contend in 07, either ...

... except they did. We tend to forget that when the HGH story chopped Ankiel's legs out from under him, the team was one (1) game out of first in the loss column. In September. If that's not "contending," I don't know what is. A lot of people are writing this team's 2008 and 2009 off way too soon, IMO.

Back on the subject for the weekend:
Winners: Tigers (trading from strength, they have enough young talent that they could afford to do it); D-backs (same general principle); Marlins (the Cabrera/Willis deal brought them some nice stuff, that trade was good for both teams); and ... Yankees. Getting out of the A-Rod PR fiasco with him still on the team is the biggest single coup scored by any team yet this off-season.
Losers: Astros (paying for the past is never a good idea); Mets (the Milledge and Mota deals both look dumb to me); Rockies (whose idea of building a pitching staff is that?).
I'm generally quite happy with Mo's performance so far; he has successfully resisted the pressure to make bad deals just for the sake of "doing something," a trap that Jock fell into more than once. I'd stop short of calling the Cards a "winner," but the Hippocratic oath applies: first, do no harm.

First post here, btw, so please excuse any lapses. This is a great board, and I'll try to be (responsibly) active.

by StanTheManFan on Dec 22, 2007 12:36 PM EST up reply actions

sure was a good first post

by ridgesee on Dec 22, 2007 12:49 PM EST up reply actions

Now if Ankiel is going to hit for a full season

the way he did when he first came up then maybe we will contend in '08. Of course, that also means he would be the NL MVP. Any takers on that one?

Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...

by giveml on Dec 22, 2007 7:03 PM EST up reply actions

Props to Florida

With a limited revenue stream, and no real attendance to pi** off when you trade your franchise player, they've stocked up their farm team nicely. They'll never be a consistent power the way they do things, but they'll end up winning the world series every decade or so. I'd take that.

by tinstl on Dec 22, 2007 10:50 AM EST reply actions

(from a cost/benefit): Nats

they gave up basically nothing and got two guys with all-star upside. Other teams improved their rosters, but at the expense of important things that they COULD regret. I don't think the loss of Church and Schneider will ever come back to haunt the Nats; the losses of Carlogon, Andrew Miller, etc. could, if they turn into All-Stars and the teams giving them away turn out to not make the playoffs.

by siddfynch on Dec 22, 2007 10:54 AM EST reply actions

not a big fan of nats moves

I'm more stat head than not but having been around the Nats last year, Schneider and Church were big character guys. Manny Acta did a great job but having these two guys around sure made it easier. I n character terms, the trade was very interesting and instantly made sense giving the season the two teams just had. You don't want to make too many trades of character for talent but I liked the trade for the Mets and Nats. However, the Nats clubhouse is starting to look downright scary next year with the direction Bowden is taking this team. Lots of potential talent but lots of potential negatives too.

All my friends became Cardinal fans and grew up happy and liberal. I became a Cub fan and grew up embittered and conservative." -- George Will

by wannabeGedman on Dec 22, 2007 1:47 PM EST up reply actions

If there weren't all

those character issues, I bet they aren't able to upgrade like that from a talent standpoint. I'm a big believer that clubhouse chemistry matters little, more anecdotally from when I played than some stathead stance. Either way, if that's a mechanism to upgrade talent, then kudos to them for trying to exploit that.

Maybe it bites them in the ass, but I doubt it. Not that I think this adds much to my argument because it would be a little hypocritical if I did, but I'm a huge Manny Acta fan.

by plh903 on Dec 22, 2007 11:40 PM EST up reply actions

I like what the Tigers have done

they're going for it b/c they have the farm system depth to do that and they know that they'll continue to draft and sign people like Rick Porcello.

They'll pick up Edgar's reasonable option and have him for 2 years. They got Dontrelle for less than people like Carlos Silva and he's better. Even so, they only bought out 1 year of free agency so, if he doesn't pitch well, they can send him on his way. It's true that they still have problems at closer but it's possible or even probable that Zumaya replaces Jones in that role anyway.

As for the Cards -- we may finish behind the Astros next year but, long-term, we've done much better. As long as the Cards keep playing for '09 and 2010, we're having a good offseason.

by chuckb on Dec 22, 2007 10:56 AM EST reply actions

If the Astros

can get a little lucky with their Pitching, they could be the surprise team, but weather they end up good or bad I look for them to give the Cardinals fits next year. The Birds seem to bring out the best in them and you know Oswald will be ready for every series. Cards won't miss him.

by ridgesee on Dec 22, 2007 11:16 AM EST up reply actions

They're going to have to get

a lot lucky w/ their pitching. Their pen's atrocious after replacing Lidge and Qualls w/ Valverde. Their rotation is Oswalt, Wandy, Backe, Woody Williams, and Chris Sampson. Even if they replace Sampson w/ a Jon Lieber type, it's now just bad. Williams is past being done and Backe hasn't pitched in a year and a half b/c of TJ surgery. Wandy's not bad, but he's hardly a #2. They'll score some runs and win a lot of 8-7 games, but they're no match right now for the Cubs or Brewers.

by chuckb on Dec 22, 2007 11:49 AM EST up reply actions

NO, right now, they aren't.

by ridgesee on Dec 22, 2007 12:31 PM EST up reply actions

I might be the only

one that thinks the Cardinals, with what they could do, actually did a pretty good job defensively. Our offense, well not so much. We have gold-glove defense at every spot but 2nd. With Dunc's pitching philosophy, that should squash some runs. Dunc is the only big question mark in the outfield. (defensively) Really if all these players could run, we would have been looking at the second coming of Whiteyball!

Here I Am, Rock You Like a Hurricane

by OKCardsfan on Dec 22, 2007 11:03 AM EST reply actions

Cards Moves Are Fine Except For Coaching Staff

Overall the Cardinals offseason has been OK in that they have not made any moves which seriously harm the club going forward. If re-signing Russ Springer is your worst roster move, you're not doing too bad.

While I think Larussa and Duncan are both fantastic at what they do and have been a large part of the Cardinals' success, I seriously question the decision to bring them back. Neither has shown much aptitude for developing young players, and Larussa's insistence of people playing through injuries seems counterproductive. They seem poor matches for the current Cardinals team, and they seem unlikely to be a part of the next great Cardinals team, as they will be retired by then. I would think bringing in a manager who is focused on developing a core of players he can win with in 2010 would have been a better move.

by tarakas on Dec 22, 2007 11:08 AM EST reply actions

agree, wholehartedly

by ridgesee on Dec 22, 2007 11:19 AM EST up reply actions

Ditto

I've become a TLR convert the last few years -- I think he was a great fit for our organization from about 2004-2007. But I don't think he's the right guy now. He's not good at developing young pitchers. He's got a lot of baggage with key players (for example, I would love for Mozeliak to be able to make decisions about Rolen and Reyes w/o having to factor in their issues with La Russa and Duncan). I also think letting TLR walk would've been good PR -- the Cards would've been able to tell their fans to prep for a year or two of rebuilding.

Now, one could argue that our fans have already lowered their expectations (the tone of the chat rooms has been pretty resigned this offseason), but I do think if La Russa were gone the organization would be more likely to turn the page.

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Dec 22, 2007 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

can't decide on Tony

but I'm especially interested in comments, like the one you made:

"...and Larussa's insistence of people playing through injuries..."

Specifically, I would love to know the REAL skinny on the cases of Rolen and Interestinghausen in '06.
Altho I am not basically a LaRussa supporter (especially with a team like we have now), my best hunch about the above two players was it was more THEIR fault, not LaRussa's (for not being honest about the extent of their injuries.)
Even so, I don't let LaRussa off the hook, since if I could tell something was wrong with Rolen and Izzy, he should have too.

by the Tewk on Dec 24, 2007 12:02 AM EST up reply actions

other side of the tlr coin

while i agree integrating younger players into a vet roster is not a tlr strong point, i'm not too upset he will be the one providing the guidance for our now younger roster. w/o edmunds, eck, etc, tlr is the senior leadership. i don't really think any of the "kids" will learn anything they shouldn't. bad actions, habits etc won't get one very far with tlr, so i'm not so sure that's a bad thing overall, especially when some of our "kids" are a bit long in the tooth (not 21 year old rookies). shoulders to cry on will need to come from elsewhere.

by sportsman on Dec 22, 2007 11:31 AM EST reply actions

That's true also

but since La Russa's has stated that he he only wants to manage for a couple more years anyway and the Cards seem to want to change directions, it just seemed like a good time to change mgr and coaches too. I think La Russa just didn't want to go out as a loser and management accommodated him.

by ridgesee on Dec 22, 2007 12:25 PM EST up reply actions

also

i also believe that management originally did want to add some help via FAs and thought tlr might aid in recruiting. so far though, not sure that's had a role, though for better or worse, it might have affected the springer, piniero, and iz signings.

by sportsman on Dec 22, 2007 12:45 PM EST up reply actions

I think the Cardinals are having a very good

off-season given their circumstances. Basically Mo hasn't made any earth-shattering deals, but he is moving in the correct direction.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Dec 22, 2007 12:48 PM EST reply actions

Mo

True. It's hard to work any big deals when DeWallet is standing on your chest.

by the w1zard on Dec 22, 2007 5:41 PM EST up reply actions

Money versus cost-controlled talent

I don't think that is the problem. The owners would have to have to spend a lot to get this team competitive. Right now payroll is ~$90M. With an average pitcher going for at least $10M/ year, we'd likely need to spend another $20M just to get to an average talent level in our starting pitching corps. And that doesn't even address the lack-luster offense. Maybe fixing the offense would take another $20M per year... Is it reasonable to expect a St Luois team to have a $130M payroll? I doubt it.

IMO, the problems are:

Our farm system is still weak
Big names weren't traded while they still had value.
We didn't cut our losses after Mulder's contract was up.

However I don't completely blame the owners or GMs. The problem really was the Cardinals won a championship 1 or 2 years too late. If they had won in 2004, Edmonds or Rolen could have been fliped for a lot of talent. The way things worked out we stayed in a "win now" mode untill 2006 by which time Edmonds and Rolen lost most of their value.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Dec 22, 2007 6:39 PM EST up reply actions

well said...

a great anaylsis of where we are and why. Quit blaming and bashing ownership, they pushed the envelope to get our championship.

go crazy folks..........

by wwbd on Dec 22, 2007 9:06 PM EST up reply actions

Gotta mention the Reds as bad

...but not terrible.

Still, giving a 33 year old closer a four year 46M contract is insane.

The Hamilton trade, meh, but after losing Rowand, he was probably one of their better outfielders in terms of defense and health. If he can hit like he did last year, then it's an atrocious trade because now they're relying on a rookie, an oft-injured Griffey, and Dunn, who is the one they probably should have moved.

Still, with that Cordero contract and adding Dusty Baker, they're pretty far on the negative side so far.

by Phyrkrakr on Dec 22, 2007 1:12 PM EST reply actions

the hamilton trade

opens the door for super stud jay bruce. they got 2 pitchers who have racked up nothing but k's in the minors. both come with their wrinkles, but volquez could be a #2 starter. i don't think given their salaries (dunn, griffey) the could've moved them. it's not a bad move, imo.

Fritz's boys need a house

by erik on Dec 22, 2007 1:15 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, the Hamilton trade isn't bad

That's one that we won't know how good it is for a few years. It could be like the Drew trade for us a few years ago, or it could end up not mattering at all.

I was more giving them negative marks for getting Baker and Cordero, although the Hamilton trade could make up for all of that.

by Phyrkrakr on Dec 22, 2007 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

holy crap I like this Jay Bruce already

A strong name

A manly name...

He needs a thick, John Stossel style moustache

by homosaur on Dec 22, 2007 4:11 PM EST up reply actions

Cordero

Prediction: his arm will blow out when he shakes Dusty's hand of the first time. Career over.

by the w1zard on Dec 22, 2007 5:43 PM EST up reply actions

can we count

on Dustbag ruining yet another NL team?

by the Tewk on Dec 24, 2007 12:07 AM EST up reply actions

Funny since the Reds had...

about 5 OFs a couple years ago. They tried to get rid of Kearns or Dunn just to make room. Bullet, meet foot.

by Big Head on Dec 22, 2007 8:41 PM EST up reply actions

i vote

nats for the best (I didnt know they got those two) plus didnt they sign a decent vet?

and Houston for the worst.

oh,i still dont get the love for Garland

by jealousblues on Dec 22, 2007 2:47 PM EST reply actions

Nat's version of moneyball

Find the talented players that are undervalued because of character issues. Dukes is on the far end of the spectrum. The Milledge move was set in motion when the Mets didn't protect Jesus Flores and now he is the Nats #1 catcher.

by wcheuk on Dec 22, 2007 3:21 PM EST reply actions

Angels

Move Orlando Cabrera for Jon Garland Sign Torii Hunter for 90M Completely unimpressed by both moves. Garland isn't a good pitcher and they moved an above average SS for him. Hunter's contract is going to look ugly fast.

by azruavatar on Dec 22, 2007 3:59 PM EST reply actions

Not gonna disagree on Hunter

But Garland has thrown 200+ innings with an above average ERA 3 years straight and ZiPS has him at a 4.09 ERA next year park adjusted for Anaheim. He's definitively an above average pitcher.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Dec 22, 2007 4:22 PM EST up reply actions

question

I was bored looking at some blogs on mlb rumors..The brewers to be exact and they said that Pujols was interviewed by nbc during the rams and packers game>it went on to say that pujols said that he would not play with the pain in his elbow he had last year if it does not heal. Has anyone hear anything on this ?? 08 could really suck...

by cm1000 on Dec 22, 2007 4:00 PM EST reply actions

Would you?

I wouldn't continuely play in physical pain, gut it out for a team that the organization is punting to 2009.

If the FO is just going to collect money from ticket sales in 2008 and hope for better in 2009, Pujols should just take his check and wait it out.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 22, 2007 4:12 PM EST up reply actions

Guess I'm the minority here, but

I actually like what the Astros have done.

They are taking advantage of a weak division, and the so-called future they've mortgaged wasn't good anyway.

Had they held onto the marginal prospects they sent out...they still wouldn't be any good in 3-4 years. No they'll be worse at that time, but much better now.

Would it have been smarter to try and dump the large contracts (Oswalt, Lee, Berkman) and try and go into a full rebuilding mode...maybe. However, the prospects they sent out weren't going to be difference makers imo, so I believe, it is best for them to try and take advantage of a weak division and make the playoffs for the next couple of years.

I wouldn't put them in the category of "best offseason", but I believe they are doing the right thing.

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

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 22, 2007 5:07 PM EST reply actions

+1

I'm with you, man. Just like Crockett & Tubbs.
Boomer.

by glamboomer on Dec 22, 2007 6:29 PM EST up reply actions

If an .800

OPS represents Tejada's projections going forward (I don't know that it does), then they basically made a lateral move at SS when you factor in defense. I think you are looking at -5 and +25 on that side of the coin, which basically wipes out the hitting discrepancy.

The Astros are among a dying breed of teams that completely ignores sabermetrics I think. They look at their lineup and say, "we need more offense from this spot" and ignore everything else to that end. Instead they should be focusing on the RS/RA leger and making a difference in the most efficient way possible. The angle doesn't really matter. Instead, they are sitting at about the same place, just with different names and several prospects lighter (along with a .900 OPS outfielder).

by plh903 on Dec 22, 2007 11:46 PM EST up reply actions

Weak Division... not anymore.

The Cubs through force of will or dollars, project to be a pretty good team in any division. Last year while they won 85, they actually project out to be an 88 or an 89 win team based on runs scored and allowed. If one looks at OPS+ and ERA+ they project even better, in fact they are arguably the best team in the league. The Cubs have made improvements and figure to get better as does Milwaukee.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Dec 23, 2007 2:02 AM EST up reply actions

Well, if they lose Pujols

next year, you can call up Dandy Don Meredith and have him sing the National Anthem followed by "turn out lights, the party's over."

by ridgesee on Dec 22, 2007 5:14 PM EST reply actions

Which raises an interesting question...

What is the value of X such that the team (and Pujols) decide that X% of Pujols is NOT better than 100% of his replacement? In other words: how subpar must he be before all involved decide to blow off the rest of his season and get him in for reconstructive surgery on his elbow, so that he'll be at 100% the following season?

Truth to tell, I'm surprised this hasn't happened already. In TLR's/Jocketty's/DeWitt's position, I would have been very tempted to shut him down and schedule the surgery as soon as the team was eliminated in 2007, or at the latest, after he reached the 100-RBI mark. Tommy John surgery isn't as big a deal for a position player as a pitcher, and if he'd had it at the end of September, one would think he'd be back to his usual fearsome self by April. But it didn't happen, and it's too late now.

by StanTheManFan on Dec 22, 2007 6:51 PM EST up reply actions

surely this was contemplated

last year but obviously some medical experts thought rest would cure. I think what Pujols was saying though, is if it continues next year he will shut himself down and I can't say I blame him.

by ridgesee on Dec 22, 2007 7:08 PM EST up reply actions

What is hurting?

Was AP talking about his throwing arm or his foot (doesn't he have foot/heel issues?). This could be interesting. Think of the possibilities this could have.

1)AP has surgery and could now play third base, if needed.

If AP is able to play 3B, trade Rolen midseason after he is worth something and get some MLB ready pitchers for '09 or perhaps a MLB ready OF for '09 who can hit and field (at the same time no less!)
Play Dunc at 1st where he can't cause too many problems and wait to see what AL teams come calling for his services thereafter and trade him for more pitching and/or OFers.

Just a thought if AP can't play.

http://welcometojohnsonville.blogspot.com

by arthropodtodd on Dec 22, 2007 10:50 PM EST up reply actions

Pujols isn't going to move back to 3rd

it's not going to happen. ever. it would only exacerbate the issues.

by azruavatar on Dec 22, 2007 11:01 PM EST up reply actions

It's too bad

I'm firmly convinced that he'd be above average there defensively, which would just be awesome.

by plh903 on Dec 22, 2007 11:48 PM EST up reply actions

true

still like the idea of Dunc at 1st if AP is hurt to increase his trade value.

http://welcometojohnsonville.blogspot.com

by arthropodtodd on Dec 25, 2007 9:54 AM EST up reply actions

I give it to the Nats.

It's two years in a row that they took a chance on players that nobody else wanted-last off season it was Dmitri Young and Ronnie Belliard. Both turned in nice seasons and both return for 2008. This year it's Milledge and Dukes. If only one of them breaks through that will be terrific. But I think they're both going to do well because Manny Acta seems to know something about dealing with troubled players-how to get them to play. They gave up nothing they needed to get any of the four mentioned players and it's exactly the kind of low risk/high upside moves a team in their current state should be making. The Nats are one team I will be following to see how it all plays out.

by jillsinmo on Dec 22, 2007 6:47 PM EST reply actions

I'm thrilled with Mo's offseason moves so far

...in that he hasn't given me ANY "omgwtf?!?" moments, which was a significant fear as a member of the "old guard." For the most part, he seems to have done fine with the limited options before him. I'd currently give him an "Incomplete" since we don't have that "missing starter" yet, and I'm still silently dreading some craptastic, bloated contract for a marginal/declining veteran. Aside from that final project which has yet to be turned in, however, he's earning a B- in my book so far.

The D-backs did WELL this offseason. If they could figure out a way to score some runs, they could be unstoppable.

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

by Mr Clean on Dec 22, 2007 6:52 PM EST reply actions

D'backs and Tigers have to be 1-2

Tigers are STACKED, especially in that weak division. They'll have to compete with Cleveland, but that will be about it. Twinkies are toasted trying to get rid of Santana, and Lirano comes in with a jammed gun trying to get healthy.

D'backs will clinch the NL West before the kids go back to school.

Don't understand why the Dodgers are so highly regarded. Andruw Jones was as rougher than a Chevy w/o shocks last year and they backed the Brinks truck up for a Japanese rookie in his 30's.

Royals may deserve some love for trying.

by Big Head on Dec 22, 2007 8:45 PM EST reply actions