Trading youth for youth
Much of the trade discussion here (and elsewhere) has focused on which big leaguers the team should trade for younger, cheaper talent. And clearly that's the direction the team must go. But I wanted to broach the discussion of which, if any, minor leaguers should also be "on the block."
On the surface, trading prospects for prospects is at-best a wash. But it seems like if we want to land a top level minor leaguer, ready for '08, we may need to sweeten the deal with more than the big contracts of our aging major leaguers.
That only makes sense if we've got prospects to spare. Despite the fact that our farm system is still thin (especially at the top), I see at least one area where it might make sense to deal.
Our system is flush with power hitters who may have a hard time finding a home in St. Louis. With Albert at first and another first basemen in left field, I find it hard to believe yet another converted 1st basemen like Joe Mather could find a spot in our outfield. Mark Hamilton, recently promoted to AA, is yet another 1st basemen who's likely big-league arrival date will be during the Albert Pujols era.
Rick Ankiel IS an outfielder and can even play center, but his age and the presence of Colby Rasmus make him worth considering in a deal as well.
Gordo suggests in today's column that Bryan Anderson should also be available, given Yadier Molina's talent. I personally disagree. For a team with such below average bats in both middle infield spots, I don't know that we can afford the luxury of a defensive specialist behind the plate.
I admit a flaw in this entire line of reasoning is that only a few of these minor leaguers will even develop into useful major leaguers. So it can be a specious argument to speculate that these guys will ever block each other.
But I also think it's clear that we won't get much more than salary relief if we can move an Encarnacion, Eckstein, even an Isringhausen. (Not that that's without value.) I wouldn't mind seeing one of these prospects move along with a big leaguer, if it could net us a major league ready prospect at second or short. Thoughts?
0 recs |
38
comments
Comments
Anderson....
Other than that, I think a BP chat talked about a similar idea, that is a recycled parts swap meet, where GMS would gather and exchange their excess parts for others parts.
So if the Cards have an excess 1B/OF like Mather, they could bring him to the swap and trade him to a team like the Phillies who have an extra SS prospect. (Side note: Mather is NOT young, I think he's 26 or 27.)
In reality, there are two problems with it. First, the pendulum has swung the other direction in that GMS are remiss not to give up any prospects or any that show a hint of value. Second, and this may be more of a corollary to the first, GMS want to save the prospect for deadline deals when they are buyers, adding major league ready talent to help them in the play off race.
It is a good idea though, and one of the first rules of negoiations. Check out the extra that others have.
by Brock20 on Jul 24, 2007 10:57 AM EDT 0 recs
Mather IS young...
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on
Jul 24, 2007 11:21 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Mather is this years Terry Evans.....
by jillsinmo on
Jul 24, 2007 11:53 AM EDT
up
0 recs
so no Yadi?
Personally I think hes a great catcher and think maybe we can land a great SS prospect with the trading of Anderson. If you don't want Anderson on the block, does that mean your up for letting Yadier walk or be traded?
This is a good post. I don't know much about the farm system but that brings up a good point that we don't necessarly have to trade a major leaguer for what we need.
by warpig2003 on Jul 24, 2007 11:14 AM EDT 0 recs
I'd rather trade Yadi than Anderson
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on
Jul 24, 2007 11:21 AM EDT
up
0 recs
+1...
Anderson will be a good two spot hitter in the bigs. Good OBP, doubles power and will set up nicely for Albert.
Anderson is one to watch.
by Brock20 on
Jul 24, 2007 11:31 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I still think yadi's going to hit
by bobeans on
Jul 24, 2007 2:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
He's got...
And no, the only decent, somewhat decent I should say, season he has had with the bat was '04 his rookie year where he only had where he only had 153 Abs...I'd say that was the abberation and even then he was still well below avg. Well below avg for a catcher is...well, I'll be nice and say not good.
He can't hit, period.
by bobbyballgame1 on
Jul 24, 2007 9:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yadi
by 2x41z2tu on
Jul 24, 2007 4:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Neither one
by fatbellyjefferson on
Jul 24, 2007 11:46 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm with you.....I don't want Bryan Anderson
by jillsinmo on
Jul 24, 2007 11:52 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I am going to disagree.
by cardsgirl95 on Jul 24, 2007 12:00 PM EDT 0 recs
I'll have to disagree with you.
When it comes right down to it, though, I personally agree with the notion that the job a catcher does calling a game or "handling" a pitching staff is very overrated. They did a feature over at BP on this recently, looking at pitcher's ERAs with various catchers, and they found there was much less of a variance than you would expect, given the conventional wisdom of how important a good game caller is. I'm sure there are times when a certain pitcher just really has a tough time with a given catcher, but in general, I think that whole notion has been overstated over the years. Whatever slight fall off there might be from Molina to Anderson would be more than made up for by the offensive difference.
Of course, there's really no need to worry about this for a while at least, anyway.
by the red baron on
Jul 24, 2007 12:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I would think it might only
by jillsinmo on
Jul 24, 2007 12:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don't think
by cardsgirl95 on
Jul 24, 2007 12:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Lets not assume...
The point I would like to make is that you can't have negative offensive output from so many positions. Now if we were better at SS, 2B, CF, RF...we could afford a defensive specialist. That isn't even really a good argument for him though...I mean would you rather have Adam Everett or Jimmy Rollins? Sure, Everett is the slickest glove in the league at a premium defensive position but he can't hit his way out of a wet paper sack (much like our C), Rollins is a good defender (not as good as Everett) and a plus offensive player. Seems like a good comp, and maybe it's easier to take "feelings" out of the evaluation when you look at players not on our team.
However, Molina is just a black hole offensively and always has been. His career OPS+ is 64...that's putrid, terrible. He's one of the worst hitting regulars in all of baseball. On top of all of that, he is the slowest player I have ever seen. People put too much of a premium on things that can't be quantified IMO, such as game calling, scrappiness, leadership or any other Joe Morgan cliche you can think of.
If Anderson continues to develop in the way he has...then Yadi is the one to go. By that time, Yadi will be getting expensive and close to free agency. It doesn't make sense to trade the younger, cheaper, better player just because Yadi has a great throwing arm.
Hopefully the new leadership of this team won't be so old school. Look on the birght side though, if Larussa goes to another team we will pretty much have our pick of their roster when it comes time to move Yadi!!!
by bobbyballgame1 on
Jul 24, 2007 2:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree
by cardsgirl95 on
Jul 24, 2007 4:37 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Intangibles.
I think the SABR guys tend to overstate their case, with some of the situations where they claim clutch hitting or strand rate are purely luck. There is an element of luck to those things, and big aberrations are to be mistrusted. However, I don't buy the idea that there's no such thing as clutch or that any pitcher who lets a lot of runners score is just unlucky. Some players just don't do well in certain situations.
In this case, though, while I don't think that the intangibles we're talking about here are to be discounted, I believe they've been oversold big time. A pitcher knows what he wants to throw, and if he's relying on a catcher to tell him what to do, he's not prepared. So I just don't totally buy the emphasis on game calling and staff handling, (doesn't that sound dirty?) that some organisations, such as this one, put at the catcher position.
by the red baron on
Jul 24, 2007 11:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Good subject
I would hate to see Anderson moved; to me, his upside is just entirely too exciting to consider giving up on him. Mather is an interesting case, he's almost the exact same situation the Cards had last year with Terry Evans, except Mather doesn't run well. To my way of thinking, the Cardinals have a bunch of big bat OF/1B types that have a pretty good market value going to the right organisation. Hamilton is the best of the group, but a guy like Allen Craig, (I know everyone's ready to anoint him the new 3B for the Cards, but, seriously. His defense is god awful, and think they moved him to first, if I remember correctly.) is another all bat, no glove type of guy who probably has more value being moved than remaining with the Cardinals, considering that the first base situation here is pretty well wrapped up for awhile.
There are quite a few bullpen arms the team has that could be dealt as well, just to create space for new arms and sort of redistribute the Cards' resources. Two relievers for one SS prospect, that sort of thing. I think Anthony Reyes needs to be moved. I doubt he'll ever have a real future with this team, but I still think other organisation's might have some luck with him. Hopefully, for his sake, the Cards could move him into a situation he can flourish in, and receive some decent return on him.
As strange as it might sound, I think I would also be willing to listen to offers for Brad Thompson. He's been very good this season, and he's proven that he's rather versatile. Don't get me wrong, I think he could definitely figure into the Cardinals' plans for the future, but I also think, given his age and his performance, he could be a very valuable trading chip. Particularly in the offseason, I would definitely see what he could bring. The organisation should have some options for 2008, and the return for a pitcher like him could be considerable. Of course, the loss of Chris Carpenter definitely makes that idea much less appealing, but I still wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
by the red baron on Jul 24, 2007 12:37 PM EDT 0 recs
Market value
If we hang onto them until they fall off production-wise (as Mather has done of late), we've lost value. If they do progress to MLB quality, we still don't have room for most of them and have to make a deal.
I'm not saying we should be TRYING to unload these guys, but if they could be used to sweeten a deal, I don't think we'd be sacrificing much in the way of future returns.
by bgodar on
Jul 24, 2007 1:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
FWIW
Hamilton and Buckman, on the other hand, are genuine first basemen who need to either start taking fly balls or infield practice at 3B.
by SleepyCA on Jul 24, 2007 12:58 PM EDT 0 recs
Really?
by the red baron on
Jul 24, 2007 4:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don't know if anyone else has said this...
stlfan
by stlfan on Jul 24, 2007 1:05 PM EDT 0 recs
I don't think the issue is Yadi vs. Anderson
Jeff Gordon made the same argument about Anderson, reasoning that he is blocked by Molina. I think that's flawed for a couple reasons. Most notably, Anderson and Molina are very different types of players.
In the next 1-2 years, the Cards may well have to make a decision between the two, do we go with Brian McCann or Brad Ausmus, so to speak. But that's assuming Anderson continues to develop, both remain healthy, etc.
But trading either one now because they may someday block each other doesn't make sense, especially as they are both young, cheap and under team control.
by bgodar on
Jul 24, 2007 1:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Young, cheap, under team control.
by ArkansasTravs on
Jul 24, 2007 2:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Better yet...
I disagree though, by '09 Yadi will be arb eligible (probably making 5M a year) and only 1 year from Free Agency if my math is correct. Anderson is too good of a prospect to come up and play once a week...it's counter-productive.
Keep Yadi, until Anderson forces you to make a decision. If Anderson develops as he should, then you move Yadi while he is still under team control. He should actually be quite valuable to an old school team that places a high value on "intangibles"...hopefully the Cards won't by that time.
by bobbyballgame1 on
Jul 24, 2007 2:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Wait a minute here...
Granted, here are their overall lines:
Matheny .239/.293/.344/.637
Ausmus .253/.326/.347/.673 (including this season)
Molina .240/.294/.335/.629 (including this season)
So Molina's numbers are actually worse than those two. Take inflation under consideration and the fact that he MIGHT actually be better defensively, although that is SERIOUSLY up for discussion this year considering his '07 defense...he might make $3.5 in arbitration. Might.
stlfan
by stlfan on
Jul 24, 2007 5:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Good research....
BTW, those career lines are UGLY. What's worse is Brad FUCKING Ausmus is a substantially better hitter than Yadi.
WOW!
by bobbyballgame1 on
Jul 24, 2007 10:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
If 3 million is all that stands...
by Red Blazer on
Jul 25, 2007 12:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Bargain?
I'm not against keeping both guys, as I think Molina would make a fine backup. Will he accept that role? Will he accept the salary that comes with that role? I can't see either happening.
by bobbyballgame1 on
Jul 25, 2007 2:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
EXACTLY!!!
by PujolsFan4Life5 on
Jul 25, 2007 3:39 PM EDT
up
0 recs
we have to hold on to anderson...
beyond that it is not at all uncommon that good hitting catchers move to another position (and despite his game calling skills the most playable part of brian's game right now is his bat)before they reach the majors (barton to 1b, neil walker (pit) to 3b where he's thriving by the way).
so considering that the system is mostly devoid of bats you have to keep anderson b/c one way or another he's likely to help you out more down the road.
by intimidator45 on Jul 24, 2007 2:04 PM EDT 0 recs
but i am intrigued w/ your idea...
the difference between my scenario and yours is that i'd be looking at young mlb talent, most specifically chris duncan (HOLD the backlash, i know he's young, productive, the 2nd best hitter in our lineup,etc. and of course we all love his feel good story...but dealing him could be a one step back in 08' scenario in order to take two steps forward in 09' and beyond).
the only reason i dare suggest this is that 1)it would be one of the only possible ways to get out from rolen's deal in the near future 2)outfield is the one area that we have a few players who could step and maybe play...ie if we traded duncan maybe we keep juan cion to platoon w/ ankiel in rf and spell jimmy in cf (which ankiel could also do)and then go out and sign another lf w/ some of our savings (unless a lot of players resign w/ current teams OF will be by far the deepest position in this years' free agent crop...someone's got to fall through to cracks for a 'cardinals' deal)3)right now duncan's value is high, he's improved in the of and could still play 1b or dh in al, versatility that a team such as the angels would love.
here are possible deals that could work:
duncan/rolen to the la angels for ervin santana or joe saunders +brandon wood (or if wood is untouchable make it erik aybar/sean rodriguez and a lower level prospect)
makes sense b/c----the angels badly need power and the fact that duncan is under team control for a few more years might just convince stoneman to open up the coffers and surrender a few of his precious minor leaguers. plus rolen has the requisite glove to play infield for mike scoscia. the cards would get back a 3b or a middle inf plus pitching (santana is struggling right now but has obvious talent..). cards could also take back chone figgins who could take over ecksteins leadoff spot.
duncan/rolen to the la dodgers for andy laroche+scott elbert/clayton kershaw+? (another lower level arm)
makes sense b/c the dodgers also sorely need power and lf luis gonzalez is only on a 1yr deal (gonzo stated his affection for stl last offseason, if he'd take another 1yr deal an outfield consisting of gonzalez, edmonds, cion, w/ ankiel and ludwick as the backups might not be that bad...and it would still give us lots of future flexibility as gonzo, edmonds, and cion would all be off the books for 09'). duncan slides in lf for la giving them a power bat, rolen goes to 3b shifting nomar to 2nd for the departed jeff kent (i'm pretty sure 07' is the last year of his deal) and the cards get a 3b of the future in laroche (and of the now, he'd be better than anyone else we have at 3b for 08', we spezio filtered in there sometimes if the rookie struggles), plus a young pitcher.
as i stated previous this type of deal would prob rankle many w/in the fan base, but it may be what's best for the FUTURE of the org
by intimidator45 on Jul 24, 2007 2:43 PM EDT 0 recs
The angels need power in a bad way
As I have said before, I love Duncan, but he is the cards most replaceable marketable commodity.
by OCCardsFan on
Jul 24, 2007 5:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
i like this trade
mather?? i dont know, but i would like to see this trade happen,even though jock is too stupid to try to deal at the deadline anyway
by PujolsFan4Life5 on
Jul 25, 2007 3:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
There is no way....
by Brock20 on Jul 24, 2007 3:00 PM EDT 0 recs
you might be right...
neither of those teams are getting power production (unless you count betemit's pinch hits) from their 3b spots anyway (even in his terrible down year rolen has more hrs than nomar and figgins isn't a power hitter)and rolen does still provide excellent defense, which both org value. but once again that's not the reason that either team would make the deal---the reason is that both teams are desperate for power--and that's the one skill duncan possesses in abundance. add in the fact that he's cheap, under team control, and as an added bonus can also play 1b and you have a pretty valuable player.
and... outside of pitching, the one thing most teams covet is power so that's not going to come cheaply.
a few years ago no one thought the marlins could move mike lowell's onerous contract but they did by offering up josh beckett and promising not to surrender him unless someone took lowell. and yes, the red sox did give up two good young players in that deal...but it wasn't all bad for them---they got becket and signed him to a below market deal, and lowell has revived himself there.
in short, while these exact deals might not happen (not the point anyway)what i was trying to get at was that the cardinals should consider getting creative in turning things around...not necessarily only trading veterans but look at what other packages might bring.
by intimidator45 on Jul 24, 2007 3:35 PM EDT 0 recs
also...
he and rolen are owed similar amounts of money (although i think rolen's deal run one year longer)and in the aforementioned deal you not only would be recieving rolen but also a young cheap power hitter, two players for the price of miggy (whose power has also declined though not to the point of rolens'). and beyond that santana's value has dropped significantly since last years' trade deadline...making this possibility even a little more feasible...still not saying it would happen...but i also think that saying there's 'no way' it would is being overly pessimistic
by intimidator45 on Jul 24, 2007 3:43 PM EDT 0 recs
















