tourney time
one final piece of news regarding the rolen trade. at the end of my knee-jerk analysis when the news broke on saturday, i remarked off-handedly that while i liked the trade, i'd rather see the cards get back a young player like andy laroche. that prompted an e-mail from a knowledgeable source, who told me the cards did look into a rolen-for-laroche deal (as reported here two months ago by occasional VEB diarist pzonehitter). the dodgers, however, wouldn't offer laroche unless the cards would also agree to take juan pierre --- whose contract is one of the worst in baseball, many times worse than scott rolen's. the dodgers, not unreasonably, never budged off that position --- if they were gonna taken on our crappy contract, we'd have to take on theirs. the cards wisely declined.
dan szymbroski posted the ZIPS projections for rolen and glaus, indexed to their new ballparks:
| AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS+ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rolen | 380 | 58 | 93 | 24 | 1 | 10 | 57 | 38 | .245 | .319 | .392 | 84 |
| glaus | 469 | 71 | 120 | 22 | 0 | 24 | 78 | 77 | .256 | .362 | .456 | 112 |
* * * * * * * * *
a friend of mine who's doing a research project about sabermetrics vaguely recalls reading a statement on the subject by tony la russa a few years ago. in answer to an interviewer's question, la russa said --- more or less --- that stats guys struck him as arrogant because they try to tell him something that he has seen with his own eyes isn't true. he said he'd rather have a video machine than a stats guy. this friend knows he read the interview online but now can't track it down; does it ring a bell for anyone? i already asked if the quote came from "3 Nights in August" --- it doesn't, my friend has already checked. if you recognize this quote and know where it can be found, please advise.Update [2008-1-15 9:13:31 by lboros]: well, that was easy. a VEBber named john immediately e-mailed a link to the quote, which reads:
"It's been a little irritating, because there's a certain arrogance with that whole group."
* * * * * * * * *
late last winter i launched an all-time cardinals simulation tournament. it was a good idea that generated a lot of interest, but it failed in the execution because i got a late start and was using an archaic simulation program; the thing never got out of the first round. last month Zubin wrote me with a different concept for a tournament. with a better simulation program and an earlier start, i think (fingers crossed) we can manage to get all the way through it.this concept surfaced briefly last year --- a tournament of cardinal championship teams. in the modern era st louis has produced 17 pennant winners; that's a four-round tournament (with a play-in game tacked on at the beginning). Zubin, who is a student of 19th-century baseball, proposed expanding the field to include the championship teams of the 1880s, when the cardinals --- then known as the browns, and led by player-manager charlie comiskey (the future white sox owner) --- took four consecutive pennants in the american association. he also advocated the inclusion of the la russa era's division-winning teams --- the 1996, 2000, 2002, and 2005 clubs, each of which won a playoff series but fell short of a pennant.
the resulting field comprises 25 teams --- every club in franchise history that won a championship, pennant, or division title. here they are:
| world champs |
pennant winners |
division winners |
|---|---|---|
| 1886: 93-46, .669 | 1885: 79-33, .705 | 1996: 88-74, .543 |
| 1926: 89-65, .578 | 1887: 95-40, .704 | 2000: 95-67, .586 |
| 1931: 101-53, .656 | 1888: 95-40, .704 | 2002: 97-65, .599 |
| 1934: 95-58, .621 | 1928: 95-59, .617 | 2005: 100-62, .617 |
| 1942: 106-48, .688 | 1930: 92-62, .597 | |
| 1944: 105-49, .682 | 1943: 105-49, .682 | |
| 1946: 98-58, .628 | 1968: 92-62, .597 | |
| 1964: 93-69, .574 | 1985: 101-61, .623 | |
| 1967: 101-60, .627 | 1987: 95-67, .586 | |
| 1982: 92-70, .568 | 2004: 105-57, .648 | |
| 2006: 83-78, .516 |
the 2001 team was omitted because a) technically it finished 2d, b) it didn't win a playoff series, and c) enough already with the 00s teams; they're already amply represented.
how to cram these 25 teams into a 16-team bracket? it wasn't easy, but Zubin devised a solution that's fair and surprisingly elegant. take a look:

the games will be simulated via WhatIf Sports' Sim Matchup program. each matchup will consist of a best-of-7 series. Zubin and i are dividing up the sims; our managerial decisions will be limited to a) setting the pitching pairings, and b) setting the lineups; the simulator will handle all the in-game maneuvers. we'll be referring to each team's actual postseason box scores to ensure realistic lineups, rotation decisions, etc etc.
we're gonna start posting the results on friday, and add new results each day. the four first-round series will be played concurrently --- think the nlds / alds, with four series going on simultaneously. friday's schedule will include Game 1 of two first-round series; on saturday we'll put up the Game 2 results from those series, along with the Game 1s from the other two first-round matchups. we'll go forward like that, game by game and round by round, with new results every afternoon; the championship series should take place about halfway through spring training.
if anybody's interested in lending a hand with the write-ups, send me an e-mail (vivaelbirdos AT yahoo DOT com). Cardinal70 has posted a tournament tracker; he's also accepting ballots from anybody who's interested in filling out a bracket and submitting picks before the tournament starts.
0 recs |
150 comments
Comments
Salary
by jfs on Jan 15, 2008 8:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
yes, normalized salary
by lboros on Jan 15, 2008 9:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This gives me yet another chance to
sigh
I miss those years. I enjoyed them more than 2006.
by azruavatar on Jan 15, 2008 9:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I like to think
As an aside, I have a rarely worn Scott Rolen home jersey available for cheap...
by player2bnamedl8r on Jan 15, 2008 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What about an Edmonds Jersey?
by effin fisk on Jan 15, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've only worn my Edmonds jersey
by saladdays on Jan 15, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At the time I got the Rolen jersey
Based upon their exits from the Cardinals, aside from the fact that Jimmy is my favorite recent Cardinals player...I'd much rather have the Edmonds and I'd definitely hang onto it.
by player2bnamedl8r on Jan 15, 2008 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can I ask how much you paid for
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 15, 2008 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I get a new jersey
I may have to go with a retired one this year. I've been meaning to get a Kile jersey for some time now.
by Alxfritz on Jan 15, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you've got $300 to drop
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 15, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, how many game tickets
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 15, 2008 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
two scoreboard tickets
by rocKStark5 on Jan 15, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, with the jersey
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 15, 2008 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like their Ozzie
by Alxfritz on Jan 15, 2008 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm partial
by plh903 on Jan 15, 2008 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, let's see...
It wasn't the full player's replica jersey with the small number on the front of the uniform.
I actually wanted an Edmonds jersey, but the team store in Busch II didn't have any.
by player2bnamedl8r on Jan 15, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mulder game
by Choix003 on Jan 15, 2008 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: LaRussa and Stats Guys
The only real discussion of number-crunchers in general in "3 Nights" came in a section discussing overall strategy. Bissinger wrote something like this: LaRussa understood the approach that the A's used in getting guys who get on base, and generally agreed with it. However, in RBI situations he felt the "table was already set" and therefore wanted his hitters to be a little more aggressive. That was about it in the whole book, which focused more on TLR's life and his in-game decision making process.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 15, 2008 9:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The article with the quote is from 2005
by sdrone on Jan 15, 2008 9:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But
"The 'Moneyball' kind of stuff has its place, but so does the human," La Russa said by telephone from Pittsburgh. "Really, the combination is the answer."
by cardsgirl95 on Jan 15, 2008 10:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
good point
Tony was always known as a stat guy for the longest time. Heck, many fans get mad at him for worrying too much about stats, matchups, numbers, etc. Yet the "other" crowd says he is anti-stats. Kinda weird.
by beanocook on Jan 15, 2008 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MGL has said before
by azruavatar on Jan 15, 2008 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Many
by beanocook on Jan 15, 2008 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no, he's not dumb
ron shandler tells much the same tale as MGL.
by lboros on Jan 15, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
TLR/Knight/Belichick
Take it for what it's worth. Yes they all have been wrong but they have been right a lot of times doing what works for them.
I will leave it at that.
by ICbirdfan on Jan 15, 2008 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
understood that
My point--we all kind of think our way is the way--and we are tough to change. My main point on this is that I don't think Tony is anti-stats, etc.
He was one of the very first guys to use stats in the dugout, he has all the numbers, most of his decisions are based in statistical data. Does he embrace the whole "sabermetric movement"? Maybe not. But it doesnt mean he doesn't appreciate them in context.
by beanocook on Jan 15, 2008 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Catch:
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 15, 2008 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
stats
It is all about figuring out what the best stats are and using those stats.
by ICbirdfan on Jan 15, 2008 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you should learn more about the stats
you may think they're worthless, but they're worth a lot to big-league decisionmakers. the Cardinals paid MGL a pretty penny a few years back for the proprietary rights to UZR. and most big-league teams are paying their number-crunchers fistfuls more to produce even more reliable, more meaningful fielding statistics.
by lboros on Jan 15, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here is my take
I think some people on this board however use stats a bit too much at times, because many have said much better than myself stats don't tell you everything.
It think a balance is needed, but I get the idea you get some number crunches who think they are pretty smart and could throw together a fantasy league team but don't know everything about the game of baseball.
But I do think the stats are fun to go through.
by ICbirdfan on Jan 15, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
direct observation is essential
but the eyes often mislead. we all have our blind spots and our biases, and statistics --- if used properly --- can correct those flaws in our vision.
it's pretty clear that a blend of stats and direct scouting is gonna produce better results than either a pure-stats or pure-scouting approach. even billy beane would acknowledge that --- he played the game, after all, and he knows that the game is played by real people and not by strat-o-matic cards. but the stats do have meaning, if you know how to use them and you use them in balance.
by lboros on Jan 15, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
stats
by dmb60614 on Jan 15, 2008 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
understood
It gets frustrating at times. They drop ISO, VORP, UZR, etc. and if people dont "get it" then obviously they are uneducated dumbasses. Im not saying you are this way---its just a general feel I get from the sabermetric community...like they are the only ones that "get it" and the rest of us aren't quite as enlightened. Because many of them couldn't play the game they are involved in another way.
It gets frustrating. It's nice to have a healthy balance where BOTH groups respect each other and what they briing--right now, Im not sure that's the case and both groups are to blame.
It's like guys who drop degrees or Ivy School references all the time. That gets played out. Just because he's a 30-something cat from Yale doesn't mean much to me.
Sorry to rant--just my thoughts on the issue. Do I think Tony could be more open to new things? Yes. But I think he actually puts more of it to use than people give him credit for.
by beanocook on Jan 15, 2008 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you make fair points
i would argue that the disrespect goes both ways --- there is definitely a crowd that says "you never played the game, so you don't know shit" --- but i agree that in an ideal world, both groups would learn from one another.
i think jeff luhnow pretty well embodies that point of balance you're describing. obviously he values stats and trusts them, but from various sources i know that he does not discount a scout's "gut feeling" in the cards' draft war room --- on the contrary, he trusts that a lot, which helps explain why they drafted kozma and (to a lesser extent) rasmus, as well as later-round gems such as jaime garcia and tyler henley. every time i've exchanged e-mail with him, he goes to great lengths to address players on a qualitiative as well as quantitative basis.
by lboros on Jan 15, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
awesome
Time will tell on him obviously but I really like his approach...heck, I've been impressed with Mozeliak so far as well.
by beanocook on Jan 15, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just sayin'
You're speaking truth, though. Sabermetrics would probably be further along if Bill James and the like spent more effort winning his intended audience instead of attacking it.
Tom Tango seems like a class act, though. And Dave Studeman most certainly is, from the very limited contact I've had with him. Not all statsmen are condescending assholes, but too many aspire to be.
Josh, at the now-sadly-defunct Birdwatch, nailed this sentiment well in his review of 3 Nights in August:
In the case of Moneyball there was a built in audience of new school baseball fans whose self image (as baseball fans) was built around being more informed and smarter than the average fan and troglodyte baseball executive. Moneyball was a hit with this audience. When somebody writes a book that says people who think like you are brilliant and avante [sic] guard and the wave of the future, it's hard not to agree with the guy.
by liam on Jan 15, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Three months ago
by ridgesee on Jan 15, 2008 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
fielding percentage....
by jdub176 on Jan 15, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here is what I said
- Watching- the best method of all
- Fielding %- tells a lot just because you can tell if the guy can at least catch and throw the ball consistently.
by ICbirdfan on Jan 15, 2008 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
watching fielding in particular
People like "well I believe my eyes" because that statement makes whatever babble they spout out seem irrefutable. It makes them feel safe and unchallenged.
by rocKStark5 on Jan 15, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't agree
by ICbirdfan on Jan 15, 2008 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You keep using the term "watching"
Fans, on the other hand, often say "well I've seen so-and-so play defense and he's one of the best in the game." Then, when the stats say otherwise, that person says something like "stats are useless" or "overused" or "can't replace the human eye." "I don't care what the stats say, he's great!" or whatever.
Unfortunately, when fans say that they've "seen" someone and offer some vantage point that runs contrary to what the stats say, it's based on a couple of incidents that often aren't representative of the entire body of work. Anecdotal evidence, b/c we only really "see" part of what we say we saw or only remember portions of it, just isn't that valuable. When scouts "see" something, it's usually incredibly worthwhile. When fans say they "saw" something, it usually isn't.
Too often we, as fans, make snap judgements about players or their abilities based on the fact that we "saw" them a couple of times. Stats, therefore, are usually much better than fans' anecdotal evidence. Scouts, on the other hand, are a whole different ball of yarn. Scouts saw big homer potential in Chris Duncan even when the stats weren't there. Eventually, the stats were able to reflect his ability to hit homers.
I'm not questioning you, in particular, here. Likely you see things as a former player that most fans don't see. But, if so, you're the exception, not the rule. Therefore, if average fan A says "I saw X" and the stats say something contrary, I'll go w/ the stats. Scouts, however, are an entirely different story.
by chuckb on Jan 15, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I saw...
You were saying?
by Merry CRasmus on Jan 15, 2008 9:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For the record
by jdub176 on Jan 16, 2008 1:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fielding Percentage
I also tend to not trust my eyes when trying to actually figure out if a guy is a good fielder b/c if they make a few spectacular plays that might throw off your perspective. Also, there are just so many things that you can't see/miss by watching (positioning and jump aren't visible unless you're watching that player the entire game and nothing else) that its just not the best way to get a total package of a guy's defensive skills.
I'm not saying that Dewan's system, RF, UZR, OOZ, etc. are perfect systems...just that they're not useless either.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 15, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it's all in context
However I feel if you watch a player you can pick up on things. I don't get fooled by great plays. I can watch a guy and tell his arm strenght, the way he travels to the ball in a controled manner, weather his hands are soft, and how his feet look. I just was saying I don't need stats to look at that. I will go watch a highly touted HS kid and I can tell if his IF skills project or not.
by ICbirdfan on Jan 15, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and sometimes
For fielding especially, where at most you'll see a player make 4-5 plays a game, the eyes are a terrible evaluation tool.
by SleepyCA on Jan 15, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Eyes are a terrible evaluation tool"
by liam on Jan 15, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And this,
by Jhusk on Jan 15, 2008 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It would be more accurate to say that eyes are
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 15, 2008 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
mdredbirdfreak
by ridgesee on Jan 15, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To Those Who Vote For Gold Gloves
-Derrek Lee
by flynn on Jan 15, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoever
I am a Cardinal fan who could care less about the perception of my team award wise. It does not make me more money, or really change my life one bit. I guess I am just a lot different than others who have some sort of heart attack if Jadi or Albert lose out on some award that is has zero affect on a fans life.
by ICbirdfan on Jan 15, 2008 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
isn't that part of being a fan?
by baw on Jan 16, 2008 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just an observation
by OKCardsfan on Jan 15, 2008 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
as discussed yesterday
In this case, it's not the fielding stats that are "bad", it's the eyes of one (or both) of the guys in the stands in Toronto...
This discussion does illustrate one point that hasn't been made about fielding stats- we can't trust them 100% because they are meta-stats. They aren't like the Chadwick Batting Average which is based off of something concrete (hits per at bat). With the exception of fpct, which should be dismissed (and is still subject to the whims of the official scorer for defining "errors"), fielding skill goes through a filter based on someone's opinions, biases, and event recording skill with the accompanying opportunities for human error even before the stat programs do their number crunching.
by SleepyCA on Jan 15, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Human Element
by OKCardsfan on Jan 15, 2008 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MGL
by ICbirdfan on Jan 15, 2008 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
who
by beanocook on Jan 15, 2008 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mitchel Lichtman
by azruavatar on Jan 15, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok cool
by beanocook on Jan 15, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
statement
by ICbirdfan on Jan 15, 2008 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I read alot (if not all) of the comments
by azruavatar on Jan 15, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True
by ICbirdfan on Jan 15, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MGL is of the
by plh903 on Jan 15, 2008 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also I think
I was playing with different guys every week and didn't care. Field your position and wait for a pitch to knock the shit out of.
I'm probably guilty of embracing objective measures because they back up so many things that I already felt where intuitive. Giving up outs was silly.. I could go on.
I think it can work both ways, and most of us are probably searching on some level for something to tell us that our observations are correct.
by plh903 on Jan 15, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
true
When a guy has a .450 OBP he has a .450 OBP. What is there to discuss there?
In the end I have found that intangibles don't mean a ton to the players playing the game. Or I guess, leaders aren't chosen, etc. They emerge. Chemistry is either there or it isn't. That type of thing.
by beanocook on Jan 15, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tony, calling anyone else in the world
by chuckb on Jan 15, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pet peeve of mine...
Very common mistake, but you basically are saying the opposite of what you mean.
As for the quote...I'm not surprised. Tony is as arrogant as anyone I've heard of, and I'm sure he thinks he knows more than any stathead out there.
by cardzfanbub on Jan 15, 2008 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 15, 2008 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What stats don't measure...
In LaRussa's section he talks about situational hitting in terms of men on base and pitch count. The book states that the A's big bats at the time, McGwire and Canseco, were extremely good situation hitters when behind in the count because they stressed hitting behind runners to move them up to the next base, and while trying to push the ball to the right side they had a high success of base hits between 1st and 2nd base. When they weren't successful they had moved the runner up a base and closer to scoring. While statistics can measure some of this, they really only deal with the result (i.e. making an out), rather than what the play accomplished. I think that this is what TLR's trying to say in the quote that lboros is talking about. Statistics can only tell you so much, watching a player's approach to the game can give a pair of trained eyes a really good approximation of that player's talents.
Don't get me wrong, I think sabermetrics are fabulous tools that should be used, and I'm a total stathead myself which is why I'm such a fan of baseball in particular compared to other sports. However, after looking at Colby Rasmus' stats and then seeing him in person for an entire series, I left feeling much more impressed with his approach at the plate than what I would get from stats alone. He seems to have a plan with what he wants to accomplish when he gets to the plate -- stats can't measure that directly. They can measure what he does with those at-bats.
by fourstick on Jan 15, 2008 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That was good, fourstick,
by ridgesee on Jan 15, 2008 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks rigdsee...
by fourstick on Jan 15, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Very well said.
by bukowski on Jan 15, 2008 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On the play you mentioned
by chuckb on Jan 15, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As the dust settles with Rolen's departure
I must have missed something with the Indians though. Nice take on the deal from belleville: http://bellevillenewsdemocrat.typepad.com/viewfromthecheapseats/2008/01/three-cheers-fo.html
- The Cleveland Press said the Indians recently talked to the Cardinals about a swap of shortstop Jhonny Peralta and pitcher Cliff Lee in a trade that would have included Rolen. The Tribe was said also to be interested in Anthony Reyes as part of that deal.
That could've been sweet. I'll be happy with Troy. Good job Mo.
by Birds on the Bat on Jan 15, 2008 10:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Actually...
I think Lee is another Mike Maroth -- highly touted, but doesn't produce. Peralta is a good offensive talent but absolutely atrocious with the glove, not sure that he really fits with the Cardinal infield. My guess is that he would have been moved to third to replace Rolen, and Glaus gives us more production at that spot than Peralta would have.
by fourstick on Jan 15, 2008 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And I would have preferred. . .
Easy to see why the Brew Crew would turn that one down, although Rolen at the hot corner and Cameron in CF would have upgraded that team's defense by what, 2-3 wins? Maybe more.
Methinks the NL Central is going to be better this year, which doesn't bode well for the Birds.
by South Side Cards Fan on Jan 15, 2008 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nix on the Brewers deal......
by cardschinmusic on Jan 16, 2008 6:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and he'll likely never
by SleepyCA on Jan 16, 2008 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i remember
by samael88 on Jan 15, 2008 10:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
If we had a feather...
by cardschinmusic on Jan 16, 2008 8:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Juan Pierre
The fun thing about the Cot site for me is to check out the incentives on some of these contracts...Gary Bennett's, for example, when he was on the Cards...award bonuses of $50,000 for Gold Glove, Silver Slugger or WS MVP...kind of hard to think of those things in the same sentence as Gary Bennett!
by tbell61 on Jan 15, 2008 10:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Juan Pierre
I'd have done the deal.
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 15, 2008 11:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wait
by Mr Redbird on Jan 15, 2008 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In fact, if the Dodgers were offering that
We would have had Laroche arbitration eligible until 2013.
Juan Pierre = 36.5 M
08:$8M
09:$10M
10:$10M
11:$8.5M
Troy Glaus = $24 M
08:$12.75M
09:$11.25M
Scott Rolen = $36 M
08:$12M
09:$12M
10:$12M
The Cardinals could have, in turn, eaten over half of Pierre's contract and flipped him to a team that needs a CF and still come out ahead in the deal.
Grrr. This makes me angry.
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 15, 2008 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pierre has limited...
by guayzimi on Jan 15, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
by aet15 on Jan 15, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pierre's contract...
Paying $40 million for LaRoche would defeat the purpose of going young. You get all the downside risk that he won't pan out and none of the savings. He posted a 677 ops in a quarter season last year and ZiPs has him as a below average hitter for '08.
by guayzimi on Jan 15, 2008 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Glaus, when healthy, is a proven commodity and you know what you're getting numbers wise. It does help the Cards get younger because the deal is a year less, about the time the two minor league third basemen will be ready to make the jump. Pierre's contract would make him nearly untradeable, the Dodgers are dealing with this now, and he'd make the outfield defense go from half bad to atrocious. He'd have to play centerfield with Duncan (terrible D) in left and Ankiel (still learning the OF) in right. I don't see how this makes that trade better than the one for Glaus which leaves the Cardinals a lot of money to spend in the 2009/2010 offseason.
by fourstick on Jan 15, 2008 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would it defeat the purpose of going young?
LaRoche would be under team control until 2013. Even if you couldn't get rid of Juan Pierre (and I think some team would take him for $5 M a year, you'd be paying $40 M (plus 2 years of arbitration), so roughly $42 M over 5 years for Andy LaRoche. You'd be paying $8.5 M for your 3rd basemen for 2008-2013 annually. If he is ask good as I and everyone else think he is, he is worth it.
And it isn't like Juan Pierre is completely devoid of value. He stole 60+ bases last year with and OBP north of .330. He could bat 9th in LaRussa's dream lineup of the pitcher batting 8th.
I completely agree that Juan Pierre isn't worth $36.5 M. Without question. However, I'm not sure that Andy LaRoche and Juan Pierre combined aren't. And really, we'd be getting our 3rd basemen of the future and a decent speed guy for .5 M more than we owed Scott Rolen.
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 15, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I'm working...
Also, you have to add in what LaRoche would earn if he did fulfill his potential. Glaus made about $23 million his first six years and Rolen made about $19 million. So if you factor in inflation, LaRoche might make around $25 million. Add that to the $36.5 we'd pay for Pierre and you're looking at $61.5 million. The alternative is $22 million for Glaus, a guy who will likely outperform LaRoche over the next two years. That seems better to me.
by guayzimi on Jan 15, 2008 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and then 4Y/48M
by SleepyCA on Jan 15, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Juan Pierre
by ridgesee on Jan 15, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pierre/Laroche
by mikedallas23 on Jan 15, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How come
I guess his injuries and the apparent chronic nature of them arent a factor as of yet, because...? He's cheap? Contract under control?
by cardschinmusic on Jan 16, 2008 6:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lb-was the tourney the housekeeping note
by erik on Jan 15, 2008 12:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Blez at Athletics nation made that sound like
by azruavatar on Jan 15, 2008 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What I love about this site:
by cardsgirl95 on Jan 15, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Replying to: Self,
by cardsgirl95 on Jan 15, 2008 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well Cardgirl,
by ridgesee on Jan 15, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No offense Azru,
by aet15 on Jan 15, 2008 8:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure if my sarcasm detector was
On a list of my entries, this wouldn't even break the top 100 for 'lack of humility'. I can be a jackass at times but this really wasn't one of them.
by azruavatar on Jan 15, 2008 9:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was kind of joking,
It kinda rang to me as "I know this phrase, but you all wouldn't, so here, let me define it for you." Which would make sense if it was like a quote from a movie or something, but "baded breath" is kind of a common / cleverly-used phrase, so instead it appeared arrogantish.
But no hard feelings -- just struck me the wrong way. You probably meant nothing by it.
by aet15 on Jan 16, 2008 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey,
by lordsummer on Jan 16, 2008 8:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sadly
:o)
by azruavatar on Jan 16, 2008 9:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate
by cardsgirl95 on Jan 16, 2008 9:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Humility be damned!
There's even a database collecting attested eggcorns, which includes the bated/baited breath eggcorn. Most of the re-interpretations are perfectly understandable, some are delightful.
I like this one quite a bit, too.
by liam on Jan 16, 2008 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This scares me
Talking about Glaus for foxsports.com
by gonzostl on Jan 15, 2008 12:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
no kidding
by fourstick on Jan 15, 2008 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If it were my head
by That's a Winner on Jan 15, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not again
by saladdays on Jan 15, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Confusing
by saladdays on Jan 15, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't speak for other teams
-Jimmy last offseason (jimmy wanted the toe fixed right after the season, but the medical staff wanted him to wait.)
-Scott Rolen - didn't trust the cardinals medical staff so much he went and got another doctor (the Red's team doctor)to do his second surgury.
-Mark Mulder - 2004 anyone with two eyes could see his velocity was down. Then last year when it was obcious he still couldn't hit the correct arm slot and they still kept saying he was fine and sending him out there, then low and behold he has to have a clean-up.
-Chris Carpenter - Instead of opting to get Tommy-John right away they wait and he ends up needing it anyway.
Those are just off of the top of my head.
I think the biggest problem is that the team doctor is not nessesarily the best doctor rather the one whom pays the club to be the team doctor. The are better doctors on St. Louis (Dr. Rick Lehman for one) they just don't want to pay a team so they can be the "official doctor".
by gonzostl on Jan 15, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But see
We also don't know many details about said injuries and why decisions were/weren't made.
by saladdays on Jan 15, 2008 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is a valis point
by gonzostl on Jan 15, 2008 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Valid point
by gonzostl on Jan 15, 2008 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At your service...
by cardsrul on Jan 15, 2008 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Checked your link
by That's a Winner on Jan 16, 2008 8:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Payroll Question
by That's a Winner on Jan 15, 2008 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
all of the medical professionals
by jeff abs on Jan 15, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a doctor in real life
by azruavatar on Jan 15, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm so much cooler...
by cardzfanbub on Jan 15, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tourney Note
by Cardinal70 on Jan 15, 2008 12:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Troy Glaus wanted to play in St. Louis?
Now, I know that he and Edmonds are best friends (sucks for you now, Jimmy) but other than that...why exactly do all these Angels want to play in St. Louis?
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 15, 2008 12:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Glaus's Mother
by FunkeeC on Jan 15, 2008 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Glaus's mother has somethign to do with...
by siddfynch on Jan 15, 2008 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I responded to the example he stated....
by FunkeeC on Jan 15, 2008 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice info re: Glaus from his agent
"St. Louis is a place Troy has dreamed of playing for ever since he was a kid. At 6 years old, he actually told his mother that some day he would be play third base for the St. Louis Cardinals. And they lived in Southern California. In 2001 (I believe) he went to a playoff game there as a guest of Jim Edmonds. He got to see first-hand the atmosphere there, the fans, etc. After the game, he was in the clubhouse, and knew this was a place and an atmosphere he would love. When he became a free agent in 2004 and we began to discuss the most desirable clubs, the Cardinals already had an All-Star third baseman, so there was no fit. However, had there been a need, St. Louis would have been near or at the top of Troy's wish list. He loves the tradition there (he and I looked over the retired numbers just last night, and he told me they were third in history in retired numbers, to LA and the Yankees), he loves the atmosphere, the commitment to winning, and he is excited to be a part of it.
"Therefore, when this opportunity presented itself, the decision was very easy. And the decision to exercise his player option to guarantee that he would be there for at least two years was also easy. In a matter of a few hours, both those decisions were made."
by OCCardsFan on Jan 15, 2008 1:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
All player's agents have them dream of playing
by Zubin on Jan 15, 2008 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps...
by saladdays on Jan 15, 2008 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like hearing
by tbell61 on Jan 15, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course...
The Cardinals tradition, at least lately, is stabbing a player in the back as he is being kicked out the door...
by DiscoJer on Jan 15, 2008 11:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would just like...
by birdjam on Jan 15, 2008 1:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
LaRoche
by Xeifrank on Jan 15, 2008 4:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Making my Round 1 picks
(I'm riding 2004 & 2005 until they bust.)
by azruavatar on Jan 15, 2008 4:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
it's amazing
I can't figure out from that link if they used a pitching mound yet or not.
by SleepyCA on Jan 15, 2008 6:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No mound
by Zubin on Jan 15, 2008 8:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Gambling...
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Jan 15, 2008 6:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
War Birds
by ErnieBroglio on Jan 16, 2008 4:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
'68 Cards 3, '67 Cards 1
by ErnieBroglio on Jan 16, 2008 5:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs



















