leftovers

by lboros on Jan 7, 2008 8:55 AM EST in News Comment 81 comments

joe strauss tucked the following sentence into his article about matt clement this morning: "The Cardinals remain in the market for additional pitching, ideally for a lefthanded swing guy." the available free agent who best fits that description is mark hendrickson, who has been on the cards' radar for a while. he went 4-8, 5.21 in 123 innings with the dodgers last year --- 3-7, 6.13 as a starter; 1-1, 3.69 as a reliever. others who have filled this role in the recent past include odalis perez (late of the royals) and mike bascik (who yielded #756 to barry bonds). i'm guessing this person is envisioned as opening the season in the rotation, moving to the pen whenever mulder gets back on the mound, and being available to return to the rotation if / when mulder falls apart . . . .

after the edmonds trade, i mused that the cards had the payroll to add two pitchers --- one innings-eater and one high-upside reclamation. clement goes into the latter slot; hendrickson (who has a spotless health record) would fit into the former if he's brought aboard. if they do add him, the rotation looks like this:

st louis	memphis
wainwright	reyes
looper	parisi
pineiro	hawksworth
clement	boggs
mulder / hendrickson	brazelton / thompson

not real inspiring, but i agree with the general conclusion houstoncardinal arrived at yesterday, ie the rotation shapes up to be modestly better than last year's. if nothing else, it should be more stable; whereas last year's opening-day rotation featured two guys who'd never made a big-league start and one who'd made fewer than 20, this year's (with or without hendrickson) will be seasoned --- and there prob'y still will be innings available for any of the young guys who does well at triple A. it won't be necessary to scramble for innings, as it was last year; the group may still be lacking in quality, but you can't say it lacks for quantity.

here's the latest roster matrix, with hendrickson penciled in just for fun; i assume clement will earn most (but not all) of his performance bonuses:

2008 ROSTER MATRIX
JANUARY UPDATE

STARTING 8	BENCH	ROTATION	PEN
molina c $1.2m	spiezio ut $2.3m	wainwright rhp $450K	is'hausen rhp $8m
pujols 1b $16m	schumaker of $400K	looper rhp $5.5m	franklin rhp $2.3m
kennedy 2b $3.5m	miles if $1.4m	pineiro rhp $5m	springer rhp $3.5m
rolen 3b $12m	larue c $850K	mulder lhp $6.5m	flores lhp $1m
izturis ss $2.9m	barton of $400K	clement rhp $5m	johnson lhp $400K
duncan lf $450K	ryan if memphis	carpenter rhp $10.5m	wellemeyer rhp $900K
ankiel cf $1m	jimenez if memphis	reyes rhp memphis	hendrickson rhp $3m
ludwick rf $500K	encarnacion rf $6.5m	parisi rhp memphis	perez rhp memphis
TOTAL $37.5m	TOTAL $11.9m	TOTAL $33.0m	TOTAL $19.1m
OVERALL	PAYROLL:	$101.5m

the payroll actually stands at about $99m, with thompson on the roster; replacing him with a lefty swing guy (hendrickson or somebody else) would push the total north of $100m.

trivial factoid: so far this off-season the cardinals have not added a new player who logged either 400 at-bats or 20 starts last season. the last time the cards went an entire winter without acquiring at least one such player was 1991-92; their big pickup that off-season, andres gallaraga, had taken 375 at-bats in 1991; they also added tracy woodson, ozzie canseco, and paul kilgus. here's a complete list, if'n you're curious:

	400 AB	20 GS
2006-07	a kennedy
2005-06	j encarnacion	s ponson
2004-05	d eckstein	m mulder
2003-04	r sanders m anderson	j suppan
2002-03		b tomko
2001-02	t martinez
2000-01		d hermanson
1999-00		d kile p hentgen an benes
1998-99	e renteria
1997-98		k mercker
1996-97	d deshields
1995-96	g gaetti r clayton r gant	an benes t stottlemyre
1994-95		k hill da jackson
1993-94		r sutcliffe
1992-93	g jefferies m whiten

0 recs | Comment 81 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I wasn't exactly curious, but...

...you got me thinking. Is some of the injury-prone or scrubs signings possibly with an eye to undermine LaRussa. If he has no one physically healthy to play then he has to play the younger guys. Ah a conspiricy theory, feels good...

by BigJawnMize on Jan 7, 2008 9:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

That would make me

question DeWitt's sanity. Paying LaRussa a bunch of money and promising him God-knows-what to come back, only to have to waste millions of dollars to force LaRussa's hand.

Maybe you aren't being serious, but that would be incredibly crazy if it were true.

by plh903 on Jan 8, 2008 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

CHicago Trib pointed out yesterday as well

That the Cards have dropped players who are "seasoned MLB starters" but haven't added anyone.

by sdrone on Jan 7, 2008 9:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yes, and that same Tribune article

listed Reyes as the number 4 starter...nobody around here was talking about that even before the Clement signing...IMO, this really underscores the difference between the so called "insiders" who rely on tips or whatever, and bloggers such as yourselves, who do the necessary research and back it up with numbers...frankly, I thought Phil Rogers article was lazy and uninteresting...very little thought at all about the quality of the players leaving or the players coming...at least that's how I read it.

by tbell61 on Jan 7, 2008 9:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agree with tbell

The premise of Rogers' article would have been a widely ignored diary on VEB or many other blogs. Print media is not dead, but neither is it enough for the real fans.

viva VEB!

by baked mcbride on Jan 7, 2008 10:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wainer

I hope I'm wrong, but Wainer's mechanics make me nervous.

by thepainguy on Jan 7, 2008 9:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Oh gawd...

...totally agree.

by BigJawnMize on Jan 7, 2008 9:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reyes

I still don't see why these coaches can't get Anthony Reyes to reach his potential? Young, strong arm, innings eater, has pitched in big ballgames, cheap, and we're trying to give him away because our coaches can't figure him out? He should not be in Memphis, there is a lot of potential there being wasted for ego. I think you make the kid sink or swim this year see if he has it in him to be a solid pitcher, everyone just wants to throw the kid away, ridiculous.

by GhostofJimLinderman on Jan 7, 2008 9:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not an innings eater

I don't have the stats on hand, but one of the huge problems with Reyes last year was his extraordinarily high pitch count. He had serious problems making it past the 5th inning.

I agree with the general thrust of your post though -- he has definite potential that I'd like to see the club harness.

by Ray Lankford on Jan 7, 2008 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That was more of a function

of him getting hammered in his starts (or specifically with men on base), and the Cardinals keeping him on a strict pitch count. His 3.88 P/PA isn't extraordinarily high, and his WHIP was the same as Wainwright's.

And saying that he had "serious problems" making it past the fifth inning is a little unfair. Until August 23rd, when he only went one inning and was relegated to the bullpen thereafter, he averaged 5.5 innings per start. On 88 pitches per.

by plh903 on Jan 8, 2008 3:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Correction

That one inning start came on August 31st, and he made one start afterward, going 3.1 innings and allowing 3 ER.

So all those numbers are for his first 100 or so innings. I'm not a fan of selective endpointing, but with that little data, those two starts skew the averages.

by plh903 on Jan 8, 2008 3:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here we go again

I think you're wrong.

The only thing between me and you is a thin layer of gabardine...

by silent_bob on Jan 7, 2008 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh my

He's back

by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 7, 2008 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

right field

question- encarnacion is listed on the roster for right field- but presumedly, after that horrible accident last year, his playing days are over. so who will fill that spot? platoon? speezer?

When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?

by RosevilleRedbird on Jan 7, 2008 9:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

being listed

after the memphis probables, i assumed lboros was listing juan's salary at its (sunk) cost. juan won't be playing but since the club didn't purchase insurance on the smallish contract, they'll be eating that $6.5mm.

i doubt they'll be filling that spot with the 5 or 6 outfielders competing already.

by birdsonthebat on Jan 7, 2008 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've wondered

and I think others have as well, might the addition of a lefty and the addition of Miles, be a prelude to a trade involving Tyler Johnson and Ryan? I doubt they'd be the principals, but could be valuable additions to any package for whatever.

by chuckb on Jan 7, 2008 10:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If Ryan gets off to a hot start

I could see the Cards trying to package Reyes, Johnson, and Ryan to get another innings eater starting pitcher. Don't know what team would want that pile of Cr@p, but it might interest a few teams in need of a cheap middle infielder and some pitching (Milwaukee, Arizona, and Texas all come to mind).

by JMedwick on Jan 7, 2008 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ryan starts in Memphis

I don't see how B. Ryan makes the 25 man roster out of ST absent injury. Miles supplants him as utility middle IF. As such, I don't see how Ryan has much trade value @ the ML level. I think they keep Ryan in Memphis as insurance against injury (as opposed to including him as a throw-in on a trade).

by jjray on Jan 7, 2008 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So...

Milwaukee -- Pile of Crap for Capuano?
They might be willing to do this with the amount of quality young arms in their system. They do need another lefty reliever, but I don't see them wanting Ryan or Reyes.

Arizona -- Pile of Crap for who?
They have three innings eating pitchers: Webb, Haren, and Davis. I don't see them parting with any of those guys. They certainly don't have anyone else of note on the 40 man roster who fits the "innings eating" tab. If they were going to trade Davis they'd probably want a really good lefthanded stick in return, and I don't think Duncan is enough nor would he be attractive for them considering their outfield situation.

Texas -- Pile of Crap for Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy.

Of the three that you offered this makes the most sense, however, they really have no use for Ryan as they are deep in the middle infield now and also have Elvis Andrus a couple of years away. Johnson would be a boost to their bullpen as they have no situational lefties on the 40 man roster. Millwood would be a salary dump situation if they trade him for those three players; Padilla is intriguing since he does eat up innings but is streaky and makes a good chunk of coin. I don't see them parting with McCarthy to pick up a version of him that is basically two years older.

The team that popped into my mind was:

Pirates -- POC for Morris and we take his entire salary (not a good deal in my opinion)

I think there are options on the FA market for innings eating guys without moving players (Josh Towers, Jeff Weaver), and just dumping Reyes when he still has one AAA option left seems stupid from an organizational standpoint. If you can't get perceived value for him I think you have to hold onto him and hope he improves.

"I just wish that the late Harry Carey were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jan 7, 2008 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BOOMER

No one wants to trot David Wells out there every fith day?

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cheapseats..

....some people ARE thinking about Johnson being involved in a trade since theres a post at cheapseats from yesterday, the URL was posted towards the end of Sundays main.

Some guys just dont look good in red.

by cardschinmusic on Jan 7, 2008 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

towers

signed with COL, no?

by baw on Jan 7, 2008 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

Last week, for only $1.8MM with a $3MM option for '08. If the Cardinals are, indeed, looking to acquire a low-cost swingman they missed a great opportunity in Towers. But I guess that regardless of effectiveness its for some reason really important that he's left-handed.

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to jump the gun, but...

Is anyone else even a little excited that, even with figuring in post-arbitration raises, nearly $35MM comes of the books next year?

The Cardinals will have a positional vacancy at short with (potentially) Orlando Cabrera, Edgar Renteria, and Rafael Furcal on the market as well as up to 3 rotation vacancies (AJ Burnett, John Garland, Pedro Martinez, Brad Penny, Ben Sheets, C.C. Sabathia, Youknowwho Santana potentially available)

If Rasmus and Perez show they can produce on the big league level in '09 and Ryan and other perpetual Memphis farmhands show they can fill in utility roles, that gives the Cardinals a fairly cheap core and the ability to make a few "splash" type FA signings next offseason whilst still keeping a similar payroll.

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

It won't happen

what was the last FA player the Cardinals made a 'splash' with. They like the safety net of trading for them and hoping they like the stadium hotdogs to give the team a discount.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 7, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

New era?

That was the M.O. of the allegedly-past Jocketty era, right? At least in theory Moz seems to want and build a more robust farm system.

The desire for a healthier minor league system, coupled with the lack of strong trading chips and an increased payroll flexibility might prompt the Cards to finally go the FA route this year.

And its not like the Cards haven't tried to go that way recently in the form of AJ Burnett, Jason Schmidt, and Andy Pettite. They just haven't succeeded. Those years the Cards didn't have nearly the payroll flexibility they will this coming offseason.

Its at least possible.

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

New GM

Same owner.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 7, 2008 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, but...

that's kind of my point. in the past we've faulted ownership for not opening the pocketbooks a little wider (Burnett). last year they showed the willingness to do so (Pettitte, Schmidt) but were overridden by geographic prefferences that they were not able to overcome with more money. the offseason following 2008 will have, by a wide margin, the most money available in recent memory.

the ownership determines the total budget, the gm figures out how to spend it. it might be irrelavent just who the owner is. the more important question is how much money do we have to spend. even assuming the the payroll for 2009 doesn't inflate at all over 2008 there are some pretty hefty contracts coming off the books leaving a lot of room in the budget.

if anything, the same ownership might make the signing of free agents more likely. from what i understand de witt's main priorities were 1). not stretching the budget too far past $100MM, and 2). building a stronger farm system by not trading away all of our high-level or high-celing prospects. the free money in the budget allows room for some impact signings, and what's the best way to add an impact player without surrendering quality prospects? free agency.

a likely scenario even has the cardinals finishing fairly low in the standings this year. if they finish in the bottom half they won't even have to worry about surrendering their first round draft picks as they would be protected.

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bill DeWitt's main priorities were:

Buy low on franchise in disarray. Check.
Build New Stadium. Check.
Increase value of franchise 4 times. Check.
Win World Series. Check.
Sell team.

First three don't have to be in any particular order. The 4th one is a bonus (didn't acheive that goal when he did all this with the Rangers).

I've been very pleased with the DeWitt era, don't get me wrong. He has revived a once proud franchise that had become a mess. However, it's pretty clear that he is in the later stages of his business model now.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 7, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he actually did anything...

Pretty much the entire recent success of the Cardinals rests solely on the Cardinals drafting Pujols (which was sheer luck) and the general lousiness of the division as a whole.

by DiscoJer on Jan 7, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Speculation...

I haven't even heard the beginnings of a rumor regarding De Witt selling the team. Seems like calling it speculation would even be generous. If you want the glass to be half empty then I guess it is, but in the numbers I think there is actually a logically sound reason to expect the possibility of one or perhaps two impact signings next offseason.

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One of the final stages before selling the team

is to reload the farm system and cut payroll. You have to show potential buyers that a) there is cheap talent already availible and b) you aren't bogged down with long term deals.

Carpenter and Pujols being the exceptions.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 7, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose that's one strategy,

The Cubs, however, are openly trying to sell the team (not covertly preparing as you speculate DeWitt might be doing). They are of the mind that face-of-the-franchise style players in D.Lee, Zambrano, Ramirez, Soriano, and most recently Fukudome and their respective long-term contracts only make the team a more marketable commodity. It also seems unlikely that plans would be made to sell a franchise that's so clearly on what is likely a 2-3 year+ downward swing.

I guess I can't disprove you if you want to believe DeWitt's going to sell the team soon, but i think its a little unfair to totally dismiss my remarks on unfounded speculation.

Assuming that it is true, though, the question still remains: what is Mo going to do with the $35MM next offseason? its unlikely that they'll let the payroll dip to far below what it is currently for PR reasons. it also seems unlikely that Mo will be able to blow $35MM on players politely spun by PR-types as "supersubs." To me there almost has to be a difference-making contract in there somewhere. If, for no other reason, just to make the math workout.

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tribune is not trying to sell the team

They are FORCED to sell the team as a result of things happening outside the baseball world. There's actually a big difference.

by sdrone on Jan 8, 2008 9:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also,

I guess if you can turn restocking a barron farm system and building towards creating a more cost-effective big league roster into speculation of a team about to be sold then more power to you.

I'm just saying, streamlining and reinventing a more intelligent, efficient system doesn't necesarily mean the sky is falling here. Maybe its just....uh...smart...and long overdue..?

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ballpark village?

why would he even care to push for it if he's selling the team?

Why did he attempt to shoot the moon and go for Chris Antonetti as the future GM?

Why did re-sign Tony freakin' LaRussa?

I don't see why DeWitt sells the team now. Is it no longer profitable? Is it possible that he just sees the writing on the wall that the Cardinals can't remain competitive by robbing the farm system to trade for and sign established big league talent. Isn't it more likely that the Cardinals have finally jumped on the sabermetrics/build from within bandwagon? Furthermore, I see no problem with not spending money on the 2007 free agent class. It was piss-poor.

Now, re-signing Aaron Miles pisses me off royally. I will suspend judgment on DeWitt's frugality until next offseason.

by silent_bob on Jan 7, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He resigned LaRussa for 3 years

correct?

The team won't be sold until after the ASG in '09.

Ballpark Village? You mean Lake DeWitt? It's not being pushed anymore. It's going to be just office space now and condos.

As far as the Cubs strategy, they can afford to take on salary and sell the club because of their market size.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 7, 2008 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

two years

n/t

by k randolph on Jan 7, 2008 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Where is all this coming from?

Do you have any facts to support this theory, or is it just the product of your pessimism and speculation?

by Ray Lankford on Jan 7, 2008 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It is a rumor

that has been floating around since DeWitt wanted to build Busch III. The only insurance keeping him from not selling the Cards now (which would probably bee a good business decision) is that he loses public money on the ballpark village product if he sells.

Fame was like a drug, but what was even more like a drug were the drugs

by Alxfritz on Jan 7, 2008 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Correct

He would have to pay all the notes he took out on the team. However, if he is able to take the money made from MLBAM, MLB.com, the earnings from the ASG with whatever is leftover worked into the cost of the franchise to potential owners...it's really not a hinderence.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 7, 2008 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's just a hunch

He is following the same business model he used in Texas.

It's not pessimism. I don't see him selling the team as a negative. If the Cardinals could get a wealthy ownership group willing to raise payroll to $150 M/year..is that a bad thing?

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 7, 2008 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Changing the subject...

You're right, I don't see non-DeWitt owner ship as inherently a bad thing, but that's not what we were originally talking about. I simply made a point that Mo's got something in the neighborhood of $35MM coming off the books for next offseason and that the pieces for an impact free agent signing seem to be there. You gave a fairly definative "won't happen."

At first you said that it was because the team has historically preferred to do things by trade. This seems to contradict your later statement that DeWitt is trying to build a young talent base to make the team more marketable. How would acquiring an impact player by trade help to build the farm? It wouldn't. This all "he's selling the team" business all came later.

So if I'm calling you a pessimist (and i guess i am) its for your assumption that Mo's hands are tied by ownership and that any type of impact FA signings are impossible, not because I care who owns the team.

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What?

I think I've been pretty clear why it won't happen.

Comparing it to the Cubs situation is entirely different. The Cardinals are coming off one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) runs in franchise history. The Cubs, to keep value up, have to show potential buyers that the franchise is on the upswing. They just came off of 100 loss season.

Even with that said, the Cubs are a completely different animal than the Cardinals (ZING!). They've got a historical landmark for a stadium that is a vacation spot for baseball fans and non-fans alike, a larger media market and a large population to fill the stadium.

The Cubs can operate at a higher payroll during the selling phase for these reasons.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 8, 2008 12:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not that clear to me.

The Cardinals won't sign an impact free agent next season because:

a. They prefer to acquire young-veterans via trading away young prospects and then signing them to extensions

b. DeWitt is planning to sell the team and wants to fill the farm with young prospects to make the team more appealing to would-be buyers.

Which is it?

much respect.

by tingler on Jan 8, 2008 1:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fairly simple

The Cardinals MO has always been to trade for players and then hope they will sign extensions rather than compete in the FA market. Now, they are faced with a situation where DeWitt can say they are trying to build from within, not committ to big FA contracts because he plans on selling the team after 2009.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 8, 2008 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough...

I'm still gonna call it unfounded speculation, but that finally completes the picture for me. That's actually a pretty d@mn good conspiracy theory.

thanks for indulging me.

by tingler on Jan 8, 2008 2:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Confusion...

"As far as the Cubs strategy, they can afford to take on salary and sell the club because of their market size."

I'm confused...

are the same people that are "[taking] on salary" the people that are selling the club or the people that "can afford it." It seems presumptious to assume that the would-be new ownership would deem it affordable simply because of the market size.

I thought we were talking relative worth and marketability. Either a team (regardless of market size) is more marketable with a thriving young talent base or with several high-salaried franchise cornerstones that fit within the existing budget. Its one or the other.

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 10:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I want to believe

but I am going to have to be from Missouri on the Cards signing impact free agents. It would be a radical departure from this ownership's history. Unless we are going to depart from the notion of pegging FAs market values and refusing to go over them we won't sign anyone of significance. It would be more likely to trade for a guy in his walk year and get him to sign a la McGwire and Edmonds, but that presupposes that the team is buying at the deadline rather than selling. It is far more likely that the Royals will sign an impact FA than the Cardinals. They may yet get the last laugh on Gil Meche. 4 more years for $44M for him looks pretty good right now.

I am afraid the only real excitement we will have next year will be the June draft.

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

by giveml on Jan 7, 2008 11:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with ya, Hardcore

I could be mistaken, but I don't think we have signed a significant free agent pitcher during the entire WJ/TLR/Dunc era. I wonder if a successful pitcher who knows what he is doing really wants to deal with Dunc? I imagine it was mostly that the Birds never made the money work, but I can't foresee the Cards outbidding everyone for anybody substantial.

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

by giveml on Jan 7, 2008 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Andy Benes...

...was a FA signing back in 96, but that's the only one I could think of off the top of my head, that was anything close to a "big name" pitcher. And that's going back a decade.

I think that a lot of it has to do with WJ's discipline on signings. They would get together and figure out roughly what a pitcher's value was, and then would refuse to go much over it. It was one thing I think he did pretty well, seeing as how a bad contract to the wrong pitcher could absolutely crush a team (see Brown, Kevin or Hampton, Mike).

by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 7, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is...

..ringhausen?

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True

But I think we were talking more about starters...If not then he certainly goes on the list.

by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 7, 2008 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Big time Pitchers

It's funny people mention Benes and Izzy...2 St Louis guys. That is why they came here. The Cards just had to get in the ballpark of the competition to sign them. The Cards have not been able to pry West Coast (Schmidt,Wolf) or East Coast (Martinez,Petite) away from their homes. The good news is that there are 2 pretty good potential FA pitchers for 2009 that grew up Cards' fans...Burnett and Penny.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Jan 7, 2008 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose Benes was an impact FA

but my fuzzy memory seems to recall that he was someting of a reclamation project as well. Just for clarity's sake I am not suggesting we hotly pursue every high-priced pitching FA, just agreeing with HC that it wasn't going to happen.

For every Josh Beckett it seems there are several Mike Hampton, Denny Neagle, etc. We just need to grow our own, but safe college picks are rarely the best way to get that done.

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

by giveml on Jan 7, 2008 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And For Every Dan Haren...

There's an Anthony Reyes, a Jimmy Journell, a Chris Narveson, etc... There are risks in every aspect of the game. The challenge is to combine reliable metrics with good "old-school" scouting to eliminate as much of the risk as possible. It isn't a reason not to sign free agents in my mind.

And I don't understand your argument... Free agents are too risky, but near-ready college draftees aren't risky enough?

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it's really not that difficult

There are two separate points:

It is wishful thinking to believe that the available $35M that was identified above would be used to sign impact players based on the track record of the franchise. The point was also made that a lot of free agent pitchers are busts. Those two points together make the $35M wish more of a pipe dream. I would love to see the Cardinals land a quality starter via free agency, but I am going to have to see it happen at least once before I base my hopes for the future of the franchise on it.
If you can't or won't get impact players, in particular pitchers, via FA then your only choices are to trade for them or to develop them. I think there is strong consensus that we lack the prospects for the trade route to be viable. The over reliance on safe college pitchers is one of the primary reasons why the Cardinals haven't developed an above average pitcher from the draft in a generation - it seems like even longer.

There was a thread a few weeks ago that discussed the source of truly above average starters and much of the data seemed to indicate that more than half of the above average starters were signed out of high school with the rest being more or less split between college pitchers and amateur free agents (which are essentially HS talent from other countries.) The only above average starter that was a Cards draft picks in the last 15 years or so was Ankiel. Morris is close, but he just misses the cut. I guess Alan Benes might have been, but we'll never know. College pitchers are more likely to get MLB service, but less likely to become top of the rotation guys.

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

by giveml on Jan 8, 2008 1:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Alright, good point.

Sorry, I wasn't tryin' to break balls, I just didn't understand from the way I originally read it. Good explanation, and I very much agree with #2 in particular.

I'm still worried, though... $35MM to spend next offseason. If that gets split up into 4 $9MM players I'm officially p.o.'ed.

by tingler on Jan 8, 2008 2:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not just the money

but also the number of spots that will need to be filled. If Kennedy falters again, do they go w/ Hoffpauir or Ryan or try to find a FA? Will Ryan get a shot at SS or will they turn to free agency? If Ankiel falters, will they try a youngster or a free agent? What about closer? Will Perez get a chance or will they re-sign Izzy? What about the rotation?

The point is, if Mo decides to fill 4 spots w/ free agents, $35M isn't going to go very far. If they try, and have some success w/ young players, then the Cards could throw a lot of coin at 1 or 2 really good players (Penny or Burnett, perhaps). This year is very important in seeing what these young players might be able to provide down the road.

by chuckb on Jan 7, 2008 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That list or recent additions

is interesting... some of those guys helped, some of 'em didn't (ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances).

Is there anybody out there that would qualify as an upgrade? I'm making the assumption that the Cards won't trade Rolen before spring; barring sending Scotty packing, I don't see a trade partner willing to send the Cards a 400-AB guy or a 20-game starter for what the Birds have available to deal.

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

by The Ol Goaler on Jan 7, 2008 12:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

on the payroll matrix

don't you have to add the $2 mln the team will be paying for edmonds' salary?

by DCGreg on Jan 7, 2008 12:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

And let's not forget

that the Cardinals figure their payroll by including ALL incentives. With that in mind, we may be bumping into the magical $110M threshold when you look at the performance incentives potentially due to:

--Clement ($1.5M more than appears in the above matrix)
--Mulder ($3.75M more)
--Looper ($1M more in unknown incentives)
--Izturis ($.65M)
--Miles, Spiezio, LaRue

Not to mention the award incentives for:

--Carp, Rolen, Kennedy, etc.

youneverknow

by meat on Jan 7, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If they all acheive their performance incentives

we won't have to worry about signing an impact player to add to the roster. We'll win the division, hands down.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 7, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily

The performance incentives don't reward great performance or even good performance--you just have to answer the bell. I understand your point, though.

My point was that, through the eyes of the front office, there's little to no money left.

youneverknow

by meat on Jan 7, 2008 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Henrickson

I for one would be excited to buy low on this guy. Again, probably just a spare part to spin at the deadline, but one can't be to comfortable with the likelihood that anyone outside of Wainright will pitch well or even passable next year. Depth is goooooodddddddddd.

by Lawless on Jan 7, 2008 1:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hendrickson vs Affeldt

I'd rather have Affeldt. There was some talk of Affeldt signing for 4yrs/16m though, which seems outrageous in both dollar and length.

by rrvwmr on Jan 7, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Chris Narveson

I thought he would do just fine in a Darren Oliver role the last year. Too bad he signed with the Brew Crew already.

Hendrickson would be just fine by me.

by liam on Jan 7, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

henderickson did hace

a 1.93era on turf last yr.. for what thats worth seems like we have enough leftys..Is this a pre trade signing or is mulder donee???

by cm1000 on Jan 7, 2008 1:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

sheesh...

if we have to justify a potential signee based on his efficacy on turf, its probably a bad sign. is this at all relavent? unless he's invlolved in a platoon situation wherin he starts all/only games in minnesota and toronto i don't see how this applies. are there any nl stadiums with turf? i really don't know.

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Off subject

but there is a nice interview with Brad Thompson at thesouthern.com

by That's a Winner on Jan 7, 2008 2:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Value really isn't created

by sitting on payroll dollars. It's analogous to a company hoarding cash instead of paying a dividend. The enterprise value is the same.

Obviously, this would change over time if the owners failed to invest in higher-yielding projects (including new players and farm teams) and instead got a T-Bill kind of return on their idle cash. The total franchise value also isn't going to be inflated significantly because of one year's payroll being higher or lower.

The best way to maximize value is run the franchise as the smartest businessman in the world, neither hoarding cash nor wasting it, but investing it prudently.

by Red in Chicago on Jan 7, 2008 5:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hendrickson

Big Mark Hendrickson has shown to be a competent reliever (I think he had an ERA below 2 out of the pen in 06, not sure in how many appearances/IP though) but a poor starter. But I'm not totally against bringing him in. The Cards were pretty much guaranteed a loss if a starter had to come out in the 2nd or 3rd inning b/c Jimenez was god awful. Hendrickson could assume the late Josh Hancock's role as long man, and who knows it may save a couple of games here and there. If nothing else, Mark Hendrickson is NOT Kelvin Jimenez!

by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 7, 2008 5:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

So who hits leadoff?

So, if these are our starting 8, who hits leadoff? Outside of Pujols, Duncan, and maybe Rolen, there's no OBP over .350. I imagine the frontrunner will be Izturis (gag) because he's fits the mold and plays shortstop.

So, if these are our starters, what should the lineup look like, and what will it look like?

Should?
Rolen
Duncan
Pujols
Ankiel
Ludwick
Kennedy
Molina
Pitcher
Izturis

I know it looks weird to see Rolen in the leadoff spot, but I don't really know who else to put there, especially if Rolen is going to put up .350 OBP / .450 SLG (which is optimistic for sure)

LaRussa lineup?
Kennedy
Duncan
Pujols
Ankiel
Rolen
Ludwick
Molina
Pitcher
Izturis

Guess you can swap Iztu and The K-Man and probably get the same result. And obviously, throwing Rasmus in as starting CF changes this as he would appear to fit well into a leadoff role.

by lightbulb on Jan 7, 2008 5:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Big D'

The Miles signing bugs me even more as it likely mean that D'angelo Jimenez and his would-be-team-best (for middle IFers) .351 career OBP will likely be off the roster. In favor of Cesar Izturis, who can't even get on base 30% of the time.

by tingler on Jan 7, 2008 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One thing that

got forgotten in the general malaise of last year was that the thrown together rotation actually got off to a great start. They were lights out in spring training, even Wells, and in the first two or three runs through the rotation in April. What happened? I speculate two things. One is that so many of those guys required Duncan's TLC and rehab that he must have gotten spread very thin. In the spring he would have been able to give that attention more liberally than when the games are for real and he's needed for strategizing with Tony to win ball games. The other obvious event was that Carpenter went down. For whatever reason rotations, and for that matter bullpens, seem to act like a house of cards. When the basis holds firm the rest stay stable. When Carp went down there was noone remotely able to assume the #1 starter role. The rest of the rotation broke down fairly quickly spreading Dunc even more thinly. When Wainwright got hot later on it had a rippling effect through the rotation and, for a while they pitched well enough to actually get back in the race.
As you point out they look a little more stable this year, particularly with a couple of previously successful vets possibly coming back during the season. Also Wainwright and Looper have a year's worth of starting experience and Pineiro has a half year of Dunc's "magic" to work with. Hopefully that leaves only Clement as Dunc's initial rehab project. Much depends on Wainer's resumption of #1 status but, if Clement really is capable of being his old self, and even one of the vets comes back strong, this rotation could actually be the strong point of the team. Like last year's rotation, though, it could be a house of cards that collapses with one injury.

by easy on Jan 7, 2008 7:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

max possible payrol then?

Does anyone know how much the payroll could max out at with the assumption that all incentive loaded contracts are brought to fruition?

Just curious and not mcuh of a researcher!

by clcardsfan on Jan 7, 2008 7:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks LB

For reminding us that STL off-seasons have been generally non-impact to replacement value at best. And that our current roster of starters is by cost 1/3 on the DL and our bench over 50% on the never to play again list.

If the rotation is somehow "modestly better" than last year, does that mean we should not expect to set a new club record for blowout loses? I can't wait!

At this point I hope that they tell tlr he can't have any prospects to screw with, just play miles and add cairo, whatever. Let's go to the top in Memphis!

Go Redbirds.

by Birds on the Bat on Jan 7, 2008 7:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The problem with a sale

as a transformational thing is that it assumes the ballclub is not being run optimally given its available resources. I don't really know how anyone can claim this without interviewing management from top to bottom and reviewing all of the company's financial statements and projections.

I would argue that dumb, short-run player decisions are only marginally material to EV. Pujols matters. Miles does not. Screw-ups over a long period of time obviously will bring the franchise's value down. So will bad luck, as Encarnacion's contract would strip nearly $6 million off the purchase price were the team sold tomorrow.

Many, if not most, sports franchises are owned for ego gratification, rather than profit maximization. It's possible to sell the team to an owner group that has greater resources and the desire to use them, I suppose. But the more likely way the team dramatically boosts its payroll is if it finds a very rich fool who likes spending summers in St. Louis.

Not that there aren't any...

by Red in Chicago on Jan 7, 2008 10:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ego gratification

That's why Auggie bought the team, that and because he didn't want Milwaukee to get a baseball team to promote their breweries.

DeWitt is like a house flipper.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 8, 2008 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And I don't begrudge him

he has earned that right to make his profit off the sale of the team. He took a crappy franchise that had been run into the ground and made it one of the premier sports franchises.

I will be boxer briefs

by Hardcore Legend on Jan 8, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ego gratification vs. profit maximization

the perfect example of that is the owner of the football team that was formerly in St. Louis(I won't mention his name, as it could cause people to go apoplectic).

"It's always about the money. Anyone who says it's not is lying."- Gene Simmons

by cardsrul on Jan 8, 2008 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs