Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Race to the BCS: rankings, in-game scores & blogs Bar-right-arrows



spread the word

Five Starters

I get distracted watching Hiroki Kuroda pitch. It's not that he's really good, or that I'm shocked by his mastery of the strike zone—it's that the vague consensus on the internet is that he throws the shuuto, the other ill-defined, mystery-shrouded Japanese breaking pitch that follows, at beat-writer-distance, every pitching import from the moment they step foot in the states. The shuuto, famously misidentified as a gyroball a few years back, is supposed to be anything from a "reverse slider" to a two-seam fastball to a slider with less lateral movement. 

For what it's worth—and given how uncompetitive the game was, it's worth as much as anything else—I saw a few that seemed definitively shuuto-like to me, particularly the pitch Kuroda threw after sending one behind Victorino's head. But if there were ever a game to show the arbitrariness of pitch names, it was that one. Kuroda's pitch might as well have been called a splitter or a changeup, and Jamie Moyer seems to throw, at this point, one pitch at three velocities: slow, 75, less slow, 80, and change-up, 85. Or maybe not; post-Kuroda cleanup was left to Jonathan Broxton, who throws a 150 mph fastball and a slider that comes in around 120. It's just that a 7-2 game lends itself to making sweeping generalities. 

I've been thinking a lot about rotation construction, because I guess a 7-2 game lends itself to a lot of things. There's a ton of aces in this set of prospective league champions—five pitchers whose ERA was thirty percent above average among them, with guys like Scott Kazmir just off the pace—and it seems like every day there's some pitcher, a Billingsley or Matsuzaka, who makes his game appointment TV. But it's the Rays who offer the most hope for the near-future Cardinals. Here's their five man squad:

starter GS IP/9 K/9 BB/9 HR/9 W-L ERA+
Shields 33 6.52 6.69 1.67 1.00 14 -8 122
Kazmir 27 5.64 9.81 4.14 1.36 12-8 125
Sonn. 32 6.04 5.77 1.72 0.98 13-9 100
Garza 30 6.16 6.24 2.88 0.93 11-9 118
Jackson 31 5.91 5.30 3.78 1.13 14-11 99

Ladies and gentlemen, the Lake Wobegon Five. It reminds me, more than anything else, of the 2004 Cardinals. That team featured pre-ace Carp as its top starter; Jason Marquis, Woody Williams, and Jeff Suppan providing a ton of average innings; and post-fastball Matty Mo holding things down at the party end of the rotation. It got by without a truly dominating stopper because there were no rotation collapses to stop; when you've got a bunch of 30 start types in the rotation you don't have to worry about hitting the Parisi-Thompson-Boggs trifecta, or anything like that.

The Lohse contract makes me think the 2009 Cardinals are being built along these lines, because he is the Platonic #3-4 form in a system like this. He's neither fringe average, like Jackson or Morris, nor borderline ace, like Carp or Shields, and he's made a lot of starts without incident in the past.

So he's locked into that #3 role. If you can get yourself to buy into the rosiest scenarios for Wainwright and Wellemeyer—if you can imagine Pineiro splitting the difference between 2007 and 2008—well, you're still a pitcher short. And you realize that spending $10 million on the bulk-average part of your five-stalwarts rotation makes scrounging together five rotation stalwarts tough.

But looking at it this way I can almost rationalize the signing—can even see myself, eventually, rationalizing the signing. If an ace costs $20 million a year, and you have a guy who might be the ace, then maybe you spend $25 million on two pitchers and see if you can keep the replacement level starters off the lineup card as much as possible. We'll see if that's the way the offseason develops. 

Bonus baseball today: before going their separate ways once more the LCS schedules pass each other, tragically, like two ships in the night. Multi-game thread in the afternoon.

0 recs | Comment 105 comments | Digg!

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Morning Musings

Jonathan Broxton makes David Well’s gut jealous. For all the talk that teams make about conditioning, it makes you wonder how necessary it is. He’s got a 2 dollar arm on a 2 bit body.

If a team is going to assemble a bunch of good not great starters for the rotation, defense is incredibly important. That goes a long way toward making decent pitchers more palatable and effective. At the same time, if you are counting on your defense for more run prevention and less run prevention from your pitching, it would correspond that you should pay your pitchers less and your defense more.

by azruavatar on Oct 13, 2008 9:53 AM EDT   0 recs

True.

The 2004 team had former or current Gold Glovers at 3rd, short, catcher, center and right. A little-known future Gold Glover was manning first at the time. How else can one explain Jason Marquis?

by Red in Chicago on Oct 13, 2008 11:01 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

There are only a handful of players I would trade Rasmus for and one is.....

Roy Halladay. If Mo could work a trade in getting this ace I think he would be worth trading Rasmus and a couple other players like Anderson/Craig ect.

A rotation of Halladay, Wainwright, Lohse, Wellemeyer, Pineiro/Carp is a rotation that can make us a force in the NL next year. I would take the pair of Halladay and Wainwright back to back up against any NL team’s top 2 starters. And if everyone in the rotation stayed healthy all season we would have one of the best rotations in baseball in my opinion and would be a sure contender for October.

We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

by KYCards on Oct 13, 2008 11:03 AM EDT   0 recs

2 thoughts

1. i think you make that trade only if we are going all in for next year as it would take all of our close minor league talent to land halladay

2. only way the blue jays make any trade is if they are rebuilding and if JP is still there, which i haven’t heard otherwise yet, then no its not happening

by FunkeeC on Oct 13, 2008 11:38 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well in my mind since Tony & Dave are back for another year

we might as well go all in for 2009/2010. Otherwise there isn’t much sense in bringing those 2 back if we are just going to “tread water” again next season. We might as well go for the gold now since we have a “win now” manager and make another run since the NL Central might be a weaker division next season depending on what Milwaukee does in the off season.

Besides as long as Tony is calling the shots.. Rasmus might not even get a chance to play in St. Louis next season. We might as well trade him now before his value starts to sink. And really he is only another injury away for that to start happening.

We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

by KYCards on Oct 13, 2008 11:49 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I forgot to add..

About Toronto re-building. It really doesn’t matter, they are in the worst division in baseball to try and compete. Unless they start spending TONS of money on free agents they are not going to compete with the Yankees/Red Sox and they don’t have the great young talent to compete with the Rays either. Man I would hate to be a Blue Jays/Orioles fan.

We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

by KYCards on Oct 13, 2008 11:53 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I dont think our only options are tread water and go all in

thats kinda the point of all the develop cheap cost controlled player talk. if we, and we have a good head start on it, have a fruitful minor league system then we can improve and give ourselves flexibility to improve. it already gives us the ability to flip some of our OFers for something that we have a greater need for. we only need to improve about 3-4 wins to be in the thick of the playoff chase and we all know what can happen when you win the playoff lottery

by FunkeeC on Oct 13, 2008 11:55 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Essentially

you want to do what the Cubs have done, which is trade off every available asset in the current system and sign as many high profile free agents as possible to make a run at a title. The only problem with that is that at some point you end up with a bunch of overpaid and underachieving former superstars that you can’t trade for good prospects and no young players to replace them with. Then it’s a long, cold drought of good baseball for 3-4 years while you rebuild through the draft.

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

by fourstick on Oct 13, 2008 1:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

What about the upside?

“The only problem with that is that at some point you end up with a bunch of overpaid and underachieving former superstars that you can’t trade for good prospects and no young players to replace them with. Then it’s a long, cold drought of good baseball for 3-4 years while you rebuild through the draft.”

True. But the flip side of that problem is a greatly enhanced chance to win it all in a 1-2 year window. We here in the land of 10 titles don’t always realize the allure of those “flags that fly forever.” I bet if you asked every GM in baseball if they’d suffer 3-4 years of second division finishes in return for a World Series victory they’d say yes.

Of course, the ideal is to have that competiive team on the field and the renewable talent base to keep churning out assets. The Braves had that in the 90s and the Red Sox have it now.

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Oct 13, 2008 1:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Interesting game you play here:
I bet if you asked every GM in baseball if they’d suffer 3-4 years of second division finishes in return for a World Series victory they’d say yes.

I bet if you asked every Boston Red Sox fan if they would suffer 5 years of cellar dwelling to win one World Series title they would have said yes prior to 2004. Those are the same Red Sox fans that are currently bitching about their ballclub after winning 2 World Series in the last four years. Hmmmmmmmm….

The same can be said for Cub fans too, but I certainly don’t think that is the case. Once a team wins, the fans expect it to keep on winning, regardless of cost. Hell, look at Yankee fans and their outsized expectations every single year.

Hendry knows that the fans won’t blame him for going after a title, but what if he doesn’t deliver one because fluky things happen to teams in the postseason? Then he’s the guy that built a juggernaut only to leave the team in shambles in 2013 with no conceivable way out for 3-5 years before being competitive again.

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

by fourstick on Oct 13, 2008 2:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

game?

First off, 3-4 years of second division finishes is not the same as 5 years of cellar dwelling. If you’re gonng to oppsay Im’ ‘playing a game, whcih is fine – it’s just differing opinions here, don’t exaggerate what I sad.

Second – where are the bitching Boston fans? Last I saw they were whooping it up in the ALCS.

Semantics aside, If Hendry assembled a Cub team that won the World Series, I feel very strongly that Cub fans would basically canonize him, regardless of what happens the years afterwards. I live here, and have for a while. Sure, there’s going to be people that want more – there always will be. But 10 years on, 15 years on, etc, Hendry will be “the man who built the Champions.”

I don’t know about Boston because I haven’t read anything about bitching fans this year, and I’m not going to specualte on what other fans want, since I’m not a fan of other teams. I do know Chicago, however, and my gut tells me the vast majority of people would not be too mad at Hendry if the Cubs won once, then returned to their lackluster ways.

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Oct 13, 2008 6:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Of course teams would trade

second division finishes for a few years for a world title, but that title’s hardly guaranteed. Making it into the playoffs, no matter how good you were in the regular season, gives you essentially a 1 in 8 chance of winning the title. Just ask the ‘04 Cards. Is it the best idea to go balls-out for a title once or twice or try to build sustained success over many years that gives you several bites at the apple? It may mean you’re not quite as good in any single year, or next year, or whatever, but few are going to remember the Cubs as being great this season. They’ll be remembered for failing in the postseason again. Meanwhile, their stars are aging and becoming more and more difficult to replace b/c of their long-term contracts. If you go balls-out for a title, you’d better get it.

by chuckb on Oct 13, 2008 4:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

All good points

But can’t you say that the Cubs haven’t exactly built a one-year model? Haven’t they embarked on a little run of the sustained success you talk about?

Back to back division champs. Many will pick them to win again next year. D. Lee looks to be fading a bit but the other big $$$ guys are pretty solid.

How long of a run of sustained success are you talking about?

Geez, I just re-read this post and my one above and I sound perilously close to talking like a Cub fan. Bleech. Sorry, not me.

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Oct 13, 2008 6:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

They also have an extra 20 million on us...

Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist

by joker24 on Oct 13, 2008 7:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

the tacit timeline

Is “get something done while Albert Pujols is producing for us.” There was a (Fan)Post a while back about building the team around Albert in the long-term, and the more I hear about so-called counter-intuitive moves, the more I think that’s been the strategy for the better part of the decade. Any move/strategy/plan might have that natural deadline, IMO much more so than how long we keep A.D.A.M., Yadi, TLR, Duncan, etc.

So what do you think? If that cap exists, what’s the plan?

"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Oct 13, 2008 6:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Your putting words in my mouth.

I didn’t say “trade off every available asset in the current system and sign as many high profile free agents as possible.” I said trade a couple of our prospects and I guess I should have said our "blocked prospects like Craig & Anderson and yes including Rasmus if need be for Roy Halladay.

If Rasmus is the real deal then he should be our starting center fielder in April. No if and or buts about it. But if the higher powers feel he is not ready for primetime then just trade him while he still has high value. The same can be said for Anderson & guys like Craig. Are they going to be on the main roster in 2009? If not and they are blocked by guys like Glaus & Molina then why keep them? Just to say we have a couple of guys who can be major league players in the minors but won’t be called up because we have nowhere to put them on our main roster?

I wasn’t really trying to say to sell the whole farm…that would be crazy. But if we are only a couple of players away from making the post season next year…I have no problems in trading off some of our “blocked” prospects or even our “top prospect” who has probably a less than 50% chance of making the main roster because of who ownership wants as our manager next year to get an ace pitcher like Halladay.

We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

by KYCards on Oct 13, 2008 1:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The question then becomes...

Who is blocked?

Is Rasmus blocked? Ankiel is in his last year of arbitration and stands to be a free agent after the season…he’s also quite injury prone. Maybe Skip or Ludwick fall back to Earth after career years. There’s plenty of chance Rasmus will have a spot next year, and a VERY strong possibility in 2010.

Craig? Glaus is likely only hear for 2009, and he also has a history of injury. Sure we have Freese and Wallace, but Freese is “old” and Wallace may not stick at third. After the year Freese had in AAA last year his value might be as high as it’s gonna get – maybe nows the time to see what he’d bring back instead of Craig. Freese is also hands down the best defensively of these three.

Anderson? There’s little doubt Anderson is blocked, but I don’t think his value in a trade has peaked. He had an okay, but not spectacular season in Memphis. Another season, or half season, there (AAA) might do him some good. I’d prefer to see him start at Memphis, and get some time in the second half with STL, and then try to move him in the offseason.

The only positions on our team that are “blocked” are First and catcher. All other positions are manned by “unprovens” who could still disappoint and Glaus who is gone after 2009.

by cardzfanbub on Oct 13, 2008 2:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I hear what your saying cardzfanbub

but at some point teams that want to contend have to take a few chances and trade off some prospects who currently appear as “blocked”. Or else we can just keep them and watch their value lower like what is happening to Anderson as you said.

We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

by KYCards on Oct 13, 2008 2:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I didn't say that...

Anderson’s value has lowered…I just said he could prove a little more. I certainly think Brian raised his value by holding his own at AAA this year. He’s still only 22?…he needs another year in AAA whether that’s here or elsewhere. I’m not totally averse to moving him for the right guy, and I like Halladay – would like him a lot better if we hadn’t just handed Lohse four years. If we trade for Halladay our startin rotation will cost us over $45mil next year (not including Welley’s arb salary) and almost $44 the next with only 4 starters penciled in (including a questionable Carp).
  
FWIW I agree that we are quickly approaching the need to parlay some of the redundant talent in our system for needs at the big-league level. The OF is certainly a good place to start, I’m not sure that Rasmus is the one that needs to go. I’d like to see what Skip and Ankiel could bring back. I’d be curious to see if Jay and Robinson have any value as well.

by cardzfanbub on Oct 13, 2008 3:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Right.

That’s a false dichotomy. It’s perfectly possible to step up to get one player who might win you a championship without burning up the entire farm system.

by Red in Chicago on Oct 13, 2008 2:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It is an interesting argument

Who has a better approach, the Marlins or the Braves?

Since the Marlins joined MLB in 1993 they’ve won 2 titles in 97 & 03. The Braves won 1 in 95 and lost in 96 & 99.

The Marlins have epitomized the go for broke approach with 1 or 2 good years then dumping everybody that deserves to be in the majors to save money and get a ton of early draft picks while the Braves were built as a juggernaut winning the division year after year.

I’m not sure how I’d feel if the Cards adopted a slightly more Marlin approach to increase our postseason odds every few years. Given our better financial situation I don’t think we’d have to do the complete sell off like the Marlins have done, but we’d definitely have a couple of years of 3-5th place finished in the division where we weren’t necessarily competitive.

by birdo rojo on Oct 13, 2008 2:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well,

The Marlins didn’t invent the 5 year plan, they just were the first ones to make it look like it was a good idea, teams have been trying to do this from the 50s/60s. There was a chapter in BP’s book analyzing it that’s a good read.

I do think the RedSox reinvented the game with Moneyball 2.0. The Yankees tried it this year, it should have worked but it pretty much showed what can and will go wrong with this approach. Not to mention it totally changed the way trades are now. God forbid you give a up a guy that “may” be good for a year or two of a already allstar talent.

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

by rocKStark5 on Oct 13, 2008 2:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well technically the Yanks plan wasn't designed for this year

They were/are trying it for next year and beyond. If Phil Hughes alone turns into Jon Lester instead of 9+ ERA and hurt-while-bad-pitchers-take-his-turn, the Sox and Yanks probably flip flop.

Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist

by joker24 on Oct 13, 2008 3:41 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

My only rub

with the idea that a few good-not-great starters is a smart way to go is that it is only economical when those starters are cheap. I mean, 2004 was great but you have to remember that Marquis was making $525k and Suppan just $1M. For the Rays, their starters are cheap. It can work, but I don’t think a #3-4 starter should be paid what the current market value is. The Lohse signing is a huge unknown as to whether or not it will be worth it, but I’m really not sure it will be.

Anyway, I’m not trying to argue, I agree with what you’re saying.

Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?

by thegodfather on Oct 13, 2008 11:43 AM EDT   0 recs

oh,

and I’m not trying to argue that it’s the way to go—only that it seems to be the way the Cardinals intend to go.

by DanUpBaby on Oct 13, 2008 11:53 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Dan

I like your observational style. Not every posting needs to be a argument for or against a methodology employed by the organization/manager/pitching coach.

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Oct 13, 2008 12:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

the other difference

between the ‘04 group and this year’s Rays is that the Rays have top-shelf talent in their rotation — 3 legitimate swing-and-miss guys. The ‘04 Cards had 1 of those guys — Carp. We had tons of depth in the rotation but nearly lost to the Astros b/c they had strength at the top that we didn’t have. The Sox crushed us largely b/c they had strength at the top as well. When we didn’t beat Wakefield, we were in a lot of trouble b/c our guys just couldn’t match theirs.

We need innings-eaters like Lohse. Suppan was one of those guys. But to build a great team long-term, we need strength at the top. Right now we have just one of those guys, though I’m not sure that Wellemeyer can’t be one of those swing-and-miss guys. There’s a lot of depth coming as well, but they’re going to be, more likely, innings-eaters rather than swing-and-miss guys. There’s value in what Lohse does. I’m just not of the opinion that it’s what “the market” says it is.

by chuckb on Oct 13, 2008 12:21 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

it's hard to think about

given his subsequent awfulness, but in 2004 Jason Marquis, 25, put up a 3.71 ERA and struck out 6.17 guys per nine innings, and Woody Williams struck out 6 per 9 too. Don’t get me wrong—the Rays rotation is considerably better, especially in the long term, but the soft-tossing only got more severe after 2004. Carp missing the playoffs is what killed that rotation, not a lack of strikeouts.

by DanUpBaby on Oct 13, 2008 12:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

several months ago I was looking back at the '04

team, to compare them to whatever, and was blown away by the fact that Marquis was our best pitcher that year. Stunned! Now, Carp was better when he pitched, but Marquis had more win shares, I think it was, than any other pitcher on our staff that year. We tend to remember Carp or Woody or Suppan and, oh by the way, Marquis (yes, that one!) was on our team, too. But he was our best pitcher in ’04! Unbelievable. You might expect that on a 65 win team, but not a 105 win team!

by chuckb on Oct 13, 2008 12:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The funny thing about Marquis is there seemed to be no "middle ground" with him

when he was “on” he could shut down a team and look dominate doing so. But when he was “off” he got rocked and looked like he had no buisness being on a pitchers mound. Which of course had alot of us holding our breath at which version we would get on a given night. And in the playoffs that was just too much breath to hold which is why he didn’t start a game in the 06 post season and way he more than likely wouldn’t have touched the mound for the Cubs this post season either (if they would have actually won a few games LOL).

We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

by KYCards on Oct 13, 2008 12:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Marquis' Nickname

Hence the term “Bi-polar Betty”

That said, the Cubs do deserve my pity, but never my support.

by Solanus on Oct 13, 2008 1:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Seems that that's kinda common with sinkerballers

if that sinker isn’t breaking for it’s absolute MAX drop, then they get murdered.

I’m still mad that Tony Womack didn’t try to drop a bunt on Schilling in game two of the ’04 series, though.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Oct 13, 2008 3:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Quick observation: Where did everyone go??

Did 75% of our posters decide to not talk baseball after the season ended? Maybe I am over reacting but usually by this time of the day the main post would have well over 60-70 replies by now. I hope it’s just the end of the season blues and everyone is taking a break. I would hate to see this place become a ghost town. Maybe it’s because the hot stove season hasn’t started yet.

We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

by KYCards on Oct 13, 2008 1:31 PM EDT   0 recs

I think it's the lull between...

the end of the season…and the offseason. I still come on and read a few times a day, but this time of year it’s mostly the same stuff regurgitated a little differently. This place will pick up again in about a month when the playoffs are over and free-agency begins…right now the Cards aren’t doing anything, so there’s not a whole lot to talk about.

by cardzfanbub on Oct 13, 2008 1:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

still recovering from ALCS

I think it’s just a lull. There’s no substantial news coming in from the organization. Awaiting more info. The game threads are hopping, though, very enjoyable.

BTW Dan, nice nick. +1

"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Oct 13, 2008 2:15 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

hunting season for me

hard to find to read this let alone post anything

by sbentley on Oct 13, 2008 2:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't remember how it was last year on the forum,

But around STL (or america in general) football seaon KILLS baseball playoffs, especially last year and this year when the cards didn’t make it.

Last year I had to bar hop until I finally found a place that would play baseball, one would think bars like Ozzies and Pujols 5 would be a central place to watch baseball and not football, or stadium bars like Hrabosky’s would have been at least open :)

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

by rocKStark5 on Oct 13, 2008 2:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

There's just not much Cards-specific going on right now

They aren’t playing. They aren’t trading. They aren’t signing.

At this point it’s all predictions and what-do-you-want-do’s and that type of thing. Once the hot stove heats up, we’ll start seeing some more life out of the site.

by mojowo11 on Oct 13, 2008 3:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm moving, trying to get a paper out, applying for postdocs

and I need to get a clear graduation plan from my advisor. I’ll stop by and read a few things, but that’s basically it these days. Especially when the guys wearing red aren’t playing anymore.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Oct 13, 2008 3:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Honestly

The season is over. Football is in full swing. I’ll be around more after the football season is over and we are heading into spring training. Until then im just going pop in and a few times a week to see if anything interesting is going on. Or whenever we make so big news.

by Evilfrog on Oct 13, 2008 4:41 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

here I am

rockin like a hurricane

go rays

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Oct 13, 2008 6:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

dude

you’ve been MIA for quite some time.

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 13, 2008 6:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I just don't comment as much

I still read just about every post on here

go rays

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Oct 14, 2008 12:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Lohse

I do think he’ll be a good value next year. Maybe even the second year. Years 3 and especially 4 worry me a lot. In my assessment, Dan is spot on – Lohse is currently a good #3 or #4. Can he hold on to that type of value for 4 years? I’d say the odds are against him. Hope I’m wrong, because I appreciate that Lohse is a guy that sincerely wanted to stick here long term.

I do like having a discussion around the #1 starter, #2 starter…labels. The way Tampa is doing it is probably most effective. To my way of thinking, you’re ahead of the game if you sacrifice having a #2 type for an ace at the top in exchange for maybe putting a #3 and #4 type of the very bottom. Especially if they eat big innings. It’s a long season and all 5 starters count about the same (in the regular season). I’m rather pay to strengthen the bottom vs. paying ace type dollars to get a headliner at the top.

The bonus when building from the bottom up is usually that the #3’s and #4’s don’t often get 4 year deals. If things don’t work as planned you can hit the reset button and go after it again with little long term cost. Lohse is an outlier in that regard, and that’s what makes me uneasy.

by Merry CRasmus on Oct 13, 2008 2:29 PM EDT   0 recs

Top heavy rotations

are great in the post season and that’s why Mulder was brought in…we needed a Oswalt to our Clemens, a Schilling to our Pedro.

Personally I’d want a killer 1-3, a suppan, and a “try out” spot 5th guy for people that could have upside in the rotation like Kmac.

I think with the revenue stream the cards have you just gotta have a top 4-5 (in the majors) number 1.

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

by rocKStark5 on Oct 13, 2008 2:44 PM EDT   0 recs

The problem is that spending on pitching is sooooo risky

we have a top 4-5 pitcher named Chris Carpenter—hopefully, we’ll get him in the rotation sometime next year knocks on wood. the Dodgers thought that was what they were getting with Jason Schmidt. The Giants though that Barry Zito was going to pan out. Pedro fell back to earth after he joined the Mets.

For every guy like Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens who never ages, you have two or three guys who looked awesome once, and then completely flame out after signing that deal.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Oct 13, 2008 3:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

could not have said it better.

For every Randy Johnson, Clemens, and Shilling you could end up with a Haren, Lincecum, or Shields.

The only thing “proven” means is expensive. It doesn’t assure results.

by DriverZn on Oct 13, 2008 5:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think everyone would want that

It’s just that a “killer 1-3” would cost between $45M-$60M every single year for three players. Basically you can only have one free agent in your killer top three and the rest need to be homegrown or have really, really, friendly contracts. There are multiple ways of doing this (taking a pitcher coming off of an injury, trading a bunch of good prospects for a stud with a couple of arb years left, locking up your young talent with multi-year contracts early in their career). All of those methods have various levels of risk involved, but I don’t think you can build a rotation like the one your suggesting around free agent pitching anymore.

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

by fourstick on Oct 13, 2008 3:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Latest news

From San Diego is that clubs are discussing trade ideas for Peavy. Does a Ludwick and McClellan-type deal get it done? Or is it more like Rasmus, Todd and Freese?

by Red in Chicago on Oct 13, 2008 3:45 PM EDT   0 recs

Someone's going to sell them the moon for Peavy

There are at least some stellar pitchers on the FA market, which might drive the price down SOME, but still… guys like that don’t grow on trees.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Oct 13, 2008 3:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Do they?

In that park I think you have to center your offense around OBP and speed. Petco is where big boppers go to die.

by cardzfanbub on Oct 13, 2008 3:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Adrian Gonzalez

would probably disagree with you on that one — he had as good a year as Prince did this year playing in a ballpark where sluggers go to die.

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

by fourstick on Oct 13, 2008 3:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Adrian Gonzalez himself would be a great trade chip.....

He is one of the very best “unknown” player in the majors. Had a killer season in a bad hitters park, and hit with a weak line up around him.

You know, if I’m the Padres, I don’t know if I tear down right now. They are in a weak division and they have Peavy and Young, Bell and Adams, Adrian and Giles around for next year if they choose to keep them. Their farm is not in great shape-they are kind of like the Astros are. Add a player or three in key spots, they could turn things around in a hurry. I’d hang on and hold players for ransome if things go south again before NEXT year’s deadline…..

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Oct 13, 2008 5:15 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Accordin to Tom Krasovic

of the San Diego Union Tribune:

Towers said he has heard from clubs interested in trading for ace pitcher Jake Peavy. "We’re having talks," he said.

The GM said he wouldn’t be surprised if the Peavy talks heat up next month.

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 13, 2008 5:20 PM EDT to parent up