No margin for error

by chuckb on Oct 19, 2008 7:00 AM EDT in News Comment 120 comments

My big problem w/ the proposed Peavy deal is not Peavy’s age, contract, or potential for injury. I’m not sold that he’s more likely to get injured than any other aging pitcher. My problem is the way in which the deal limits our roster construction. If you refer to LB’s 2009 roster matrix you’ll notice that we have about $20 M or so to spend – enough to fit Peavy and, if necessary, Khalil Greene (yuck!).

However, our needs right now are much greater than an SP and a SS. That matrix doesn’t include either Miles or Lopez, at least 1 of which will be back. We have no lefty reliever and neither Springer nor Izzy are included. There’s not even a backup catcher included on the matrix. Peavy’s contract is for a relatively inexpensive $8 M next year so his acquisition would leave us w/ around $12 M or so to spend at 2B, LHR, RHR, C and SS. If we add Greene’s $6.5 M salary, it gives us a SS but leaves us w/ less than $6 M for at least 2 relievers, 2B, and C. The 2B will be either Miles or Lopez for $2.5 – 3 M so it would leave about $3 M for 2 relievers and C. Forget Izzy or Springer. Forget Ohman or Affeldt. Maybe we could use Mark Worrell as our RHR, spend a million or so on a backup C and sign Brian Shouse for about $2 M.

If we don’t add Greene, we can spend that $6.5 M on Miles AND Lopez and keep Brendan Ryan at Memphis.

Now, adding Peavy probably adds about 5-6 wins over using some combination of Boggs, Todd, and Mortensen in the 5th spot in the rotation but Ohman or Affeldt is probably worth about a win over Shouse and Springer’s probably worth about a win over Brad Thompson or Mark Worrell. Peavy, therefore, adds about 4 wins over last year. Still – not bad. What if, however, we have to include Chris Perez in any deal for Peavy? Trevor Hoffman was pretty bad last year (3.91 FIP) and, regardless, he’s not got much left. The Padres are going to be looking for a closer soon. Rasmus, Todd, Perez? That may be the deal that brings Peavy to St. Louis. If it is, we’ll need another reliever to replace Perez. Is there anybody ready in Memphis? Not beyond Mark Worrell, who may not be a viable big-leaguer anyway. So we either spend a couple million on Izzy or another free agent, thus costing us Ohman or Miles/Lopez or, more likely, go bottom feeding in hopes of finding a gem. Risky proposition.

Of course, Peavy would give us a pretty salty rotation but also one that’s rather tenuous. We’d have Peavy, Wainwright, Wellemeyer, Lohse, and Pineiro but be vulnerable to injury to any one of them. Think those 5 make 162 starts? I don’t. Who, then, takes those 15-20 starts when someone goes on the DL or just misses a start or two? We could use Thompson…a big step down and, btw, it would mean replacing Thompson in the pen w/ Worrell. Mortensen probably won’t be ready and if one of Todd/Boggs is traded, we would have only the other one to take those starts. Parisi’s out for the year and it looks as though Jaime Garcia will be as well. If we trade Todd to the Pads, it’s all up to Boggs. Let’s hope he’s not injured, too! Let’s hope he pitches better when he’s called up than he did this year. Our depth would be compromised.

The same would be true in the pen, partly b/c of the increasing salary paid to Peavy, and the inclusion of Perez in the trade would exacerbate that. Let’s hope nobody gets injured (Josh Kinney!) or is ineffective (Motte!) or gets old (Springer!). Get ready to see a lot of Kelvin Jimenez.

In the middle infield, if we include Greene and his $6.5 M salary, we’ll probably be able to bring back only 1 of Miles/Lopez. Ryan becomes our everyday utility IF. If/when Greene or Miles/Lopez gets injured (Greene has missed an average of 36.75 games over the last 4 years) or overexposed playing everyday, it means a whole lot of Brendan Ryan. What happens if he’s as bad as he was this season? What happens if Ryan, too, is injured? Tyler Greene? Again, our depth becomes an issue.

Even if Peavy adds 6 wins, and then we lose a couple by not having the resources to spend for better relievers, we’re still up 4 wins…unless we run into injuries in the rotation, the pen or middle infield. If Boggs pitches often, it may end up costing us another win or two and playing Ryan that often may cost us another win or so. It’s not too far-fetched to think that we could trade Rasmus, Perez, and Todd for Peavy and end up just a couple wins better next season. Would you trade those 3 to add just 2 wins to our total? It’s a pretty high price to pay.

BTW, in this scenario, who closes? Franklin? McClellan? Maybe we can keep Perez and send Boggs instead. Wait, that won’t work unless we get 162 starts from our SPs. Maybe we could include Motte in the trade instead of Perez and have Perez close out games. I like the idea of using Perez as a closer but I’m also aware that he may not be as good next year as he’ll be in 2010 or 2011. We’d hate to acquire Peavy and give back all his gains by not being able to close out games.

It also makes things a lot dicier after 2009. Peavy’s salary jumps by $7M in 2010. Our rotation loses Wellemeyer and Pineiro to free agency, thus leaving us w/ just Peavy, Wainwright, and Lohse. Glaus’s salary comes off the books, along w/ Kennedy, Miles/Lopez, Ankiel and Khalil Greene. We could resign Ankiel, whose salary would basically replace Glaus’s. Indeed, we’d have to resign Ankiel as we wouldn’t have Rasmus to play CF. Let’s hope the Yankees or somebody doesn’t outbid us! Maybe we could pray that Daryl Jones isn’t a fluke and is ready by 2010. Ludwick’s salary will likely rise by $2-3 M in arbitration. Lohse’s goes up by $1.75 M and Wainwright’s rises by about $2 M. Carp’s goes up by another million. All told, that’s about $14 M in salary increases to be offset by about $22 M in reductions, leaving us $8M in the black.

We’ll have $8 M to use on a 2B, a SS, and 2 starting pitchers. That’s pretty tight. Maybe we could use Boggs or Todd and Mortensen to fill 1 of those SP spots. Our lack of depth means bringing in a free agent for the other spot. Think we can get a good one for $2-3 M? I guess we can go back to Miles and Izturis at 2B and SS. Of course, they’ll be 2 years older than they are now. Again, most of the wins we gain by having Peavy in the rotation are given back by using replacement-level players (or below) at key positions in the infield and starting rotation. We simply do not have the organizational depth at this point to be trading multiple young players who can help us in the next year or two to fill just 1 hole – even for someone as good as Peavy.

We’d be better off keeping our prospects for when we need them (not if) and signing a free agent pitcher such as Derek Lowe, Ben Sheets, or C.C. Sabathia than trading them for Peavy. In reality, the Pineiro and Carpenter deals probably preclude us from being able to do that either.

Peavy is outstanding but sending 3 young players who should help us next year to the Padres means that everything has to go perfectly for us to win -- in 2009 or after. There’s no margin for error. Perez or Motte or Franklin has to work as the closer. Our starters have to make almost all of their starts. Our middle infielders have to stay healthy. After ’09, we need to be able to resign Ankiel. We’ll have to find cheap replacements at 2B and SS who help the team. We’ll have to find some inexpensive answers for the rotation that can pitch well.

We need to find less expensive solutions b/c, as good as Peavy is, he can’t play 2B or SS. He’s not going to be able to close if Perez can’t seal the deal. He can’t pitch twice every 5 days if Wainwright or one of the other starters goes down. We just have too many holes to fill to think that the addition of Peavy is going to solve all our problems. In fact, Rasmus, Perez, and Todd might be worth an additional 6 wins just next year and leave us $7 M or so to spend on something else. The only way this works is if we have enough depth to replace the guys we send to the Padres AND fill our other needs and the only way to get that depth is to continue to grow the farm system. Some say a farm is no good if we can’t use it to trade for better players but, if we can’t even bolster the everyday roster w/ capable replacements when necessary, we’re not going to be better off.

0 recs | Comment 120 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Excellent, detailed analysis, chuckb.

If Greene is included in the deal, the Padres have to take either Piniero or Kennedy. I doubt they want either, so I doubt the deal gets done. Adding Peavy and Greene would tie their hands financially unless they plan on adding payroll, which I doubt. IMO their priority should be the bullpen. When they fix that, see what’s left and fill in what they can. As you detail here, they have many needs. I’d prefer Izturis at 3mil to Greene at 6.5. They can win with Izturis at ss, they can’t win with the bullpen as presently constituted.

by vinniefromjersey on Oct 19, 2008 8:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Greene

If the Cards have to eat Greene for a year it’s a completely different deal than if it is a straight up trade for Peavy. The Cards prospects are solid enough that they should be able to engineer a deal without Greene in it. It all comes down to how hard the Padres want to unload Greene meaning they are willing to take lesser prospects from someone like Atlanta if they take Greene as part of the package.

I think we should just analyze the deal as straight up for Peavy because I do not believe JMo is going to do the rash thing and make a bad deal. We already have one overpaid disgruntled middle infielder to unload (Kennedy). If you take Greene’s money out of it, the Cards could do the deal and have enough budget space to sign Springer and Lopez but little else. No Izzy.

by jjray on Oct 19, 2008 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cards are asking for Greene

The Padres are not forcing Greene into the deal for Peavy as a salary dump, the Cards are asking for him to be included.

by Knighttime on Oct 19, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Greene

Greene’s last year was so bad it’s the kind of mystery season you wonder if ou shouldn’t just chalk up as a complete aberration, or an anomoly due to something we’ll never know about. I mean, he underperformed his 10% PECOTA prediction, which is really amazing. We saw Mike Lowell have a similar season recently. Who knows?

Better to also consider his 2006 and 2007 seasons….in those, he posted .863 and .840 OPS on the road. I think it’s reasonable to think he could put up an .800 OPS if he were based in STL instead of SD. I’m not saying he’s a lock, of course, but I think that there’s more to the guy than what was seen in 2008, and he fits the kind of bounce-back profile that lets wise investors make out well.

by siddfynch on Oct 19, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also,

his salary is so ridiculous that the padres are likely to ask less for peavy simply because Greene will be gone.

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Oct 19, 2008 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1 - thoughtful analysis. Cannot see a flaw in the reasoning. . . More, I think the Pads would demand more than Perez, Todd and Rasmus.

Wouldn’t you if you were Towers?

An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.

HL Mencken

by akaitori on Oct 19, 2008 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

2 problems

you seem to assume that Carp is finished. you dont include him in any of your rotations. second, you point out that the trade would be bad if we have injuries all over the place.

sure, every team is in trouble if injuries hit. however, you could also make a long write up about how well this trade will work if carp is back in the rotation and if d jones is ready by 2010 etc, etc….

im not really for or against the trade (probably more against) but i just think your analysis was certainly glass half empty material.

1 main thing that the owners certainly need to do is up the damn payroll. its set a the same place for several years now and didnt jump at all with the new ball park opening. another 10-15 mil would make a hugh difference in what we could persue and sign.

Milt Thompson FTW!

by gossard56 on Oct 19, 2008 8:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the title of the post sums it up perfectly

I’d like to see Peavy in St. Louis but if that happens a lot of things need to go right to win the division (especially considering the price it take to land him). Signing a free agent pitcher would seem to be a better way to go but CC is going to cost a lot more than Peavy in terms of dollars and Sheets has a history of injuries (although I do like him). It’s a tough call…

Bumping up the payroll could make a world of difference but I’m not sure that is realistic. It would be nice though. The Cards are in a new stadium, yes, but I think they have a lot of debt financing to pay off as well.

by nmstar on Oct 19, 2008 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Payroll ranks

Small bears 7
STL 11
‘Stros 14
Brew 15
Reds 18
Pirates 27
IMHO, the overall payroll in NL Central is pretty high with the exception of the Pitt. On the one hand, I am grateful that we are #2 in spending in the NL Central. On the other, I want to think that Card’s fans should be rewarded for their faithfulness with an even higher payroll.
Attendance
STL 4
Small bears 7
Brew 9
‘Stros 11
Reds 23
Pitt 28
I change my mind daily on the Peavy/Greene deal. Today I am for it, as I think the improved starting pitching will help our pen. Tomorrow I might call to mind our disastrous pen last year.

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Oct 19, 2008 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

regarding salary

the cubs are going to increase at least 15M next year, BEFORE arbitration raises and free agent signings. I’d imagine that they’ll be 3rd or 4th by the time they are done this off season, and in the $150M range.

the enemy's gate is down.

by SleepyCA on Oct 19, 2008 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, they don't

They sold several assets that the orgainzation posessed, and eliminated most of their debt portfolio soon after purchasing the franchise.

Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.

by Eckstreem on Oct 20, 2008 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's what I was going to say...pretty much

that this post is pretty much saying that if we lose 5-10 guys we’re going to have a AAA roster.

DUH!!!!

by stlfan on Oct 19, 2008 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dang post button...I wasn't done.

What I hope the post is NOT saying is that we should go out and sign a ton of guys to play different positions and block up all of our youngsters from improving. I hope we don’t need an extraordinary amount of depth and sign Clement/Prior/Benson/Mulder/HamptonJennings/F. Garcia/etc…to minor league or incentive-based deals just in case we have 2-3 guys in the rotation go down. Then, they fill up the Memphis rotation and the team can’t see what the youngsters can do.

I don’t think you can go into a season assuming everyone will get hurt…but you also cannot go in assuming no one will get hurt. There has to be a happy medium found.

I hope to see a backup plan in place if we trade for a Greene. Part of that backup plan is available, though. We have Kennedy signed already, so Miles or Lopez being signed means that we have a temporary stop-gap solution at SS in either one of them, while Kennedy plays second. Ryan can, then be called up to be the MI backup. If he’s hurt (in the catastrophic scenario of 5-10 injuries above, then we have to either dig deeper and bring up a Brian Barden or Tyler Greene and give a player a shot.

If we deal for Peavy and we have a rotation of Peavy, Wainwright, Lohse, Wellemeyer, and Pineiro I agree that it probably won’t pitch 162 games. Barely any rotations in the majors throw that many. We will still have Kyle McClellan (whom a lot of people on here believe could/should start), Brad Thompson, Jesse Todd or Mitch Boggs, PJ Walters, Clayton Mortensen, and Kelvim Jimenez and Mark Worrell to fill in the various roles that would be opened up by injuries. That is why we have minor league teams…to add to the major league roster at some point.

Also, I see no mention of Manning in your list of pitchers above. He, obviously, will get a look in spring training and will probably start on the big league club for very little money. He will be one of the lefty specialists, hopefully with TJ – if he’s back from injury.

Should we not trade Anderson in any deal in case Molina and Johnson and Johnson and Larue all get hurt this year?

Should we not have dropped Josh Phelps in case Pujols, Glaus, and Chris Duncan all end up on the DL at the same time?

by stlfan on Oct 19, 2008 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i didn't take it as everyone gets hurt

this is more of a “if anyone gets hurt” in my opinion.

"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy

by FutureMan on Oct 19, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

5 injuries?

if we get one in the rotation and one in the middle infield, we’re in trouble. Any more than that and we’re probably done. Think 2 injuries are possible? The Cubs, the best team in the NL this season, lost their LF for 50 games, their starting CF didn’t work out, they got 5 starts from the guy who began the season as their 5th starter, lost 4 starts from their opening day starter, and their closer missed 21 games. Injuries happen all the time. It’s not going to take an apocalypse for this team to be in trouble. In fact, everything’s going to have to work out perfectly for it to work.

And, yes, I’m not counting on anything from Carp. Anything we get should be considered a bonus but I think it’s foolish at this point to pencil him in for 20-25 starts or 150 innings.

by chuckb on Oct 19, 2008 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But the Cubs weren't in trouble

they won the division by 7.5 games.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 19, 2008 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

partly b/c they had fewer

injury problems and ineffectiveness problems than every other team in the league. My point was, “Look, some bad things happen even to the most fortunate and most successful teams in the league.” It won’t take huge injury problems for our lack of depth to manifest if we trade 3 players who could help us next year for 1.

by chuckb on Oct 19, 2008 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what about this year

This years cardinals team lost 2 1/2 months from it’s opening day starter, lost it’s closer for basically the season, albert missed over 2 weeks, the starting center fielder had 2 extended stints on the DL, lost it’s primary lefty specialist in spring training, had the worst case scenario come true of 3 recovering starters, lost it’s opening day left fielder for half the year and possibly his career, and still managed to win 86 games.

I understand that after these past couple of seasons we are fearing injuries, that is absolutely no reason to not acquire a true ace. There are very few pitchers like peavy in baseball, and to not want to give up unproven prospects for a pitcher of peavy’s caliber simply because you are worried about a depth problem is crazy.

If the worst happens and those injures occur, there are waivers, and trades that can be made. Not every solution is golden or perfect, but i just don’t think that you ignore an opporunity to pick up Peavy.

by stickman179 on Oct 19, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And...

The Cards had how many people go down this year and stay competitive?

by stlfan on Oct 19, 2008 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Assuming Carp is finished is the way to plan.

Last year they said Clement would be ready for spring training, Mulder would be back in May, and Carp around the All-Star break. That kind of thinking led to multiple starts by Parisi, Boggs, Garcia, and Thompson. They need a more realistic approach. I happen to think Carp will be back for most of the season at least, but how can you count on that? Even Paletta says it’s uncharted territory. What if the nerve(s) act up in September again as they did once before? I just agree with chuckb it’s better not to count on him, and take anything he gives you as a bonus.
I do second your motion that they need to up the payroll if they’re serious about competing.

by vinniefromjersey on Oct 19, 2008 8:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed

that you have to assume Carp is done.

by stlfan on Oct 19, 2008 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But as a fan

(as opposed to a GM), one can hope that Carp can come back!

Nerve injuries are more uncertain than any other injury… following a sinus surgery, it took me a year to regain “feeling” in my teeth below the incision!

If the Pads want to get rid of Greene, I think the Cards should insist Kennedy be part of the deal to San Diego; swap salaries and hope the “change of scenery” helps both players…

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

by The Ol Goaler on Oct 19, 2008 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree on both accounts

(except I have no opinion on the nerve injuries thing…I have no idea on that. I’ll take your word for it.)

by stlfan on Oct 19, 2008 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

(Apparently, I have a lot this morning…)

As I keep pointing out, based on the OBP and SLG in our lineup (and using the Baseball Lineup Tool) we should be in the top 4 in scoring runs in the league if we stay pat with what we have. In your scenario, we upgrade to Greene (offensively) and stand pat at 2b, without losing any production from the OF because no starters were traded.

An upgraded starter and bullpen would greatly help this team. It would help for now and in the future, if Peavy is a part of it…

I do agree, however, that it would take Dewitt opening up payroll a little bit in order for it to truly help the Cardinals’ present and future roster construction, but only because Greene may have to come along as part of the package.

by stlfan on Oct 19, 2008 10:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

stay with the offense we have

was anyone happy with our offense this year on a day to day basis. sure we ended up scoring a lot of runs but who knew what we would get on any given day. on game we put up 10 runs on big z and another we got shut out by some no name from AAA.

"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy

by FutureMan on Oct 19, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i was pleased with it

Actually I was expecting it to be much worse than it was. In April I wondered how they were going to score any runs at all. Glaus, Ludwick, Miles, Schumaker, and even Yadi were all pleasant surprises for me at the plate in 2008.

Do I agree the Cards can (or need to) improve the offense and become more consistent? Hell yes i do.

by Knighttime on Oct 19, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was not happy with it.....

I’d still love to see a breakdown of games where “x” number of runs were scored, compared to other teams.

If somebody can tell me where to find this stat, b/c I haven’t been able to, I’ll put it together.

"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."

by SoonerfanTU on Oct 19, 2008 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I am interested to see variability data in addition to central tendency (mean). Blowouts are nice for a team’s psyche but inflate the mean. I’ll even settle for median and mode if game-to-game variance is not obtainable. I think process 162 box score for runs will not be that difficult. But I think I am interested in hits and walks also as an indicia of offensive efficiency. I am too lazy to do the computation myself unless I can automate the processing of 162 game logs. Does anyone have a easy script or macro to do this?

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Oct 19, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

best i can find

using b-r PI is a way to get a list of all the games that we won by 18, 12, 11, 10 runs etc. You have to count each separate list yourself, which would take forever for all 30 teams.

the enemy's gate is down.

by SleepyCA on Oct 19, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks for the suggestion

When I find time, I might attempt to do that. As long as I can automate the date input process from b-r then the rest shouldn’t be that difficult. I might develop a Matlab or a shell script to automate downloading b-r pages.

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Oct 20, 2008 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I ever see another line of Matlab code

it will be too soon.

by azruavatar on Oct 20, 2008 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice write-up.

I have decided that I wouldn’t mind seeing Peavy in a Cards jersey, but I don’t want to pay for it.
And as iffy as I have been on keeping Rasmus, I don’t think that Peavy is the one we give him up for.
We do however have to come up with some idea on what to do with this logjam of young outfielders.
And for me, personally, I am okay with either Miles or Lopez at 2nd next year. They are cheap and servicable. I don’t, however, really see a need to keep Kennedy. It’s a black-hole in the lineup for rallys.

by bdmcleod on Oct 19, 2008 10:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

jp is an enticing addition, but is just too expensive. at +/- $100M, we just can’t afford to be paying two number one starter salaries, which JP and Carp would lead to after next year. i don’t know if carp should be written off or not, but 30 starts seems optimistic; he will also be on the 25 man most/all of the time and he makes front line money. i think looking for us to win next year will require at least 20-25 good starts form carp. to try to build the roster/payroll around that money, and ak’s for that matter, is a fool’s errand (ie, we can’t afford to have one number one starter who plays and one who doesn’t). i agree with those that say we need to have a strong contingency plan in case carp takes a while or can’t go all season, but that contingency can’t realistically be JP. we need to have a more shut-down 7-8-9 inning pen as our number one priority. after that we can worry about who we add to the rotation (i’m for moderately priced guys, like maybe lowe will be) and then an upgrade in the MI in that order. let’s not lose track of the fact that with an average pen performance and/or less time off for the wagonmaster we would have been in it to the end (and avoided tlr’s line-up circus to boot).

"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension

by sportsman on Oct 19, 2008 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why can't the bullpen be done like this?

If we trade for Peavy and you are sending Perez off into oblivion (which would probably be awesome if we could keep one of our other pitching prospects in this deal), the bullpen could go:

7th: Ryan Franklin
8th: Jason Motte
9th: Kyle McClellan
Rover: Josh Kinney

I agree that they would need to find a quality LOOGY, but you make it seem as if there would be a vacuum in the 9th inning or the rightside of the bullpen.

Hell, if Carpenter comes back at all, they could do what they should have done and put him in as the closer.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 19, 2008 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Furthermore

what makes you think this is the only trade made? You make it seem like the Cardinals will be strapped for cash and won’t have anyone to play any of the other positions in 2010 because of the Peavy deal. We have quite a bit of depth in the farm system, which could be used to get a cost controlled MIF’er this off-season.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 19, 2008 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We can trade for someone like Sherrill, right?

We can trade for Huston Street, who is available? We can trade for Mark Ellis or Dan Uggla, etc. It’s a ballsy move, to be sure. But this ain’t beanbag.

Also, I don’t know where anyone gets the inside information that Carpenter is “finished.” This is total nonsense. His nerve situation is nothing like Mulder, who had a labral tear. Carpenter coming back is the reason to do this. The Hydra-Headed Cy Young Monster is the payoff.

by Red in Chicago on Oct 19, 2008 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

or we could flip the carpenter / k-mac roles

for half a season to see where carpenter is at without stretching him out as a SP. at some point we have to get carp back on the field consistently. that sounds like a relievers regime to me.

about the time k-mac has his 08 innings on the 09 books, we make a judgement call as to whether or not to start using carp as a middle reliever. if his health is good by the all-star break, stretch him out for september starts and possible postseason starts. this protects against a huge spike in k-mac IP from 08, by flipping the roles back. if carp isn’t ready to be stretched out, thompson could start in place of k-mac.

by ball in play on Oct 19, 2008 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ellis would be nice

ak caliber defense and he owns a bat

"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension

by sportsman on Oct 19, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He just signed a 2 year deal with the A's Today

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 19, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

next up

the o-dog?

"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension

by sportsman on Oct 19, 2008 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Please

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

by giveml on Oct 19, 2008 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is supposed to say

“Please, no” I would rather stick with what we have than spend a bunch of money on Hudson.

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

by giveml on Oct 19, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

It would take a heroic improvement on OC’s part to be better than AK, when defense is considered. Guys his age generally don’t improve like that, and he’ll cost us a draft pick.

the enemy's gate is down.

by SleepyCA on Oct 19, 2008 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

eh OH

the enemy's gate is down.

by SleepyCA on Oct 19, 2008 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, then, maybe we'd like to take a chance on Eric Patterson?

Not perfect, but he’s got plenty of good qualities-enough to say he’s earned a chance to try to be someone’s second baseman. Billy Beane needs power for his outfield—and he’s got an awful lot of extra pitching that’s going to be blocked at AAA too. The A’s could be a good fit as a trading partner.

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

by jillsinmo on Oct 19, 2008 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

do you really think

this team will start wheeling and dealing? if we make a blockbuster trade like this i doubt anything else goes down. if there is a cost controlled middle infielder out there up for grabs i would much rather go after them then peavy.

they will be strapped for cash. in yesterday’s post i pointed out that in 2010 we will already have 63.4 million tied up in 6 players. 6 players that aren’t going anywhere. that accounts for 4/5 or our rotation and hopefully we can fill that fifth spot from our farm. however, we still have 7 positions to fill in the field. no matter how good your pitching staff is, if your offense is horrible or even inconsistent (as ours is) you aren’t going to win. peavy had a 2.85 era this year and only won 10 games.

"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy

by FutureMan on Oct 19, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Street

Do we want him, and what would it take to get him?

I saw that some writer predicted we’d trade for him this offseason.

Also, as nice as it would be to land Peavy, I don’t think things are gonna play out that way. What I wouldn’t mind doing though, is talking to them about Greene alone, or Greene and Meredith. Greene would be a nice 1 year player, and if’n he reverts to form, or has success, we could sign him for longer.

"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."

by SoonerfanTU on Oct 19, 2008 11:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm intrigued by Street

b/c I don’t believe they’ll go w/ Perez and I don’t want K-Rod or Fuentes. I know he was benched last year but his #s weren’t awful. He won’t be Joe Nathan but he’d probably be pretty good. He’s on my list to do more on at some point. Maybe I’ll get to him next weekend.

by chuckb on Oct 19, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks.

"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."

by SoonerfanTU on Oct 19, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

street

25 year old closer career…
2.88 ERA
1.07 WHIP
more K’s then innings pitched over 4 yrs

i dont know what haul beane is looking for, but street’s struggles were enhanced last july due to pitching w/ injury
he lost his job…got healthy finished great and still didnt get his job back in favor of devine/ziegler

when he’s right, i think he’s very good reliever and would help many teams

by Asfan4ever723 on Oct 19, 2008 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

MLBrumors.....

Is saying that the Pads want young pitching and MI help, not necessarily a CF.

Gotta think that puts the Braves in the lead. I doubt the Pads want to take back MI help that is as far away as Kozma is. Also doubt they value him that much. If we had a stud SP spect to send them, him, another young arm (Perez, Todd, Boggs), Ryan, and Koz might get it done. But we don’t have that big arm to offer them.

"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."

by SoonerfanTU on Oct 19, 2008 12:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i think if we were willing to include rasmus

the padres would gladly not require a MI

by VolsnCards5 on Oct 19, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I don't really see the problem there.

That’s just a way of negotiating for more: “You didn’t give me what I really need, so you have to compensate with X.” They can have Kozma as a toss-in if that’s what they want.

by Red in Chicago on Oct 19, 2008 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kozma as a "toss in"?

really? He might not be great but he is worth a hell of a lot more than to be used as a toss in!

"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum

by nomar34 on Oct 19, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

From Future Redbirds:

In a nutshell, BA’s synopsis on Kozma is that he remains spectacularly unspectacular, but the tools that he does possess play so free and easy that he can and at times does play above them.

If you’re buying a Rolls-Royce, you might trade in a 2004 BMW, but it isn’t because the dealer is really excited to be getting your old Bimmer.

by Red in Chicago on Oct 19, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if they aren't exited to get him

then it is even dumber to toss him in

"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum

by nomar34 on Oct 19, 2008 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and remember

Kozma has been out of HS for all of a year and a half. I for one wouldn’t mind giving him more than a couple years before deciding he isn’t going to be anything special

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Oct 19, 2008 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True Dat

He is very young ball player that was solid in Quad Cities this year. We knew when we drafted him it would take a couple years for him to put everything together.

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 19, 2008 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

kozma
jones
todd
anderson or boggs

recall also that the pads often value middle relief in trade deals…thus guys like mclellan and motte could also have value.

i think you hang onto rasmus and perez…….too much chance that they combine to deliver as many wins as peavy, once you factor in peavy’s risk…..and at a fraction of the cost.

by siddfynch on Oct 19, 2008 1:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That would be great...

Except for the fact that it’s not happening in this universe. The Padres don’t appear to want a bunch of mid-level prospects for Peavy. They don’t want to give us Greene and take Pinero back. There’s a reason that we’re now hearing they’re expanding the list of teams they’re talking to beyond the teams Peavy approved a deal to. MLBtraderumors is saying the Red Sox may get involved and the Padres want two of their three top pitching prospects and another top prospect. The Yankees want to bring in 2 top of the rotation type guys and if this touches off an arms race, the price for Peavy goes up.

If they want Peavy, the Cards will have to part with Rasmus. They will have to expand payroll in the short term or make some other deals to bring things under controll. Both seem reasonable. What I can’t get my head around is how they take on that $22 million option in 5 years. I just don’t like a 5 year deal for any pitcher, especially at that price.

This is starting to smell like one of those deals that Mo brings up and points out that it cost too much in terms of young players when he tries to justify the Mark Prior/Joel Pinero/Sidney Ponson/Brad Thompson battle for the 5th spot in the rotation. But I’m not certain I don’t agree in this particular case.

What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray

by Tupelo on Oct 19, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed,

the fact that the list is expanding makes it much more likely that the cardinals never even had a shot at this one. As much as I would love to deal for peavy because STL and SD are so compatible needs-wise, it seems like the padres are really just looking for the next mariners-orioles trade rather than one that addresses both teams needs. The only real shot the cards have at a decent deal for peavy is one that peavy himself dictates.

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Oct 19, 2008 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

on several fronts.

First, “not in this universe” trades happen regularly. I had a few reactions like that last year when I advocated going after Carlos Quentin with better bait than what the ChiSox eventually gave up for him. I don’t think anyone can ever say “not in this universe” unless they own the team involved. I saw others get criticized for saying we should after Harden for less than what the Cubbies ended up giving for him.

Second, I disagree that the Cards must give up Rasmus to get Peavy. Sure, the Pads would like Rasmus (who wouldn’t), but there is a very reasonable scenario in which none of the other rumored suitors are also willing to give up a Rasmus-caliber player, in which case we shouldn’t automatically assume that we must.

************************************************************************

I see the Peavy thing breaking in three ways. 1) our competitors also get seriously involved, in which case marquee prospects enter the equation and we must match them to keep up. I think there’s a good chance this doesn’t happen early on; if it does, I think we bow out before offering up a package that consists of Rasmus + others.

That leads to 2), where we are the only serious players early. In this case, we should keep it to offers of quantity + low minors upside that match up well with the Pads are wanting…such as my offer above. If SD turns it down, I think we should pass rather than up the ante, which leads to 3) the Pads sit tight on Peavy and hope they can deal him to whoever misses out on the FA sweepstakes and/or is desperate next July.

*****************************************************************************************************

BTW, Jones is not a mid-level prospect – he’s got enough upside that his ceiling is definitely not mid-level. Will he be an All-Star? Odds are not. But could he be? Sure, it’s one of many outcomes that is reasonable. Toolsy guys that put up actual perfomances like his in AA at his age are the kinds of players that other teams take note of…and the fact that he’s been on “sleeper” lists for awhile now means you can bet his performance was duly noted by other teams.

by siddfynch on Oct 19, 2008 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the Padres will find

that “you can’t always get what you want”. They are apparently somewhat motivated sellers who want to dump salary and that salary belongs to a guy with a no-trade who will only accept a limited amount of destinations. That alone should limit the haul they will be able to realize.

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

by giveml on Oct 19, 2008 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

If the Peavy show slips past Option 1, then things will get tight for the Pads….until next season, when another round of suitors will no doubt open up.

One thing that’s interesting is that the 4 suitors that seem most viable – and that have marquee prospects to offer – also can reasonably seen as pulling the trigger for Peavy later rather than sooner.

Braves – I just don’t see ‘em being in it next year even with Peavy, and so I see them sticking with their more recent pattern of major deals at trade deadlines, not a pre-season deal in which they give up a package that include 2 of Heyward/Hanson/Schafer. Yes, they have Lillibridge and several other players too, but I don’t see ’em including 2 of the big 3 at this point in time….which means we can beat them in a deal.

Dodgers – they could totally beat us with prospects, and might indeed be just a Peavy away from the faves to win the NL West next year…but I think they’d have to overpay (relative to the Cards) before SD would deal Peavy within the division. And at that price, LA could just go out and get Burnett/Sabathia/Sheets (or pry loose someone else) and keep their prospects.

Red Sox and Yanks – Yeah, they could each offer terrific prospects. If they do, I say we let ‘em, rather than try to match. But if I’m either team, I’d rather hold out and try to add Sabathia/Sheets/Burnett via my monster budget, and keep those terrific prospects in the fold. So yeah, they could be players…..but probably later rather than sooner, and maybe not at all.

That leaves the Cards and the rest of the pack. If someone else wants to offer a Rasmus/Buchholz/Heyward/Kershaw type prospect, more power to ’em….but until they do, I think we should go after Peavy with guys like I mention above.

by siddfynch on Oct 19, 2008 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the only downside to taking Greene too

is he is only signed for one year. His numbers away from PetCo are pretty good .270/.318/.490/.808. He is a good definsive SS not as good as Izturis but more than makes up for it with the bat. He is about the same price as you would pay for Furcal with more power and a better glove. I would love his OBP to be higher of course but his power makes up for some of that.

"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum

by nomar34 on Oct 19, 2008 1:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I concur with you sir

Peavy DOES make the rotation better…however, trading him would create some holes that Lunhow/MO have worked hard through the draft and whatnot over the last few years to fill. It also makes the organization more or less dependent on Jones working out as a major leaguer or resigning Ankiel in a few seasons. It costs the Cardinals at least two guys who have the potential to be solid starters (some combo of the advanced arms in the system) and possibly their best closing option (Perez, of course). That is quite a bit of potential production to give up. It would be a huge risk to make this deal, and it could just as easily go this route, given that Peavy has thrown a ton of innings already in his career and has had some arm problems before, all combined with an unorthodox delivery.

"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.

by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 19, 2008 2:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

salary matrix

the $20 M to spend assumes we stay at same payroll level?

I recall hearing at some point last offseason the Cards would consider a bump to $105 M or even $115 M. Probably this is TLR’s motivation in pushing in the PD for the ownership to make a ‘commitment’ to winning. Of course Dewitt likes to talk in terms of season end level not preseason level so its hard to say what that would equate to in the offseason

Greene is bad and expensive, unless we consider last season an aberation. If he’s part of the deal, it makes Peavy much less of a bargain….or as someone suggested they gotta take Pinata.

by vances law on Oct 19, 2008 2:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah, I assumed

a $105 M payroll level which is about the same as last year and about the same as LB speculated when he created the roster matrix. It could go up, and maybe they’ll make some accomodations to do so but we haven’t heard anything of the sort as yet. Also, if they are willing to raise it, doesn’t that make signing Derek Lowe an option that would also allow us to keep the 3 players? If we could raise the payroll for Peavy, couldn’t we also for a free agent pitcher? My hunch is that teams are going to be a little wary about spending money given the current state of the economy. MLB and its teams have got to be fearful that people aren’t going to be willing to shell out a couple hundred bucks to take the kids to a game and that people may start dropping their cable packages as they tighten their wallets. Therefore, I think it likely that payroll will stay at around the same level.

by chuckb on Oct 19, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

high on lowe too

5 years and 80 million is not where we, or any team in my mind, needs to go. only a couple of teams can afford such risks. obviously, the pads no longer believe they are one such team. i think the cards are in the same boat.

"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension

by sportsman on Oct 19, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

here's an under the radar deal

not an impact deal but teams using their depth to fill other position needs…think its fair?

i know cards are looking for a 2b…hudson is the best left…ellis just resigned for 2 yrs with A’s

my idea:

freese is stuck in the 3b depth chart
eric patterson is stuck in the 2b depth chart with A’s

both have good minor league track records but is getting to their mid 20’s so its now or never for them. A’s throw in a hard thrower like santiago cassilla..top tier stuff but a headcase…duncan can fix him..i compare his stuff wise to a younger dotel

i think it would be solid for both sides

http://web.minorleaguebaseball…&pid=452221

http://web.minorleaguebaseball…&pid=501896

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/…e?playerId=6060

by Asfan4ever723 on Oct 19, 2008 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

all your links are broken.

and your writing style makes it really hard to understand what you are proposing here. Are you suggesting Freese for Patterson? That would be an interesting move. How is Patterson’s defense?

The A’s could definitely use help at 3B.

the enemy's gate is down.

by SleepyCA on Oct 19, 2008 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

didn't Duncan have problems

with fixing another player with top tier stuff, but one that some considered a headcase?

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Oct 19, 2008 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

our focus

should still be middle infield help and bullpen help. the rotation wasn’t the problem this year. peavy’s 6 innings per game will do nothing to alleviate the strain on the pen. and his salary will do nothing to help our middle infield.

"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy

by FutureMan on Oct 19, 2008 3:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good Read over at Fan Graphs about Peavy

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/on-the-block-one-ace/

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 19, 2008 3:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

that's good stuff, Flim

makes the argument that Peavy, while still a good pitcher, wasn’t quite the ace this year most thought him to be. Combine that w/ elbow problems and a contract that’s about to get Carpenter-esque, and it makes the prospect of trading for him somewhat scarier. If our system had more upper level depth or we weren’t burdened w/ Carp’s contract, I’d be less hesitant to make this move but there are a lot of warning signs that should point to us not making the deal.

by chuckb on Oct 19, 2008 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

New Pitching Metric

I just found about this new pitching metric tRA. In short it is weighted system that takes out park factors and defense factors. That is a new stat site that is pretty solid.

http://www.statcorner.com/tRAabout.html

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 19, 2008 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

my thoughts exactly

well put

"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy

by FutureMan on Oct 19, 2008 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As Moooch...

….as I would like to get Peavy, I think the Braves get the job done. Cowever, I think we can trade with the Braves and get Kelly Johnson to settle 2b. Then we can resign Izturis, and spend moolah on Fuentes. That’s what I see happening at this point. Shame, ‘cause Peavy’d bring a lot to this team…

by The MooCow on Oct 19, 2008 3:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Chick-Fil-A

You work them, don’t you?

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Oct 19, 2008 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the arb estimates in the roster matrix look really low.......

6.8m for ankiel, wellemeyer and ludwick combined, is very much a best case scenario for me. i’ve got to allow another 3.2m for arb and see how it goes.

punto or c. izturis for around 4m (ss) and d.reyes or shouse for another 2m (loogey), leaves about 10m. try to move pineiro and kennedy……….

by ball in play on Oct 19, 2008 3:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

amature stab at it

25 Man Roster Payroll
Rotation
1 Peavy $11,000,000
2 Loshe $8,375,000
3 Wainwright $2,600,000
4 Wellemeyer $3,000,000
5 Carpenter $12,000,000

Bullpen
6 (Biemel/Affeldt) $3,000,000
7 (Ohman) $4,000,000
8 Springer $3,500,000
9 Kinney $400,000
10 McClellan $400,000
11 Franklin $2,500,000
12 Perez $400,000

Infield
13 Pujols $13,000,000
14 Lopez $4,000,000
15 Greene $6,500,000
16 Glauss $12,250,000
17 Molina $3,250,000

Bench
18 LaRue $1,000,000
19 Miles $1,600,000
20 Ryan $400,000

Outfield
20 Schumaker $500,000
21 Ankiel $4,000,000
22 Ludwick $4,000,000

Bench
24 Mather $400,000
25 Barton $400,000

Eat
Kennedy $2,000,000
Pinerio $3,000,000

Total Payroll: $107,475,000

by Knighttime on Oct 19, 2008 3:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

And then the following year we have Glaus coming off the books, as well as JP if he isn’t dealt, and possibly Ankiel.

"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."

by SoonerfanTU on Oct 19, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

is this meant to be '09's payroll?

b/c if it is, it’s way off. First of all, Kennedy is owed $4 M and Pineiro $7.5 M — an increase of $6.5 M. Pujols is owed $16 M, not $13 M. Carp is owed another $2 M, $14M rather than $12M. There are $5 M more in increases. We would save a little over a million on Lohse’s contract and I suspect that Miles will make closer to $2.5 to $3 M based on last year’s success and the fact that he’s in the final year of arbitration-eligibility. Maybe Lopez signs for $1 M less so that balances out…maybe. Oh, and Peavy’s only owed $8M rather than $11 M.

In any case, your $107.5 M payroll is really closer to $115 M — a full $10 M higher than last year’s. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that ownership is going to increase the payroll by $10 M — and that doesn’t even include minor leaguers who have to have their major-league contract picked up when they’re called up. Add another $2M or so for that.

by chuckb on Oct 19, 2008 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok here we go

Kennedy & Pinerio – those numbers are classified as “eat” – assumed $$$’s we weould need to absorb to move them each in a trade. ball park estimate but that you for being so picky.

Pujols defers $3M of his salary, so only $13M hits 2009 payroll. per Cots: $12M ($3M/year, 2007-10) deferred without interest, to be paid in 10 installments of $1.2M from 2020 to 2029

Carp defers $2M of his salary, so only $12M hits 2009 payroll. per Cots: $8M deferred without interest ($2M annually, 2009-12)

Peavy is owed $11M in 2009. per cots: 2009 salary increases to $11M with Cy Young during 2005-07 (i.e CY Young win 2007)

You can quabble over some of the numbers all you want – but they are probably pretty damn close.

by Knighttime on Oct 19, 2008 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To get rid of Pineiro and Kennedy

we’d likely have to eat all the salary. That’s especially true for Kennedy. We might be able to get rid of eating only half of Pineiro’s salary. The deferred money is universally counted in that year’s payroll. Whether it should be or not is debatable, but that’s how teams count it. Yes, it artificially inflates how much money goes out. That’s the way they do it. Oh, and you’re right about Peavy, I missed that. Add $2 M.

Nonetheless, your payroll is several million dollars less than how the team would report it. They’re not going to suddenly change the way they calculate payroll. For example, last year’s $103 M (or whatever it was) included the deferred money. You can’t just take it out now to help you make your argument.

by chuckb on Oct 19, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

disagree on AK and JP

especially true for AK.

Thanks for the clairification on deferred dollars and current payroll. I am not an accountant – nor a payroll expert. I am just keeping a running total on my own to maybe predict what are realistic moves and what might be out of the question.

by Knighttime on Oct 19, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"You can’t just take it out now to help you make your argument."

This seems like a very unfair statement – it’s pretty clear from Knighttime’s response that he was reporting the numbers as closely as he saw them, using decisions that appear to have been made in good-faith. It’s fair to point out that his methods are incorrect for one part of it, but everything he did seems in good faith…..so to accuse him of washing the numbers to suit his agenda seems a last-word comments that’s a little over the top.

by siddfynch on Oct 19, 2008 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is not that hard to deal in the realm of facts

Why take guesses when facts would be easier to achieve? His numbers were off and they are not that hard to find.

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 19, 2008 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

my numbers were not off

my accounting method was.

by Knighttime on Oct 19, 2008 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

impact bat and closer are missing

tony larussa will not be a fan of that lineup.

what happens in 2010 when 5 of those players get raises worth 12 million. ohman and biemil are going to want multiyear deals so that 7 million you have there at least goes to then.

that makes the payroll 81.175. You still need to get a CF, 3B, Backup C, 2B, SS, RP, RP, Backup MI. that’s 8 positions and about 3 million per position to cover them.

"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy

by FutureMan on Oct 19, 2008 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

clarify

Thanks for the comment, and I agree with all you said.

I wasn’t trying to propose the lineup as one the cards should have for 2009. It’s just my look at possible impact to payroll if Peavy and Greene were to be added, as well as possible arbitration raises, and costs for possible LH relievers.

not that TLR would like it, I’m not sure I would like it either. chuckb has kindly pointed out the organization counts furure deferred money into current payroll – so the numbers are off a bit anyway.

I don’t have a strong feeling either way on the Peavy deal as I can see both sides of the argument. I find it interesting to read the different opinions on this site from folks that appear to be pretty knowledgable on all things Cardinals.

Listing the payroll was just a stab at a broad view on how much the cards would have to increase the “self-imposed” $100M target – and your point about 2010 and beyond is all part of it.

These are all the questions that I’m sure most people who come to this blog think about. What is the best way to build a team, how much does it cost, how does it affect the future, who is developing in the minors. Many options, many opinions.

by Knighttime on Oct 19, 2008 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

as well as Khalil Greene's $6.5M

and in this crude scenario – hopefully Lopez would only be a 1yr deal

by Knighttime on Oct 19, 2008 3:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Someone convince that Khali Greene

Isn’t one of the ten worst hitters in baseball right now. Dude put up a -21.68 BRAA. 2nd Worst in baseball. Iz2 sucks but he put up a -13.65 BRAA with a better glove.

I know Petco suppresses numbers but the guy can’t even put up a .300 OBP. I promise you will all be bitching up a storm 2 months in the season. I think if Peavy and Greene come in a package you have to think how wins Greene is going to take away from the team.

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 19, 2008 4:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You just need to look at his history

He still—even with a horrible average—has isolated power of 200 points. If Adam Dunn were a shortstop, he would be Khalil Greene. I just can’t see how Greene wouldn’t be an upgrade over Izturis. Peavy gives you significant run prevention, even moreso because our No. 5 (Pineiro) drops off the list (hopefully!). So even on the glove front, it’s not such a big deal.

I think Greene may have had some physical problems that aren’t public. I don’t know how else to explain his decline. Maybe he has V.D. or something. :-o

by Red in Chicago on Oct 19, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Greene would be Dunn

if Greene hit 40 bombs per year and walked 120 times. Last year Greene walked 22 times in 423 PAs. His career walk rate is 6.8%. Greene has 84 career homers — just barely more than Dunn has hit in the last 2 seasons. His career ISO is .179. Last year it was a whopping .126. He’s only had an ISO greater than .200 once — in 2007. Greene isn’t Adam Dunn on his best day.

BTW, right now Pineiro isn’t our #5, he’s our #4. Peavy doesn’t replace Pineiro, and even if he did, he wouldn’t replace the $7.5 M we owe Joel.

by chuckb on Oct 19, 2008 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Greene re-post

I just posted this above, but it really belongs better down here (didn’t see this new burst)

*********************************************************************************************

by siddfynch on Oct 19, 2008 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously he isn't Adam Dunn

Because there are no shortstops built like Adam Dunn. Greene’s average over six seasons is .248. His average slugging percentage is .427—and that’s playing half his games at Petco. If you can’t see the offensive advantage over Izturis at .260/.331, I can’t do any more to help. Hey, I don’t think he would be a wonder-worker, but he is potentially a very viable answer for what to do about our horrendous production at short.

As to Pineiro, you can call him No. 4 if you want, but he would be the guy taken off the roster if we signed Peavy. It makes no sense to keep Pineiro and trade Wellemeyer. And yeah, we would need to ship salary to get rid of him, or put him in the pen.

by Red in Chicago on Oct 19, 2008 5:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The thing is, Greene doesn't walk like Dunn

he’s more like if Vlad were a shorstop, except Vlad makes contact when he flails, thus getting a decent BA.

It’s like if Andruw Jones was a shortstop: And that is not a comforting thought.

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Oct 19, 2008 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kahlil Green

He is what he is……. If you want a complete SS, go get Hanley Ramirez. Otherwise no SS is going to do everything well

Green Career average Zone Rating(I took the years he actually played full time) .853
Cesar Izturis zone rating (Everyone thought he had a pretty good year) .850
Cesar Izturis career high zone rating .881
Kahlil Green career high zone rating .860

Green’s career average SLG (minus this year and his short seasons) .443 Would rank 4th in the NL this year

Green has value, it just depends if he is trending up or down at this point of his carrer. Now I think if you get him out of the big NL West parks he may hit a bit better playing more games at Wrigley, Cinci, and Houston.

Thanks my take

by ICbirdfan on Oct 19, 2008 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

my post was ugly, poor spelling......

Basically I don’t think Kahlil Green is a bad player if he is healthy. I don’t think he was healthy in 2008 and he got in a funk he could not shake.

People too often try to pick on things guys can’t do without looking at what they do well and what they can do a least at a league average clip.

Look I want Hanley Ramirez at SS but so does everyother MLB team. Otherwise all the SS in baseball have flaws.

I think Kahlil Green could be pretty good given health and confidence. HE IS NOT A GRIT PLAYER, MEANING HE HAS TRUE TALENT……..

by ICbirdfan on Oct 19, 2008 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would go nutso over HanRam

but I wouldn’t say all other SS in baseball have their flaws besides Hanley. I for one would be ecstatic with Stephen Drew. He might not be perfect, but Ramirez has his flaws too, unless you are discounting defense.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Oct 19, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

although, hasn't hanley pulled his defense up to around league average?

at least according to some of the metrics. don’t remember where i read this though, sorry.

by mattybobo on Oct 19, 2008 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I wouldn't complain even if he was even a little below league average as SS

because he’s a top shelf hitter, and he’s not even in his prime. Even the Marlins saw him worth locking up long term with a nice contract.

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

by jillsinmo on Oct 19, 2008 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe I should say rewarding him with a nice contract...they control him

for several years anyway.

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

by jillsinmo on Oct 19, 2008 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hanley

makes more errors than the average SS, but also makes many plays that no one else can. His RZR BIZ+OOZ looks better than average.

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

by giveml on Oct 20, 2008 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, his upside

is juan encarnacion, with cesar izturis’ glove at short. His downside is cesar izturis’ offense with cesar izturis’ glove. For maybe $2M and a minor prospect we could take that chance.

FWIW, our hitting coaches were able to get cesar izturis to post the highest plate discipline of his career; they could do the same with Greene.

the enemy's gate is down.

by SleepyCA on Oct 19, 2008 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it is just a risk

no one has a perfect crystal ball, so greene may or may not be a player worth having. his situation is much like spivey, ponson, etc who have a major flaw of some kind and are correspondingly “cheap”. it is up to mo to make a good risk-reward decision. i would not mind having greene in some deal that made the glaus-rolen deal look like the norm for mo’s crystal ball!

"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension

by sportsman on Oct 19, 2008 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How would Pineiro be taken off the roster?

he has a guaranteed contract worth $7.5 M and a guaranteed spot in the rotation. The rotation would be Peavy, Wainwright, Wellemeyer, Lohse and Pineiro. Do you think they’d release Pineiro and use Boggs instead? They wouldn’t trade either Pineiro or Wellemeyer.

by chuckb on Oct 19, 2008 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chris Carpenter.

I know, you think he died. He didn’t.

by Red in Chicago on Oct 19, 2008 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what is that supposed to mean?

Chris Carpenter is definitely in the rotation next year? I would doubt that even Carpenter would say that, but it seems a lot of people are taking it as a given.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Oct 19, 2008 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How Bout

Carp for Closer?

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 19, 2008 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am more of the

Let’s wait and see how Carp feels in spring training if/when he throws a significant amount of innings before we expect anything out of him.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Oct 19, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All of us around here

Are like someone that has had their heart broken to many times so is weary when their star crossed ex wants to get back together. It sounds great in principal but just doesn’t want to put themselves out their again to get hurt. So we are afraid to risk anything anymore because we remembered what it felt like to get hurt.

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 19, 2008 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All of this is fine.

But if the Cardinals acquire Peavy and Carpenter is in the rotation, Pinata is the odd-man out. That’s all I’m saying. It’s not unreasonable at all.

by Red in Chicago on Oct 19, 2008 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

how?

how can we manage to pay carp, keep him on the roster, pay jp and improve significantly in any other area, like MI or the pen? who wants the pinata for 7.5M? one way or the other we are going to pay for pinata, whether he pitches for us or not—same with ak. that >$10M sunk between them. just don’t see us being able to unload either.

"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension

by sportsman on Oct 19, 2008 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

solanus on carpenter:

“Carpenter is, of course, the sure thing, the pick of the litter. Intelligent, witty, gorgeous, experienced: everybody lusts after her, but she is yours for the night.”

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2006/6/16/92517/6587#1325590

Sadly, she disappeared for a year and a half after the prom. Got your hopes up with a short rendezvous this last summer, but then left again to parts unknown.

Toast her with a nice glass of scotch and hope she shows up again next year, but don’t stay home saturday night waiting…

the enemy's gate is down.

by SleepyCA on Oct 19, 2008 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's nice to see someone remembers

“But I want to say thank you to you. I haven’t had an orthodox career, and I’ve wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time I didn’t feel it. But this time I feel it! And I can’t deny the fact that you LIKE me! Right now, you LIKE me! Thank you!”

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

by Solanus on Oct 20, 2008 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's nice to have prospects, but...

just go and look at a top prospects list from 10-15 years ago.

Also remember that these guys were all considered very,very good prospects at this time.

Now go to the list from ten years ago and see how many of these guys wound up becoming stars.

Even if you’ve got a top-10 prospect, your odds aren’t much better than even in terms of getting a bonafide star. If you can get someone like Jake Peavy with SDP throwing in some cash and it’s not a “Rasmus-Perez-Garcia-Ottavino-Jones” type deal, I’d take it.

Hell, if they’d eat a good bit (like half) the contract, I’d offer Rasmus and Anderson.

by craig3410 on Oct 20, 2008 11:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

and I'm assuming they throw in Greene, too.

by craig3410 on Oct 20, 2008 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, they all didn't become stars

but a pretty good chunk of the players named had anywhere from great, good, to useful careers.

One reason I just don’t want Rasmus traded is because I’ve seen him compared to Grady Sizemore. You all do know how excellent Grady really is? He’s sort of obscure, playing there in Cleveland, but trust me. He’s a stud five-tool major leaguer who already has a nice career and he’s not yet in his prime. I’m willing to wait and even willing to take a chance that he may not end up being that good. They have already sunk a huge bonus on him when they signed him. I assume they did that because HE was the player they wanted. If they are to build from within, he’s got to be the player that takes over center field. He just has to be. And if he ends up being only as good as Brian Giles or J. D. Drew, that’s okay too. It’s nice to have solid players, just under superstar level too. They win games for you too.

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

by jillsinmo on Oct 20, 2008 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs