Tuesday Notes
by DanUpBaby on Oct 21, 2008 9:15 AM EDT
Email
PrintSlow times in Birdland, with Peavy apparently out of the Cardinals' plans as quickly as he hopped into them. For Friday: a look at RBI champions and the MVP voters who love them. For Tuesday: notes (sans bullet points, because I have no idea how to get this thing to assign several paragraphs to one bullet.)
Well, that's that. One option declined—via a letter to his agent, which is a pretty clear indicator of his place in the Cardinals' plans—and now we won't have Swamp Gas to kick around anymore. Seriously, what happened? The Big 3 story, so promising in Moneyball, will read like a really bad naturalist novel at this rate, with everybody falling into a life of dissipation and ennui in the streets for no apparent reason.
There's Hudson, toiling in obscurity for no ultimate goal; Zito, adrift and irrelevant after attaining vast riches; and now Mulder, unable to diagnose what has taken everything away from him. (I've written a treatment, to be stretched out by Dreiser. Everybody dies of the consumption at the end, and Billy Beane stares into the hazy distance, where Jack Cust is running laps, and wonders about the futility of it all.)
Here's what everyone's going to remember: up to the first half of 2004, he was Mark Mulder; from then on he used to be Mark Mulder.
| GS | IP | K/9 | BB/9 | HR/9 | K:BB | ERA | |
| Mulder | 135 | 909 | 6.1 | 2.5 | 0.82 | 2.42 | 3.69 |
| Sullied | 68 | 405 | 4.8 | 3.5 | 1.29 | 1.37 | 5.29 |
That's the way it was—eerily so, given how these arbitrary-line splits usually play out—but it leaves out a lot of things that will stay with me about Mulder the Cardinal. The disgust over the trade; the veiled excitement every time he did something ace-like; the bizarre, unexplainable decline of his fastball, with no apparent physical cause; the way things would pick up for a game only for Mulder to disappear, once more, into the background. Splits and strikeout rates are enough to say he disappointed, but the how is what will stick with me.
That last appearance said all I could possibly say about Mark Mulder. There was the surprise (the anger, really) that he would pitch at all, there was the excitement when he struck Rollins out, and then there was nothing. I wasn't around for the Ankiel game in 2000 like I'm around now, and as a result I can not remember feeling worse about the way a baseball game was unfolding than I did at that moment. I can't guess at what Mulder was thinking, there, but as he stood there on the mound waiting to be pulled I wondered if he was wondering if it was over, or why it was over.
I was not a fan of the Mulder trade—I'm pondering that as an epitaph, if you're wondering—but it's obvious the guy did everything he could to go out there and pitch against a completely inscrutable issue, and when he stood on that mound and wondered, like everybody else, what had happened to his arm—what else he could possibly have done for it—I became a fan of Mark Mulder. If he makes it back next year I'll be watching.
The United Cardinals Bloggers are doing a Question of the Day series all through October, and at Fungoes Pip posed an interesting question: what would you change about the Busch Stadium experience? Lots of interesting responses, ranging from more Team Fredbird to something to replace the old Cardinals museum.
My suggestion, short of building a time machine and carrying Busch Stadium II through it, echoes one of Pip's: fire whomever it is who thought cutting the "Everybody clap your hands!" segment of the Cha Cha Slide out and replacing half of the organ cues with it was a good idea. Then, if it's within my jurisdiction as Head Suggester, fire the guy who wrote the Cha Cha Slide, for good measure. Would you like to know something terrible?
We're in the Cha Cha Slide wikipedia article. I'm not exaggerating all that much when I say this cheapens the 2006 NLCS for me.
Finally, Russ Springer wants back, as you may already have read in the all-seeing Rotoworld box to my right (is it my right? Am I facing out of the blog? I think I am.) I still can't adjust to the fact that Springer has been a dominant relief pitcher for two years running. It is either a testament to Dave Duncan's magical powers or the idea that it is impossible to predict the year-to-year results of 95% of the world's relief pitchers, and I'm placing my bets on the second thing.
How improbable was this? Before he became impossible to hit Springer gave up ten home runs in various swingman and set-up roles five times, which strikes me as nearly impossible to do. It's like losing twenty games: you have to be a pretty good pitcher, right? Only Springer really wasn't—it took him seven years to put up an ERA better than the league average, but he kept getting the call. Aspiring pitching prospects should not try this route to eventual relief stardom at home.
But all these managers and teams, including La Russa and Duncan during his ill-fated tenure as a member of the 2003 Cardinals, saw something in him, and apparently this was it. I don't know how he's doing it, and I don't know if I'll be able to rationalize these results with my feelings any time soon, but who are the Cardinals to turn away their best reliever?
243 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i wouldn't mind bringing springer back
he look good for the most part and if he comes at a discount why not, i still believe you can’t have to much pitching
"Textbooks are Soviet propaganda" - Rev. Jerry Falwell
I'm all for Springer
.. but not Izzy. JMo just needs to tell TLR that he can’t bring both of the gray beards back. And the one whose arm is apt to completely detach from his body in the very near future is the odd man out. Can you say closer by committee? jjray can. Springer, Motte, Perez.
Springer isn't going to close.....
I won’t argue whether that is right or wrong, but it won’t happen.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
by SoonerfanTU on Oct 21, 2008 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
+100
If I were to answer that question – What would you change about the Busch Stadium experience? – getting rid of “Everybody clap your hands” would top my list.
Same subject, different verse. I beg to differ with you, red baron. The symmetry of Busch is one of the things that I love about it. Loved it in old Busch too (a perfectly symmetrical circle). To each his own I guess.
by cardsgirl95 on Oct 21, 2008 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
I hang my head in shame
whenever I hear that line watching a game on TV. We call ourselves a baseball town and play that smeg over the PA? I can hear the Cubs fans laughing from here in Seattle.
Tracking the Cards' playoff chances daily: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/Cardinalspsodds.php
by ColinMacLeod on Oct 21, 2008 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
All...
…that I know is that I don’t really remember the Cards using that bit too much during the 06 NLCS. I remember the Mets using it in Shea ad nauseum. When we defeated the Mets, we won “everybody clap your hands.” As far as I can remember we’ve been using it since then, from World Series and through the 07 and 08 seasons. SO! Everytime I’m at Busch and they play that, it only serves to remind me of the unbridled joy of winning the pennant, so I clap along like a homer everytime.
Now the story of a wealthy family who lost everything, and the one son who had no choice but to keep them all together...it's Arrested Development.
Since it is unlikely that
“Everybody Clap Your Hands” is going to disappear any time soon, I need to look at it from your vantage point – we OWN it now. Because right now when I hear that song, all I can think is “Ick – the Mets!”
I like Bernies last sentence in the linked column:
“I wonder what the reaction will be among Cardinals fans if Peavy ends up with the Cubs, Astros or Brewers?”
I wonder what our reaction would be now had one of those teams landed Mulder…
You'll like even more
Rasmus shining while Peavy will go on the DL after being acquired by the Cubs..
GO CARDS!!!
Bernie really sounds like a fool making that kind of statement
Has he even looked to see what the Scrubs and Astros have in their farm systems? Did he bother to consider the albatross contracts of Ramirez, Fukudome and Soriano already worn as a necklace around Hendry’s neck? Brewers could do it, sure. But they’re trying to keep either Sabathia or Sheets—and they already gave a pretty good chunk of their farm for Sabathia. I think a random poster from this site would have better musings than Bernie on any given day.
by Red in Chicago on Oct 21, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
I would agree with the title of your post Red in Chicago but...
I would leave off the “making that kind of statement” part….
To me he just generally sounds like a fool.
"All baseball fans can be divided into two groups: those who come to batting practice and the others. Only those in the first category have much chance of amounting to anything."--Thomas Boswell
Part of his narrative
He’s been pushing the whole “NL Central rivals make moves and Cards must keep pace” theme for months now. This allows him to keep regurgitating that flawed logic rather than write something insightful or interesting.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
*shrugs* kinda have to agree with the guy
when the cubs/brews make big moves and the cards, after 2/3s of a decade of dominance, are now looking up at them…
"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"
The move to be made was internal
I would argue that if TLR weren’t so stubborn, we could’ve been looking either the Cubs or the Brew Crew in the eyes during the home stretch. All he had to do was utilize the impact bullpen arms in AAA rather than being overly loyal to both Franklin and Izzy. (I don’t disagree with loyalty; it’s the over-loyalty that I have a problem with.)
I would say that I am very torn on the question of Peavy and a column breaking down the pluses and minuses of such a trade would have been interesting (even if folks have already done it better than him here at VEB).
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
Perez wouldn't have been perfect in those saves Izzy blew
And reversing all of those blown saves wouldn’t create a number of wins equal to the number of blown saves reversed. We finished the season 11.5 back.
You can’t hang all of this on Izzy and Franklin, and thus, by extension, La Russa.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Not all of it
No, I can’t. You are right. TLR’s whining about an impact player makes me irrational.
But, I feel that had we been playing closer in the standings with the Brewers, the end of the season may have gone differently. I realize our blown save stat includes non-closer situations, but Franklin’s 8 blown saves were very big. I think we packed it in early (as evidenced by some of TLR’s lineups as well as some less than stellar efforts). That’s, of course, pure speculation. It’s also worth noting that Ankiel’s and Mather’s injuries likely would’ve caused a fade no matter what.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
Re Mulder
It’s no mystery what happened: He tore his rotator cuff and, like all pitchers who have had surgery to repair a torn rotator cuff, his career ended with a thud. Jocketty was an idiot for guaranteeing him $13M when the track record of pitchers having this procedure is so obvious.
I wish Mulder well in retirement.
Mulder
I remember sitting in the stands before Game 6 of the 2005 NLCS. The Pujols home run (sorry, THE PUJOLS HOME RUN) was still creating a buzz in the park. Mulder came walking in from the ’pen, flanked by Molina and Duncan, looking like he was ready to battle with Oswalt.
I remember thinking – “this is it. This is why we traded away Haren. Haren is good, but Mulder is our big game guy – a Johnson to Carpetner’s Schilling, if you will. This game is where he comes up big and validates that trade. This is why Jock pulled the trigger.”
Then Mulder went out and gave up 3 runs, 6 hits and a walk in less than 5 innings, and threw 2 wild pitches. Oswalt, meanwhile, delivered the kind of performance you trade Haren, Barton, and Calero for.
And so it goes.
by Hal Lanier's Pants on Oct 21, 2008 10:49 AM EDT reply actions
+infinite
The Mulder Greek Tragedy in a Nutshell.
"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"
Exactly
Mulder puts in a stellar game in that Game Six, and I think a lot of the commentary about that trade gets reversed.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
+1
That is the #1 memory of Mulder I have—coming up short after Pujols’s blast off of Lidge.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
Mark Mulder was a Cardinal?
I can’t believe he started 68 games since the middle of ‘04. My guess would have been somewhere around five. I remember the off season when we traded for him Tim Hudson was the big name being thrown around and I was upset we missed out on him and down right pissed when we settled for the second banana. Damaged good no less, and we knew it. I mean come on if Billie Beane tells you your offer for Hudson isn’t good enough but he’ll take that haul for Mulder RUN!!!
For the sake of my sanity I won’t even go into the two year extension. As for wishing him luck in the future, hell no. I’m still holding a grudge against Andres Galarraga, so if Mulder becomes an All-Star again I might go postal. Well at least now we can start looking forward to a Mulderless rotation. What do you know the more things change the more they stay the same.
Hmm, what I would change about the Busch Stadium experience? How about an some sort of Ozzie Smith robot doing back-flips before games, that would be cool. Hey Az, I think I found you a new summer job.
"Do what you want to the women and children but leave me alone"- George Carlin
by That's a Winner on Oct 21, 2008 11:05 AM EDT reply actions
Just to tweak your sanity
because I am a cold-hearted bastard, you know they released Miles last off-season, too.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
but resigning him
was probably the best move made by Mo last season not involving someone named Glaus.
Miles gave us more bang for our buck than any other middle infielder out there.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Um, signing Lohse
:)
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
Lohse can't play the infield.
Sorry to be nitpicky.
Carlos and Victor Zambrano have exactly the same number of career postseason wins. Who would have thought?
Well at least now we can start looking forward to a Mulderless rotation.
I have forgotten what a rotation with mulder is.
"All baseball fans can be divided into two groups: those who come to batting practice and the others. Only those in the first category have much chance of amounting to anything."--Thomas Boswell
A rotation with Mulder
Is a rotation that doesn’t rotate. It spins once then explodes, doing great harm to everyone in the vicinity.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
You know what?
IF we aren’t going after Peavy (who knows what we are doing, with all the double talk that comes out of the front office), then Rasmus had better turn into one of the 5 best players in all of baseball. That is what Jake Peavy is. Add in the fact that Jake is signed for 5 more years, which is less than any stud free agent pitcher (see Sabathia) will accept in today’s market, and we have really kind of a no-brainer deal.
We can come a LOT closer to finding another Colby Rasmus than we can Jake Peavy.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
Pujols, Hanley Ramirez,
A-Rod, Grady Sizemore, David Wright, Evan Longoria, BJ Upton, CC, Brandon Webb, Tim Lincecum.
There are some players who are either better than Peavy or are much better values than him or both. And that’s without even thinking about it.
And this BS about Colby having to be a top player or else is ridiculous. Its easier to find Colby Rasmus than Jake Peavy? As if five tool stud prospects grow on trees somewhere.
Plenty of teams would pass if given the option to acquire Peavy right now with his current contract. If teams were offered Rasmus, not one team would turn down the opportunity.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
top 5? really?
Here are a list of the players that had more winshares than Peavy this year…in the NL ONLY!!!
Berkman, Pujols, Beltran, Ramirez, Utley, Wright, Reyes, McLouth, Lincecum, Gonzalez, Ludwick, Ethier, Ramirez, Uggla, Braun, Howard, Delgado, Jones, Soto, Lee, DeRosa, Holliday, Fielder, Giles, Webb, Kemp, Doumit, Martin, Winn, Drew, Glaus, McCann, Molina, Santana, Burrell, Victorino, Guzman, Haren, Pence, Hardy, Votto, Johnson, Young, Cantu, Kendall, Cameron, Ramirez, Phillips, Hamels, Hart, Iannetta, Ross, Lee, Bay, Werth, Dempster, Oswalt, Cook, Dunn, LaRoche, Hawpe, Jackson, Volquez, Rowand, Sheets, Billingsle, Snyder, Zambrano, Lowe, Fukudome, Hudson, Nolasco, Weeks, Schumaker, Sabathia, Lewis, Gerut, Loney
and in 2007…
Wright, Pujols, Cabrera, Holliday, Ramirez, Utley, Rollins, Fielder, Gonzalez, Beltran, Jones, Byrnes, Howard, Tulowitzki, Lee, Reyes, Berkman, Martin, Helton, Ramirez, Rowand, Hart, Lee
and in 2006…
well he wasnt in the top 100…
Peavy is good but he isnt even a top 5 pitcher in the NL
Santana, Lincecum, Webb, Sabathia, Oswalt, Zambrano, Haren, WW, Hamels…then maybe Peavy
"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum
ok this is where the sabermetrics can get out of hand.
Winshares or no, Jody Gerut does no compare to Jake Peavy. Come on people – seriously? Rickie Weeks? Ryan Doumit? Where did you even get this list? Those comparisons are laughable.
Even by ignoring
all of those players, Peavy still won’t crack the top 10 of best players in the league, but I get what you are saying…lol, Jody Gerut.
Ryan Howard: one of the most Statistically Outstanding players of all time
by RunninRedbird on Oct 21, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
What is so shabby about a CF
who had a 128 OPS+ and was third in the NL in OPS behind only Beltran and McLouth when compared to CFs who played 100 games or more? Especially one who played more than half his games in the most difficult hitters park in baseball? His best defensive comparables are Jim Edmonds and Mike Cameron.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
those arent really comparisons
it is just a list of people that had more win shares than Peavy in previous years and a CF with .296/.351/.494 as is pretty valuable as is a catcher with .318/.357/.501 and maybe more valuable than Peavy last year in a down year…obviously anyone would rather have Jake Peavy than the players you mention in most years. my point was that Peavy is NOT a top 5 player or even a top 5 pitcher in the NL. furthermore no one with half a mind looks at one statistic, whether Win Shares or RBI, and judges a player based solely on that. so because Jody Gerut has one statistic better than Jake Peavy sabermetrics are “getting out of hand?” Corey Patterson had more triples than Albert Pujols too but i don’t think anyone would say he is a better player based on one statistic… get a clue, man…
and Jody Guert was quite a bit better than our CF this year on offense, so don’t make too much fun. that is were people who dont look at sabermetrics get out of hand you look at a name and come to a conclusion without looking at work they actually do.
"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum
Even IF Peavy
is one of the top 5 in baseball (He’s not, see above comments), he still costs WAY more than Rasmus who has legit All-Star potential. Don’t forget, even though Peavy is signed for 5 more years, we would have a cheap Rasmus for 6. Also, hitters tend to be healthy more reliably than pitchers.
Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?
by thegodfather on Oct 21, 2008 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
You're missing the point
- it’s STILL incredibly underrated how anti-durable throwing 95 makes your arm. ERA+ leaders from 2003, 5 years ago:
Pedro Martinez (pumpkin)
Jason Schmidt (pumpkin)
Mark Prior (pumpkin)
Kevin Brown (pumpkin)
Brandon Webb (hey he’s an ace)
Tim Hudson (pumpkin)
Esteban Loaiza (pumpkin)
Curt Schilling (pumpkin)
Roy Halladay (uber-ace)
Mark Mulder (pumpkin)
I’m not feelin the 5:1 Pumpkin:Ace ratio. Of course the “lucky” two were similar “ace in prime” status…..unfortunately there were three similar others that didn’t quite make it. I know many of these guys aren’t totally comparable as they’re older and they just aged, but the point is the best pitchers in the league are very likely NOT to be the best pitchers in the league 5 years later. You can count on AT LEAST one completely mediocre year from a pitcher over the course of 5 years, likely more, and the definite possibility that their career can basically end at any point.
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
the two aces
are also sinker-ballers which is a lot easier on your arm than what Peavy throws…slider/cutter
"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum
look at their relative ages
pedro – old.
schmidt – old.
brown – uber-old.
schilling – old.
peavy is 27.
Pedro and Schmidt
weren’t so old, agreed on the other two.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Hudson, Mulder, Prior yeah they were old too
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
Any way you slice it
Investing in pitching is risky. I don’t understand why people sometimes can’t accept that basic premise. People can contort themselves in pretzels trying to explain why pitcher x is different, and it probably is true that some pitchers are more likely to sustain performance than others. To me, it’s still a little like saying playing blackjack is safer than playing roulette.
It doesn’t mean you don’t ever invest in them, but when you do you need to accept that it is a gamble. Sometimes gambles pay off, and sometimes you are driving home broke and eating ramen noodles for a month.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 21, 2008 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
it's players like the Colby Rasmuses
who turn into the Jake Peavies.
If Peavy was Johan Santana or Brandon Webb or Roy Halladay it’d be different, but he’s not a flawless pitcher. Rasmus is about as good a prospect as there is in all of baseball, and by virtue of being cheap he frees the Cardinals up to go after the players that really are Johan Santana or Brandon Webb or Roy Halladay.
Bingo
What people don’t realize is that the Cards aren’t (weren’t) considering having either Peavy or Rasmus.
You either a) get Peavy, lose Rasmus and other plus prospects or b) lose Peavy, keep Rasmus and other spects, and have money to work with for improving the other holes in the team.
If the choice is to have either Peavy or Furcal/Rasmus/spects…I’ll take the latter, thanks.
But, how do we do that?
The free agent market sucks, and is going to get nothing but worse into the future.
Teams are getting smart and renegotiating contracts before their players come up for FA.
It is great to have Rasmus and a lot of money to go get a pitcher with, but if there are no pitchers to get, then we can have all the money in the world and it won’t matter.
My point was simple. We have boatloads of talented outfielders both at the ML level and in the minors. We even have 2 young 3rd basemen that can probably converted to RF or LF if needed. What our organization does not have is ANY, and I mean ANY potential aces anywhere in the system. Peavy carries more value, and provides a bigger upgrade to this team than Rasmus will over the next few years. Sure we lose Rasmus, but we replace him with Jay, Jones, Luddy, Mather, Schumaker, Duncan, Ankiel, Robinson, etc….
If we fail to acquire Peavy, then who do we replace him with? Todd? Mortenson? Garcia? Ottavino?
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
We don't replace him
because we never had him. As for your assertion that Peavy represents a bigger upgrade than Rasmus over the course of control we would have over them, there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim.
“Teams are getting smart and renegotiating contracts before their players come up for FA.”
That’s precisely why we should keep Rasmus, he will be one of those players for us! Trading one (or three) of those players for a high cost pitcher isn’t what smart teams do.
“My point was simple. We have boatloads of talented outfielders both at the ML level and in the minors.”
We saw at the end of last season how quickly a surplus can turn into a liability. Our loaded and talented OF saw both Felipe Lopez and Aaron Miles playing there in September. Our bullpen was viewed as our team’s greatest strength coming into this season….we know how that turned out! Its amazing how quickly things can change…that’s why holding onto Rasmus is so important.
“We even have 2 young 3rd basemen that can probably converted to RF or LF if needed.”
Why worry about converting someone into a position they will suck at defensively when we have a great defensive CF who could contribute greatly with the bat as well?
“What our organization does not have is ANY, and I mean ANY potential aces anywhere in the system.”
Ridiculous. There is no way to make this type of claim. Wainwright still has some projection in him, and is plenty good already. Sure, we don’t have a high profile pitching prospect, but who does? We have some guys who could be mid rotation starters fairly soon, and there is plenty of value in that. Pursuing the idea of a “true ace” causes many teams to over reach and pay too much to acquire them. See Erikkkkk Bedard, and our own Mulder, talked about in the post above.
Rasmus’ combo of defense, offense, and speed will make him a more valuable player than Peavy very quickly. Others have outlined above how many players were better than Peavy last year and contributed more to their teams. Rasmus will be in that list, let’s make sure it happens when he’s in our uniform.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Huh?
First, you can’t honestly be serious about being able to replace Rasmus with Chris Duncan or John Jay, can you? I’m not buying the whole “an outfielder is an outfielder, and they are easily replacable — hell, lets just move our third basemen out there.” Miles pitched an inning this year, didn’t he? Doesn’t mean its a good idea, or that you will get similar performace. I’m not saying Rasmus is going to be the next Willie Mays, but he might be the next Beltran. And I don’t think anyone would seriously argue that we could trade 5 years of young, cost controlled Beltran simply because we could replace him with Skip Schumaker or Brett Wallace. Have you seen Wallace, by the way? Not to make fun of the guy, but I don’t think he’s cut out to play any position that requires speed.
Your first sentence sums it up, doesn’t it? The fact that the free agent market is going to get worse is precisely the reason to hold on to young talent. You grow it from within. I agree that trading from a position of strength is a great way to improve a team, but why trade your best, youngest player for someone at the height of their earning and playing potential — there’s no where to go but down. We don’t even know what Colby can do — lets find that out first before we throw it away for someone who will do nothing but eat up a chunk of our salary and get worse over the next 5 years. Buy low, sell high. Not the reverse.
by Ray Lankford on Oct 21, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
the next Beltran
would be pretty damn sweet—although hopefully without all the underappreciative fans and accusations that he doesn’t try hard enough or something. if Colby becomes our Beltran, I would be ecstatic. I also think of him as possibly our Grady Sizemore, which is no less awesome. i say the kid should be mostly off limits, including a possible Peavy scenario (which of course is probably a moot point by now…)
Ummmm
You can’t compare players of different races. Rasmus is white, his ceiling is the next Jim Edmonds.
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
*didn't read the Sizemore part......whatever can't call him Beltran
Question is, can he keep hitting like he did last year so he can be white AND gritty?
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
oh crap, you're right about the race thing...
maybe he’ll be the next Darin Erstad? did Colby ever punt in college or high school?
and i’ll point out that you compare Skippy with Cost-K. japanese players are intriguing, cross-cultural phenoms whose pure fun-factor and hype carry their teams to their very destiny, winning the world series (or so pre-2008 sports illustrated would have us believe…)
Skip is just a white guy.
See I'm not comping Schu
I’m not saying he’ll be the next Fukudome, I’m saying he’s a shade better. Despite their similar season stats they’re very different players because one is white and one is Japanese.
Rasmus may or may not be as good as Beltran, but he can’t be the next Beltran it’s against the rules.
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
Jason Marquis=Sean Green as a hitter and Koufax without a curve or talent on the mound
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
His bref/bpro page address had "Youkike" in it for a long time, first 5 of last name last 2 of first name standard format...
And according to this page I’d say he and Ryan Braun have a chance to be the next Joe Bennett or Phil Cooney.
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
1/2 true
from the religious stand point yes, but the Greek nationality makes it much more difficult. Milt Pappas was a pitcher, Alex Kampouris 2B, George Theodore OF, Jim Campanis, OF. none compair to youk.
Nick Markakis owns
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
Sizemore wikipedia article...
The trade Cleveland Made for Sizemore is possibly one of the best of the past decade.
On June 27, 2002, Sizemore was part of a six-player trade that sent him from the Montreal Expos to the Cleveland Indians. Sizemore was dealt with Cliff Lee, Brandon Phillips, and Lee Stevens, in exchange for Bartolo Colón and Tim Drew.
What a trade for Cleveland. If only they had stuck with Phillips a little longer.
"All baseball fans can be divided into two groups: those who come to batting practice and the others. Only those in the first category have much chance of amounting to anything."--Thomas Boswell
might I add...
it is the reason we don’t do the Peavy trade.
"All baseball fans can be divided into two groups: those who come to batting practice and the others. Only those in the first category have much chance of amounting to anything."--Thomas Boswell
Cleveland had a long time of being horrible
between that trade and now. They clearly needed to rebuild with all of their really old stars on their roster, and that trade made a ton of sense for them and was great, but we are in a totally different situation than the 2002 Cleveland indians.
Also, the Expos were facing contraction, and didn’t give a damn about their farm system—they just wanted a shot at the postseason for what could have been their last season in Montrèal.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Not for certain
but I believe the Indians have had a better record than the Cards since ’05. Really only had two down years and Sizemore was a big part of the resurgence when he put up a 123 OPS+ as a 22 year-old coming off a somewhat disappointing year in AAA. Sound familiar?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
They had losing records in 2002 and 2003
and were slightly below .500 in 2004. They had a mini-resurgence in 2005 (still not as good a record as the Cards 100-62), and had a losing record again in 2006.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Since (and including) 2005
Cards wins: 347
Tribe wins: 351
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
They were in a down period and went through a cold spell
2002-2006 were featured one winning season.
That they got better afterward is undisputed. That’s not the point. They were in a position to trade away their good plaers and stock up on youngsters, because they weren’t going anywhere with their aging veteran-heavy lineup. The Cards today are in a way different spot than the tribe in 2002. That was my only point.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
My only point
was that playing the young players they acquired is what brought them back. You implied that my statement that Cleveland had a better record than St. Louis since they went with a 22 year-old CF coming off a sup-par AAA season was incorrect. I was just providing the backup.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
wow
that makes haren/mulder look like child’s play.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
I know...
I just keep reading it over and over. I can’t get over it. Three of the best young players in baseball for two guys that are out of baseball within 6 years.
"All baseball fans can be divided into two groups: those who come to batting practice and the others. Only those in the first category have much chance of amounting to anything."--Thomas Boswell
But those were a glorious 117 innings
He singlehandedly led them to be 19 back.
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
Colón DID win the Cy Young in the interim
Cliff Lee struggled a lot until his absurd breakout season this year. Grady Sizemore was still a few years away at the time. Also, the Expos thought they were about to be contracted.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Colón DID win the Cy Young in the interim
but not for the Expos
"All baseball fans can be divided into two groups: those who come to batting practice and the others. Only those in the first category have much chance of amounting to anything."--Thomas Boswell
And he didn't deserve it
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
You have to take into account
that the Expos franchise was in danger of contraction.
There was NO future, and had the Expos made the playoffs that year, there could have been one. It was all about going out with a bang. Although the move looks insanely stupid now, Omar made the right move considering the constraints and goals of the Expos franchise.
Carlos and Victor Zambrano have exactly the same number of career postseason wins. Who would have thought?
not to be nit-picky but...
your sig compares OFs of different races…
Since when did people say “Jim Edmonds is the best defensive of all white centerfielders! But put him next to any accomplished Hispanic or African-American CF and that’s no contest.”?? This argument just makes no sense. I think Beltran and Sizemore are good prognostications of a future Rasmus.
"All baseball fans can be divided into two groups: those who come to batting practice and the others. Only those in the first category have much chance of amounting to anything."--Thomas Boswell
It's very much a joke
Basically every comp of a drafted player is one of the same race even if their skills don’t match up at all.
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
because, you know
scouty old-school guys see baseball with their eyes, not your “numbers”.
and of course, skin color is quite visible…
My personal favorite was Jason Heyward
He draws physical comparisons to Fred McGriff, while his tools are similar to Willie McCovey’s and his approach is comparable to Frank Thomas’
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
WOW.
That is just….wow.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Now does everyone see why Rasmus can't be Beltran?
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
If only Rasmus had a mole....
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
did you just copy paste that from your desktop?
"All baseball fans can be divided into two groups: those who come to batting practice and the others. Only those in the first category have much chance of amounting to anything."--Thomas Boswell
Nah, found it online
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Sorry guys, got messed up
DIdn’t mean to do that twice!
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
You sure
that isn’t a tick?
"Over Macho Grande?"
"No, I don't think I'll ever get over Macho Grande."
Expos were losing Fan base
Were getting threatened that had to move if they didn’t start putting people in the seats.
by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 21, 2008 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
....in Washington
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
i fear you might have a faulty sarcasm detector there...
it happens to me all the time actually. darn internets…
oops, missed that one.
maybe we need that disclaimer that one user has lol
*sarcasm may be involved…etc.
"All baseball fans can be divided into two groups: those who come to batting practice and the others. Only those in the first category have much chance of amounting to anything."--Thomas Boswell
Yeah, but
What I am getting at is this.
One reason most of you really want to keep Rasmus is that he will be cheap, therefore enabling the Cards to go get a free agent pitcher to strengthen the rotation. My contention is that there will be few, if any of those available, and even if we drafted the best pitcher in college baseball right now, he is probably 2 years away from MLB service anyway.
It is an opportunity cost situation. We may have the opportunity to trade from a position of strength (outfield) to help a position of weakness (rotation). I am not saying that Peavy is not an injury risk. Every player is, even Colby, as evidenced by last year. But he does bring a true ace to a staff that sorely needs a frontline pitcher. Peavy is 27 or 28 years old. He is a great pitcher, one of the two or three best in the NL. A true ace. He would provide a HUGE upgrade over Piniero. Rasmus would provide an upgrade, but not as dramatic, IMO, in the outfield, as our current outfield is one of the best in the league.
I really don’t know what the difference would be, but I really believe that Peavy replacing Piniero in the rotation will make this team better than replacing Ankiel, Schumaker, or Ludwick with Rasmus.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
i disagree
Ace’s do make it to free agency.
See one: Sabathia, C.C.
If we didn’t have carp’s contract i would be screaming to sign that dude. sheets and burnett are also free agents although admittedly they do have major injury concerns attached to them but you could construct a contract around that (# of starts and such).
lowe is also out there. he’s not an “ace” persay, but he’s a great number 2. wainer, lowe, welley, and lohse doesn’t look too bad to my eye.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Sure-
We have boatloads of talented outfielders both at the ML level and in the minors. We even have 2 young 3rd basemen that can probably converted to RF or LF if needed.
But none of them are potential 5-tool All-Stars like Rasmus is…The closest would probably be Jones, but from watching the both of them play in Springfield, I’d say hold on to Colby and don’t let go of him. We could afford to trade away Jones.
Ryan Howard: one of the most Statistically Outstanding players of all time
by RunninRedbird on Oct 21, 2008 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I find it hard
to believe that Colby Rasmus is irreplaceable. I think what we have here is a mix of people who either overvalue Rasmus, undervalue Peavy or undervalue Rasmus and overvalue Peavy. THe answer is obviously in the middle. The risk is if you do the trade, does Peavy go Mulder and Rasmus go Haren. Through past experiences, we can only draw from Rasmus minor league stats and how they can possibly translate into the majors. Peavy is a known quantity that is an all-star caliber pitcher. The only way assess if this is a good trade is to make it and let time tell, which I’m not sure I am completely sold on. If we could give up Ankiel, then maybe. It might be smart for us to negotiate a trade for Ankiel that also allows the team to work out an extension or something. I think we have so many options that we need to get clever and possibly keep Rasmus out of the deal, but if he’s traded, we just have to draft a five-tool player in the first round. There’s always a name out there that allegedlly has five tools or a 105mph fastball.
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
There is a point in this that I agree with
Which is that the Cardinals’ minor league system is devoid of ace-quality starter talent. We should think about trading for other pitching prospects, since our scouts seem to be unable to find any on their own.
by Red in Chicago on Oct 21, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
when we pass on the rick porcellos' to draft the pete kozmas',
we shouldn’t expect to have ace types coming up through the system.
we COULD hold on to rasmus and use the pevy contract to draft an ace a year. spread the risk out over 5 pitchers for the price of one established ace, wear and tear included.
by ball in play on Oct 22, 2008 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions
there is no such thing
as a pitching prospect or TINSTAAPP!
"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum
Yeah there isn't always a name out there that put up a .932 OPS at AA as a 20 year old
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
And as my post details above
Peavy is no where as “known quantity” as anyone seems to think. No pitcher is.
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
Neither is a fielder
If you are refering to injuries then I seem to recall a “golden boy” in our AAA system that went down for awhile with injuries. I also seem to recall a big slump. One of our outfielders was injured so much in his 20’s, that he finally healed and made a big splash in year 30. My point is that you can’t count on one side getting hurt and another not. Injuries happen.
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
Injuries happen WAY WAY more to pitchers
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
that is why...
TINSTAAPP!!!
"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum
Do they?
Okay you may be right, but if a pitcher takes the ball every 5 days and a outfielder plays everyday, what is impacted more? Listen I hope people understand that I do not want to trade for Peavy, but I’m not against trading Rasmus.
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
While far from a perfect measure
When the DL was last in effect there were 115 pitchers (51 relievers, 64 starters) and 78 position players. There are more hitters on a team than pitchers and pitchers are far more likely to have been done for at least the whole—-if not next—-year.
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
I wonder if there is a study on this
Is it more important for a position player in 30 games or a pitcher to start 30 games. Interesting stuff.
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
And injuries to pitchers
are much more likely to cause a huge amount of missed time and the pitcher may never be the same player again. You can cite a freak example like Rolen, but most position players get injured, come back within a reasonable amount of time and are virtually the same player when they return.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
I sort of agree
my argument against the trade is that there is a glut of quality arms on the FA market, and we’ll be paying those guys only a little more than we would be paying Peavy, and isn’t it worth it to keep our prospects, and shell out the extra money to pitchers that range from clearly better to slightly worse? Especailly if we have to pick up Peavy’s option in order to get him to accept a trade.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
I agree
Is gutting the farm club worth saving a few million dollars for the next few years? I don’t think it is, nor is it necessary.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 21, 2008 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Seriously...
The article discusses the Mulder trade…Can we not learn our freaking’ lesson from that trade. Aquire pitchers at the peak of their value is almost always bad in the long term. It really seems to be a one year solution. Billy Bean has figured this out—that is the reason Haren was traded for a ransom. We could do good to review our teams recent history…
by BigJawnMize on Oct 21, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Couldn't disagree more
As other posters have pointed out, Jake Peavy is good, but lets not annoint him as god’s gift to baseball. You point out that he’s one of the 5 best players in baseball, but we both know that’s not true, for the reasons nomar lists. You also point out that Peavy is signed for 5 years, but fail to mention that his salary will virtually prohibit any other upgrades to the team (at least ones that aren’t pulled off the scrap heap). In additon, you fail to point out that Rasmus isn’t going anywhere for a while either (he hasn’t even played a game yet!). Unlike Peavy, we can expect Rasmus to get better over those 5 years, whereas Peavy will be getting worse. All this is ignoring the respective injury risks, of course, which also tip the scales in Rasmus’ favor.
Look, if we were poised for a World Series run this year, I’d say “fuck it, lets go all in.” But the fact is we just aren’t there yet. The Cubs have nearly their entire team back, and they beat us by 11.5 games this year. Think Peavy alone is an 11.5 game difference? Me neither.
by Ray Lankford on Oct 21, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
A good closer would close.....
More than half of that 11.5.
And it isn’t Ramus vs Peavy to decide the other ones.
It’s Rasmus (less a current OF) and JP (currently) vs current OF and Peavy.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
I'm not talking about getting a closer
because the original poster didn’t either. Don’t know where that came from. Also, I think your equation is wrong. Why measure the teams wins with Rasmus and Peavy when the discussion is “would you give up Rasmus for Peavy.” We are never contemplating putting them on the same team — I’d like to, but that hasn’t been discussed.
Its how much would Rasmus add over the replacements for the next 5 years vs. how much would Peavy add over the replacements over the next 5 years. All things considered, (such as payroll flexibility and injury risk) I’d take Rasmus.
by Ray Lankford on Oct 21, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
You were talking about the difference....
Between us and the cubbies. I was merely pointing out that having a solid closer would make that difference negligible. Anything else we did to improve our team, would be icing on the cake.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
Well I'm glad that we have a good closer in our system
because trading for Peavy would effectively prohibit us from going out and buying a closer, wouldn’t it?
by Ray Lankford on Oct 21, 2008 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
It is a question of value
directly between Peavy and Rasmus. In that battle, Rasmus could easily blow Peavy out of the water, as he could become an excellent player for free.
That helps us compete with the Cubs for six years, allowing us to field an overall better team since we can use the money we save on Rasmus (and hopefully Wallace) to spend on addressing other team needs.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
No, it isn't.
You can’t just value the two players head to head.
I know there is more to it then this, but hopefully this will show you where I’m trying to go.
Our we a better team with team A, or team B?
Team A:
OF of Ludwick, Skip, and Ankiel
Rotation of Waino, Peavy, Welly, Lohse, Carpenter/Boggs
Team B:
OF of Ludwick, Rasmus, Ankiel
Rotation of Waino, Welly, Lohse, JP, Carp/Boggs
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
Of course
but that isnt the only consideration. You are ignoring the much lower cost of team B, allowing the possibility to produce a more well-rounded 25 man roster and deeper 40 man roster for years to come. Peavy lets us go for it over the next couple seasons and limits our ability to spend additional money on many other glaring needs we see now and that could arise. And thats without mentioning the possibility of an injury, which does exist and would be devastating to our roster (this CANNOT be overstated).
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Why not
go for it over the next couple of seasons. We can take advantage of Pujols’s peak years. After about ’10 or so, he will be in decline.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
You obviously forget
every year is Albert’s peak year. I kid, I kid.
Your point is well taken, but here is where I am coming from. This Peavy trade allows us to go all in and get into the crapshoot that is the MLB playoffs before the contract becomes prohibitive to us. It doesn’t promise a title, in fact, it doesn’t even promise a playoff berth. We could make this trade and easily miss the postseason next year.
Rasmus allows us to be a VERY good team for a number of years. He should get better every season he is under our control…EVERY year is prime or before prime, unlike Peavy.
With Peavy we get two, maybe three seasons where we can contend for playoff contention. With Rasmus, we could be there for all six. Plus we maintain our farm system depth, even possibly strengthening it, allowing us to “go all in” at a later and perhaps even more favorable time.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Basically,
our team upside is higher and longer with Rasmus AND payroll flexibility.
Peavy gives us a good team next year and for a couple more, maybe, but also opens up the possibility of an epic fail year somewhere in that contract. Carp is a dice roll at this point, and if Peavy did go down it would severely affect our team. If Rasmus is injured or a bust, the team can recover much more quickly than if Peavy does the same thing. Our low with Peavy is lower than with Rasmus and our high is not as high (or as long.) Again, this is my opinion.
I’m not saying don’t do the trade because Peavy might get injured, but to ignore the ramifications of a potential injury on our roster would be irresponsible.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
exaclty
the consequences of this trade going bad are dire imo.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
I like to use metaphors to illustrate things
Lets say our payroll flexibility for the next 5 years is represented by a dozen eggs. Jake Peavy is a dozen egg basket. Rasmus is a really well made two egg basket. The other ten eggs can be thrown at Cubs fans.
by Ray Lankford on Oct 21, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
it's a question of priorities
which comes first; the eggs, or the chickens that hatch from them? and when are they counted (before, after)? which of them just suck (eggs i mean)?
+1
Not like we’d have one shot. The Peavy deal makes us better over the next 2-3 years. By then, maybe we could have drafted the next Rasmus. Heck, by then, DJ, and Anderson, and Wallace would all be ready.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
Again,
why is their projection guaranteed while Rasmus’ is dismissed? Rasmus is a far superior overall player than DJ, Anderson, or Wallace.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
It's not dismissed
by me. But it is a valid argument. Why is Peavy all of a sudden an injury-riddled, non-ace? It is simple to me. If Peavy makes the team better, then trade for him. The caveat to that is the only way you’ll know if he did is at the end of the season, you are in the WS right? I understand the length and money and injury argument. According to your argument, you would have no trouble trading Pujols if we got a bunch of 5-tool prospects in return right? Especially if Pujols was past his so-called prime phase. I mean Pujols would cost us a lot of money for sub-par production over 5 years than would a 5-tool cost controlled prospect. We could then open space for a masher to move to 1st and upgrade SS and 2nd with all the money we save. I just think there comes a point where you say we have enough players in our system to be able to trade a couple of them and not be worried about the repercussions. However I believe Peavy is not that guy to trade for.
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
Now you're putting words in my mouth
Pujols is in a different class and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
And I certainly have not called Peavy “injury riddled,” or anything of the sort. But the man did display some red flags this season, including a DL stint for elbow soreness. We ignore that at our peril.
“If Peavy makes the team better, then trade for him.”
It isn’t that simple. What if the price for the upgrade is too steep? Trading Rasmus for Peavy does NOT make our team better over the next six years. It only marginally makes us better next year. Our major weakness is not the lack of a dominant starter!
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
I'm sorry
I knew that reply could happen. I’m not saying you are making that argument. I’m saying in general the Peavy for Rasmus argument has all of those points. I’m trying (poorly obviously) to say that the only way you know if this trade is worth it or not is to make it. Again though I am not for this trade, I just think that Rasmus shouldn’t be regarded as “untouchable.”
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
Then we agree
No one is untouchable in reasonable circumstances. I am all for exploring all of our options, even if it means departing with a favorite of mine. I like the team more than any one player.
I see your points.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
agree to disagree on philosophy
making the team better for 09 regardless of the future ramifications is not a good strategy imo in this age of baseball.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Future ramifications
are about as easy to predict as the stock market. Did you predict the outcome of this past season? I didn’t. It’s a toss up to me. I think that if we win the WS next year then have a few rebuilding years, then it was worth it. (Whatever we did to get there.)
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
true
but the chances that by adding jake peavy our team wins a world series are pretty low imo. again, our problem this year was not our starting pitching, it was our bullpen. 6 innings per game from peavy is not going to improve our bullpen.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
I never said.....
Rasmus wouldn’t succeed. Not once.
And I also don’t agree that he is a better hitting prospect then Wallace.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
Better hitter? No.
Better player prospect? Yes. Positional scarcity + defense.
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
I didn't say hitting prospect. I said overall player.
And its not even close.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
We won 86 games
this season with Team B’s rotation. And using Team B means we can sign a better upgrade at SS and in the pen. upgrades in those two places goes a long way to replace the difference between JP1 and JP2.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
What upgrades are possible at SS and in the pen?
I say this in all seriousness. You guys don’t want Peavy and his injury risk, what about Furcal? He is a HORRIBLE injury risk. Add in the fact that he is the ONLY upgrade available via free agency.
I guess my overall point is this. We need to trade some outfielders. Do we trade the good ones hoping to capitalize on their peak, or do we trade some of the injured or unproven ones, hoping to capitalize on their potential.
There is no way this team should to to spring training with Barton, Rasmus, Duncan, Schumaker, Mather, Ankiel, and Ludwick all on the roster. When you look down at Darryl Jones and Jon Jay, we really have 9 outfielders that should be playing in the Major Leagues in the next 2 years. Some of those guys have to move. We have a position of strength. We need to take advantage of that to make this team better.
Is that trading Rasmus for Peavy? I don’t know. Is it trading Ludwick for some young pitcher? I don’t know that either. But I do know that we can’t carry 7 outfielders on our roster. Maybe we can parlay that glut into some sort of middle infield help. But we definately need to do SOMETHING!!!!!
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
We don't NEED to trade anything.
And that type of mindset will cause us to reach on acquiring talent. You say talent is sooo deep in the OF, yet ignore how both Felipe Lopez and Aaron freaking Miles played there in September.
We aren’t so deep in the OF that we should go trading off the best CF prospect in baseball.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
And you are so quick to trade Rasmus
because Jones and others are coming up behind him, all the while maintaining one of the reasons we should trade Colby is because he may not make it in the majors.
Why is Jones progression more guaranteed than Colby’s?
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
I never said that Colby may not make it to the majors.
I think he will be a great player.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
my bad,
i lose track in these threads. i do think the depth argument is a poor one to use in the convo of trading Rasmus. Depth is temporary.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
+1
Depth is case for dealing people around the end of their contracts, or for those with modest “upsides”.
It should not be a factor when talking about a 6 year low cost, high potential asset. You never know what will happen down the road.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 21, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I think
it is safe to assume that we haven’t had the best track record of drafts in years past. How many of the 04 draft have made it to the big leagues? I think it is a valid argument to make that a prospect is just that and a proven vet is just that. It’s up to an organization to decide what is more important to fill the needs of the team.
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
but haven't our most recent drafts been big improvements?
overall that is (many gripe about kozma, porcello, etc.)
i think our most recent drafts are a better indication of the near future.
Right
so we shouldn’t be afraid to trade some of them because we are drafting better players. Peavy is not who I would trade Rasmus for though.
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
i getcha
i just think rasmus is still our very best prospect, and it would be shame to trade him for almost any plausibly available player just yet. glad you agree about peavy—he’s just not that guy. i don’t think “ace starting pitcher” is really our glaring need right now either.
our drafts have been better,
but how often do teams develop prospects like Colby? Our last one was Pujols, right? So that will be 7+ years in between great prospects making it to the majors. Maybe Luhnow and Co. do a much better job, but I still doubt we get one of the top prospects in baseball a whole lot more often than that. It is just the nature of the beast.
How many teams have prospects like him come along that often, other than the Rays? There is a very good reason the Rays have had such great prospects.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
Pujols was never anywhere near as touted as Rasmus is right now
There was some excitement, but nowhere near this level of talk.
The guy you’re looking for is Ankiel, and probably Drew before him.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
why is it
that I seem to forget Pujols exploded on the scene. I do remember reading an article on some baseball preview in the winter of 2000-01 that said a young third basemen might get a look in spring training, and that he just might stick if he hits as well in AAA as he did the year before.
Now I need to go find that publication. It just has to be in the basement somewhere.
Drew 98, Ank 99, Rasmus 2008. That seems about right.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
while this isn't what I was looking for
I knew Ludwick was a highly touted prospect, I had no idea he was enough of one to be on that kind of list.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
Hensley "Bam Bam" Meulens?
Wasn’t he supposed to hit 500+ home runs or something like that? of course, he was a Yankee farmhand…
Probably not
But I was very soured on hyped prospects by the time the late ’90s came around. After hearing about how all of these young arms in the cardinal system were going to come around and be worldbeaters, I got a bit cynical about the whole thing.
The Pujols thing just kind of validated it. When I had heard a bunch of hype about Donovan Osborne and Manny Aybar, and they ended up being what they were, and then everyone almost completely failed to predict what Pujols was going to be, it made me a little more conservative about projecting prospects.
Also, the gnashing of teeth about trading away Bud Smith and Adam Kennedy always baffled me.
But baseball’s changed a ton from six years ago, and it’s increased the value of prospects immensely.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
LOL
Miles and Lopez played out there b/c Ankiel, Mather, Duncan, and Barton were all hurt.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
Exactly. That's my point. Depth is always temporary.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
and its a poor argument to use for trading Rasmus
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
By that argument.
we should have at LEAST 3 people playing every position.
You can’t construct an injury-proof team. Not possible. What you can do is try to get depth at your highest-risk positions, like pitching.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
By trading a blue chip prospect
for someone in that “high risk position?” Still doesn’t make sense to me. Injuries are predictable, trades are a choice.
And if we are going to tap into our depth, we shouldn’t do it with our greatest asset. I would part with Ludwick before Rasmus, almost any day of the week.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Most injuries are not predictable.
Very, very few might be.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
Sorry
that should read, injuries AREN’T predictable. Sorry for the confusion.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
depth is great at pitcher
unless it costs $78 million over 5 years when you already have pitchers that will cost you 58.5 million and 41 million over 4 of those 5 years.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Because you have depth
Doesn’t mean you should be in a panic about it and give up return value. It’s a position of strength, and if the market dictates waiting it out for a half year, year, etc. then we can wait it out.
I do think we should trade an outfielder, just not Rasmus – who should be a 6 year win for us relative to contract. I’d rather trade Ankiel for a pitcher/SS/2B that also has one year left on a deal. Or do something similar with Schumaker.
Don’t need to shoot the moon and go with a blockbuster to improve this team. We can make a more modest move that will incrementally improve our team, and still help our trade partner a bit too. In other words, I think we can certainly help ourselves in the short term w/o hurting ourselves long term.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 21, 2008 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I 100% agree with this.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
If you're worried about weakening our outfield depth
Don’t take a look at our infield depth. What happens if one of our rather craptastic middle infielders gets hurt?
I do think we need to make a trade if only to address a significant weakness and the only logical place to trade players from is the outfield. I’m not saying it has to be Rasmus for Peavy, but some of our surplus in the outfield should go to at least building some sort of contingency for our weaknesses.
I'm not worried about it
I just think its a poor argument to use for getting Peavy. Getting a young, cost controlled MIF would be another story….
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Exactly
That is as clear as I couldn’t make it.
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
Right
and that’s the point, isn’t it? I can’t tell if you are joking
by Ray Lankford on Oct 21, 2008 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
i'm all in favor of trading an outfielder
just not our youngest and most talented unless it is for something equally young and equally talented.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Can't ignore the constraints
People ignore salary a lot of times when talking about these things. You can’t though, it’s a huge part of this. Peavy’s contract isn’t horrible, but he could only outproduce what he gets paid by so much, and a lot of downside pain there. Rasmus is all upside financially, and the only downside pain is the length of time it would take to figure out he doesn’t have it if he were to flop.
You summed it up really well there.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 21, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
"Rasmus COULD easily blow Peavy out of the water
as he COULD become an excellent player for free."
Yes Rasmus has the skills that translate well to the major leagues. However he has do two things so far at the major league level…Jack and Squat. Now Peavy on the other hand has a track record of “ace-like” performance. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. Who would you trade Rasmus for then? Is there anybody? I’m not suggesting we trade for PEavy, but I don’t think Rasmus has earned anything yet. This is one thing though that must be considered. I know there is a lot of “proven-vet” Larussa bashing, but at least it paints a clearer picture.
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
i would much rather
take a risk on young and highly talented then on an older, very expensive, and more “proven” track record.
yes, there are several players that i would trade rasmus for, unfortunately those teams don’t want to trade those players because they also highly value their young talent.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
I would trade Rasmus for Hanley Ramirez
that’s about it. Grady Sizemore would be awesome too. I can’t think of a pitcher I would trade him for.
Here’s the thing, Rasmus has a couple of tools that require no transition at all in the bigs…defense and speed. The man can run, he can throw, and he can catch. He is already the best defensive OF in the Cardinals organization. I know a lot of you have man crushes on Rick, but Colby is the superior defensive OF.
He also displayed excellent on base skills in the minors. This is significant because it may be the most relevant predictor of his future production in the majors. He knows the strike zone and isnt afraid to take a walk. This pitch recognition should help him throughout his career in determining balls from strikes and drivable pitches from borderline ones. For him to display this at such an early age is too much to ignore or dismiss.
It is much more likely Rasmus becomes a contributing MLB player than not.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Furthuring this notion,
I know Colby had a disappointing season last year, but despite all of it, his walk rate increased and his strikeout rate decreased. That is a great sign in the midst of the adversity he was facing in the slow start.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Running is overrated.....
Unless you play on a team that is built around that. Raz isn’t going to be running in front of Albert and our other sluggers, we just aren’t built that way. Not saying his speed has zero value, just saying it isn’t as valuable as some are making it out to be.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
Thank you for commenting on the skill I mentioned the least.
And my mention of speed is in the context of defense and ability to cover ground. His SBs are sweetener.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Do we not have a host of other good.....
defensive OF’s?
Pretty much all of them are pretty darn solid, save Duncan.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
None in the class of Rasmus.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
I disagree.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
You are wrong
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Opinion
everyone can have an opinion, especially on prospects, you may disagree but it doesn’t make that person wrong
I realize
I take this position with Sooner because he consistently takes the contrarian viewpoint, seemingly for no good reason. Notice he says he disagrees without providing a single example of a young player who is Rasmus’ defensive equal. Fairly typical.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
Rasmus is pretty good
From everything I have read Rasmus is a very good all around CF, think Rick Ankiel with better instincts and a slightly lower arm. Rasmus doesn’t have Rick’s cannon but he will get better jumps and have better placement before the ball is hit. Schumaker might be close but none of our other minor league outfielders has been rated as highly as Rasmus. I would like to know why you disagree that he isn’t in a class by himself defensively.
their arms
are a lot closer than you think. ankiel’s arm is nearly unparalleled, but rasmus’ is pretty darn special
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Rasmus can throw 90+
So I would think the difference in negligible at best. Also, I am willing to bet Rasmus has a more accurate arm, without the occasional airmails that Rick is capable of.
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
is* negligible
"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols
defensive speed has value every inning the team plays.
running is underrated, it makes the entire pitching staff better.
for every half inning rasmus doesn’t run offensivly, he plays another half inning on defense.
by ball in play on Oct 22, 2008 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
no prospect ever is proven
until he gets to the majors. Does that mean that there is never a prospect that shouldn’t be traded? Never an untouchable?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
There is never an untouchable
There is always SOME sort of deal that could, theoretically, be worked out.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Exactly
Who wouldn’t take ARod for Rasmus? Or even Jose Reyes or Hanley Ramirez for Rasmus + Boggs? There are players I would trade him for, but those deals are usually lopsided in our favor. But no one is untouchable if enough talent and money is thrown out to get them.
I wouldn't take A-Rod for Rasmus
That contract is ridiculous and he’ll be 42 when it ends. Rather have a young, potential All-Star CF that is cheap for the next 6 years. I would definitley take a Reyes or Ramirez, but those deals are lopsided like you said and would probably never get done.
Ryan Howard: one of the most Statistically Outstanding players of all time
by RunninRedbird on Oct 22, 2008 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't think contracts were being considered there.....
I think the point was Rasmus is not untouchable.
it might not be what you are talking about
but contracts should always be taken into consideration.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
I agree
Sometimes the deal is just too good to pass up. The “unproven” label is just enough to get my undies in a bunch.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
That's some pretty funny writing there, Danup.
I never thought of the author looking out of the blog before.
Absolutely great post
DanUp – very well written and humorous. Thanks for the lift!
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
I'm only here for one reason
Because, as a fellow college senior English major, I find it is vitally important that I call into question your use of the word “unexplainable” and ask you to please explain your choice of this word over its tall, dark, and handsome cousin, “inexplicable.”
2-3 pages, double spaced. Hand in by 5 PM, 10/21.
I'd rationalize
about how I was trying to hit the “explain” harder in that sentence, but 80% of the reason is—and I was seriously worrying about this—that I was sure I had already dropped inexplicable earlier in the entry. A search turns up nothing, though, so apparently I am just hallucinating words now. I need Thanksgiving break.
We just had our "fall break" here at Wash U
We had Friday off. Ta da! Fall Break! One day of classes canceled in celebration of our good friend autumn. What a joke.
In Columbia We don't even get "fall break"
Nothin.
"All baseball fans can be divided into two groups: those who come to batting practice and the others. Only those in the first category have much chance of amounting to anything."--Thomas Boswell
I happen to be a Harvard graduate, Mr. Jefferson!
Well, I attended William and Mary, myself, Mr. Adams.
Interview with Anthony Reyes
There’s an interview with Anthony Reyes over at Baseball Prospectus’ Unfiltered blog. He has some nice things to say about the fans in St. Louis and more or less passes on an opportunity to bash LaDunc. I wish him well in Cleveland (and beyond) and wish things had worked out better for him with the Cardinals.
if we still had reyes
and let him pitch like he can…we wouldn’t be talking about peavy near as much as we are
waino, welly, loshe, reyes, piniero/AAA prospect…thats a serviceable rotation…only made better if carpenter turns out to be healthy
i enjoyed this quote
I’m not worried about throwing to a hitter’s weaknesses; I’m focusing on my strengths and what I can control. I think that’s the biggest part of it.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Great to see Will Carroll agrees with my assesment of Duncan
I am still if fear that Perez is going to be the next to get Duncan’ed. With the talk already starting about a new arm angle and approach to pitching.
Wow...... I don't know if being compared to Bobby Knight is good or bad?
I am not worried about Perez. His #1 issue is the fact he can’t throw strike one, and he falls behind in the count. When Perez attacks the zone he does well.
I think Duncan was probably discussing arm angle to get him to better control his 96 MPH fastball that runs too far out of the zone (ie… it’s moving so much it’s a bad pitch because it’s not close and guys don’t swing at it)
If Perez throws strkes like Motte did he will be fine.
Don’t worry at all DriverZn
Clearly it's a good thing!
At risk of retribution for going off on a basketball tangent – Knight was not a “system guy”. He had a consistent philosophy on how basketball was to be played, tough man-to-man defense, quality shot selection, movement without the ball to get open, move the ball by passing rather than dribbling.
Eashseason he adapted to the skill set and make-up of that team – he did not force guys into a system, he adapted to their skill. When he had shooters they took more 3 pt shots, when he had slashers he gave them the freedom to roam and create, ect…
What the comparison is correct on – some players do not fit the “philosophy”, but you could say that about every coach/manager who has every lead a team.
Sorry about that. No more basketball on Viva El Birdos but what else would you expect from a guy going by Knighttime.
i understand what carroll is saying
my rebuttal would be that this organization should have come to the “must be traded” conclusion a lot earlier. no way his value should have been as low as it was when we traded him.
its fine to have a philosophy towards pitching but you also have to recognize when a pitcher isn’t going to work and move him…before his value is a too old AA reliever.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
What a horrible little arrogant punk tatooed cretin.......
Just kidding. I still love Anthony Reyes, I still think they treated him like crap. When it was discovered early on that pitching “Duncan’s” program wasn’t working for him and the team, they should have praised his effort, loudly, and quietly put him on the trade market. But no. They had to let everyone know how terribly disappointed they were in this non sinkerball throwing horrible icky man. Which means Anthony goes to Cleveland having to rebuild his reputation along with his career. You know those “things he didn’t do” that were never spelled out, apparently even to him. Ax murderer? Rapist? Lazy ass? Meathead? Drug addict? Troublemaker? What? What was it? Never said, make up your own worst thing……we hate you, it’s fun to play games with you though.
I read in a Jayson Stark column that a scout felt he “missed the boat on Reyes.” The fact that scouts didn’t take a serious look at him is on the organizations shoulders. Because they heard so much about what crap he was from their mouths, that they didn’t even bother to look.
He still has had very little to say about anything that happened to him here. Please note, he passed up a chance to bash. He is still handling himself in a professional matter. He always has.
I have made so many posts on this, I didn’t think I’d have another rant in me. Sorry, folks.
I hope Mr. Mozeliak never does that to a player again. If they sign someone that isn’t a good fit, trade him. Not tomorrow. Today. It’s not good for anyone, and it’s also unfair, wrong, everything.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
I still think it is silly.....
For you to suggest Mo did a poor job.
Just b/c a kid doesn’t fit, you don’t have to give him away tomorrow. And there are TONS of reasons for that.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
by SoonerfanTU on Oct 21, 2008 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions
We did just give him away though
I agree with Jill, during 2007 it was evident that he wasn’t going to stick with the Cards, he was tearing up AAA again and we should have traded high on him then, pointed to his effort to learn and to succeed and his flashes of brilliance in 06. But instead we waited and he just hit AAA again this year before finally being given to the Indians for what amounts to extra laundry in AA from what I can tell.
What's the point of saving money?
Not sure exactly how I feel on this point – but have been thinking about it a lot after reading many of the comments on here. It seems that many people are very worried about the long term ramifications about committing serious money to individual players because it would limit us from making other moves in the future.
While I agree that this makes sense, I’m starting to wonder what’s the point of saving this money. If we follow the “don’t commit too much money to an individual player” rule, we’ll never get to spend it on anyone??? Other than the diamond in a rough find of Kyle Loshe, when was the last time a pitcher worth signing went for anything less than 4 years and $10MM/year? Who was the last good shortstop to sign a reasonable free agent deal?
Personally, I’m all for limiting commitments to players if we can reallocate the money to those that make us better. But in order to do that we’ve got to be able to take risks at some point or else the only thing that saving money does is make De Witt richer.
As a note here is the link to Cot’s for after the 2009 season. I’m not seeing anyone on here that looks too exciting as a starter, SS or 2B. Kelvim Escobar is the only guy without a team option that I’d be willing to commit anything to.
I guess I’m saying that we might as well spend now on a guy like CC, Lowe Furcal or Peavy or else all that saved money isn’t going to do anything to make the team better.
“But in order to do that we’ve got to be able to take risks at some point or else the only thing that saving money does is make De Witt richer.”
I really agree with this. Do people realize that the Cards are in the top 5-7 teams in terms of ticket sales and putting butts in the seats in all of baseball? This means the Cardinals are making some good money.
Crying “poor” or “saving money” doesn’t fly with me when it comes to the Cardinals/DeWitt. They have the funds to spend as much as the Cubs. They just won’t do it.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
That isn't really true
The Cubs have far more in TV revenues than the Cardinals.
by Red in Chicago on Oct 21, 2008 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Good point!
I guess what gets me it that there is a mindframe that since we are a small to mid market team people think that the Cardinals are “strapped for cash”. But the Cards are always in the top teams in attendance and the new stadium and the new radio deal was SUPPOSED to give the team more money to play with. So far I’m not seeing much from ownership in terms of spending extra money to make the team a contender the past couple of seasons.
I just find the notion that the team needs to save money is pretty humorous. Save money for what? I don’t think the originazation is that strapped for cash. It might be what they want the fans to believe because the are a small market team. But seeing as how they are always in the top 10 in profits in MLB is just strikes me funny that there is a preception that we can’t go past a certain budget number ($100 Million). But hey as long as they get 3 million fans to go through the gate every year…it’s a winning formula for them. But the bank vault is not as empty as I think we’re lead to believe. But at least we’re not in the bottom half of baseball in terms of salary so I guess there isn’t much to complain about. But the “saving money” idea is still kind of silly in my opinion.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
i don't think of it as saving money
dewitt has set a limit to what our payroll will be. he’s the owner and that’s his right. the gm’s job is to work within that limit.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Even DeWitt admits the vault is not empty
Pretty much every quote I’ve heard from him says that payroll may go up for the right player. My fear is that if we are overly concerned about payroll flexibility it will never get spent.
Here’s a quote from the article about ticket prices – read the last line.
The last couple off seaons I thought the FA Market was weak
I could understand why they didn’t want to overpay for mediocre players. Now this off season their is some real talent out their if you are willing to pay some money. Cardinals have to make some good moves this off season or I will be very disappointed.
by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 21, 2008 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
tickets are not as big a part of revenue
as one might think…
"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum
That said...
I really do get sick of fans patronage toward a losing team. After 2007, an under-par year for the cards, nothing made me happier than to see that the opening series of 2008 didn’t sell out. Even though the total attendance was 3.4 mil this year, I hope that the number of non-sellouts sends a message to ownership that were not going to stand for a team that finishes 11.5 games back. Though I am proud to be part of the best fans in baseball, I believe we can be loyal to a fault. If the team doesn’t make the playoffs two straight years, and ticket prices go up , then there better be a few less fans in the seats. I know, in theory, this won’t help the money issues that ownership says there is, but it should send the message that we won’t give them our money if they won’t give us a playoff worthy team.
"All baseball fans can be divided into two groups: those who come to batting practice and the others. Only those in the first category have much chance of amounting to anything."--Thomas Boswell
This is the first year in
hell, i’m not sure how long, that i didn’t attend a single Cardinals game. Overall, I give the current ownership fairly high marks because I can still remember the post-Augie Brewery days, but they really need to boost the payroll.
I sure wouldn’t want to be known to posterity as the ownership group that sat by and watched the Cubs win the division every year. I am willing to spend some of my all too scarce money to support the cause, but if they want to run the team as a business first then I know how to be a smart consumer.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Payroll over the years:
* Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster
(salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
o 2008: $ 99,624,449
o 2007: $ 90,286,823
o 2006: $ 88,891,371
o 2005: $ 92,106,833
o 2004: $ 83,228,333
o 2003: $ 83,786,666
o 2002: $ 74,660,875
o 2001: $ 78,538,333
o 2000: $ 63,900,000
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/12/st-louis-cardinals_111971260115041890.html
Yes
and if you look at the competition within the division we have had the lowest rate of increase of anyone since Busch III opened. Overall the owners have done well, but the promise that Busch III was going to increase revenues so that we could remain competitive on the field has not materialized.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Really?
Stros:
* 2008: $ 88,930,414
* 2007: $ 87,759,000
* 2006: $ 92,551,503
Cubs:
* 2008: $118,345,833
* 2007: $ 99,670,332
* 2006: $ 94,424,499
BrewCrew:
* 2008: $ 80,937,499
* 2007: $ 70,986,500
* 2006: $ 57,568,333
Pirates:
* 2008: $ 48,689,783
* 2007: $ 38,537,823
* 2006: $ 46,717,750
Reds:
* 2008: $ 74,117,695
* 2007: $ 68,904,980
* 2006: $ 60,909,519
You have a point with the Reds (13m/61m), Cubs(24m/94m) and BrewCrew (23m/81m) but we did increase more then the Stros and Pirates. And the Stros beat us out for 3rd this year.
Correction
BrewCrew should have read (23m/58m) I was trying to show how much of a difference between 2006 and 2008 compared to the 2006 salary (rate of increase)
Saving/spending
Not overpaying for free agents also allows you to pour money into the amateur draft and international talent markets and pay big bonuses (although it’s potentially a high risk-high reward type of scenario, shelling out a $6MM bonus and then having the player not pan out is better than going 4 years at $15MM per and then having the player miss a year (or even half a year) because of injury or just suffer an age-related massive decline on the back end of the deal). The year the Cards drafted Kozma, they could have drafted Rick Porcello, considered one of the best arms in the draft. While you can listen to all the lip service in the world about how Kozma was the Cardinals’ man, that was a very uninspired pick and the finances surely had something to do with it. If the Cards became a team to go consistently above slot or reach for players with “signability” issues, they could speed the turnaround of the farm system and beef up the pitching ranks.
Once you get the stud players coming up through the minors and then contributing at the major league level, you then use the extra cash to buy out their arb years and beyond (a la Longoria, Tulowiski, et al).
This is a philosphy I would like the Cardinal's to take
I would like to see Cardinals to try to draft the Porcello’s of this world and they are already doing well so far in the International signings.
by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 21, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
they tried that about a decade ago...
When they ponied up for JD Drew, Ankiel and Chad Hutchenson (uggh). Maybe that 24+ ERA of his has scared them from taking that route again. Definitely would like to see them be one of the major p[layers in top-flight talent internationally. That should be priority #1 IMO.
Not to mention that giving people $7M signing bonuses really defeates the argument that these players are 'free'
If you’re ponying that kind of cash for a prospect, you’re betting on them being a star when they hit the majors, before they’ve played an inning of professional ball.
It’s a worthwhile gamble if you have a bunch of money to throw around. But when you do insanity like putting the player on the 40 man from day one, you’re taking even more risks.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Tulowitzki
[Last line should read “Tulowitzki,” not "Tulowiski").]
Great comment
It was nice to see that the organization was one of the big spenders in Latin America this year. That kind of thing will pay big dividends down the road I think.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
