What's Ryan Worth?

by chuckb on Nov 22, 2008 11:20 AM EST in News Comment 84 comments

About a week ago, I tried to estimate Ankiel’s value as a free agent to determine whether or not he should be traded this offseason. The idea was that, if it’s going to be cost-prohibitive to resign Ankiel, we should trade him this winter and get what we can for him rather than losing him for, at most, a first-rounder and a supplemental next June.

I’m still inclined to think that trading Ankiel is the way to go this offseason. However, there’s been a lot more discussion about trading Ludwick than Ankiel. There were the rumors about him being involved in a trade to the Rockies for Holliday and the rumors of the Braves’ interest as well. There’s also the knowledge that the Rays are looking for a power-hitting RF who bats right-handed as well as the recognition that they have young pitching to spare. In fact, Beyond the Boxscore did a thread the other day suggesting that the Rays should dangle Scott Kazmir in an attempt to bring Ludwick to the Gulf Coast.

Again, I’m not endorsing trading Ludwick; I’d rather trade Ankiel. Trading Ludwick means an OF of 3 lefties, unless Skip is platooned w/ Mather or Barton against southpaws. Ludwick is also 3 years away from free agency to Rick’s 1. And, let’s face it, Ludwick was the better player last year. However, the appeal of a much bigger bounty is reason enough to see what trading Ludwick might bring us. If the haul is big enough, shouldn’t we consider it?

First, Ludwick was about a 5 WAR player last year who earned $411,000. He’ll get a raise this year, due to it being the first year of arbitration-eligibility but he’ll still earn no more than $2-3 M. A couple of weeks ago, I estimated Ludwick’s value to be about $22 M, a profit of $21.5 M to the team. Had I used Justin’s numbers Ludwick would have been worth about $24 M bringing a $23.5 M profit to the team. Whatever the exact number, Ludwick brought the team tremendous value last year and, even if he’s not quite the player next year he was last year, he still stands to bring $15-18 M in value to a team that only has to pay him $2-3 M. A team needing an OF or a power hitter in general should be willing to pay a considerable sum for that. Add to that the fact that he will have 2 more years of team control AFTER this season, and a team stands to gain somewhere in the neighborhood of $45-50 M in value over the next 3 seasons while doling out around $20 M.

If we trade Ludwick, he absolutely must fill a need. One thing I never understood about the Rockies rumor was that he was rumored to be traded for another right-handed hitting OF. Our clearest needs are in the pen, in middle infield, and in starting pitching (not necessarily in that order). I should point out that I’m not counting on Carpenter but, even if he does provide something of value, Pineiro (mercifully) is a free agent at the end of the season and Wellemeyer is arbitration-eligible as of now. A young pitcher could help this year and for the next few.

So, who might have some interest in Ludwick?

Rays

There’s been discussion here of receiving Sonnastine and Zobrist in return. Each earned the minimum last year and would be under the team’s control for 5 years. There’s been some question of Zobrist’s defense but last year he was more than a 1 WAR player in just 227 PAs last year. It’s not unreasonable to think he could be a 2.5 -3 WAR player over the next 5 years if he played the full season. Sonnastine was nearly a 4 WAR player last year. It’s inarguable that he was better than Kazmir last year and, quite possibly, the best pitcher on a very good Rays staff. Moreover, there’s reason to believe it was no fluke. It’s not inconceivable that these 2 could combine to be 6 WAR per year over the next 5 seasons – 30 WAR. Of course, Izturis was about a 2 WAR player last year so we’re probably adding 4 WAR per year. Still, 4 per year for 5 years beats 4 WAR per year for 2 and Ludwick’s at most 2 WAR better than Rasmus or a Skip/Mather combo in the OF. This seems to be a plus trade for the Cards.

What about Kazmir? Kazmir was about a little more than a 2 WAR player last year though BTB figures him to be a 4 WAR player. Needless to say, a 4 WAR player in RF is easier to replace than a 4 WAR left-handed starter and, there’s reason to think that a change in leagues could add 1 WAR to Kazmir’s total. He had a bit of a rough season last year, despite his relatively low ERA, as tRA points out. He has control issues, to be sure, but he has fantastic stuff and only once has averaged less than 10 K/9 IP. He would be a huge boost to the rotation. Kazmir’s contract, however, isn’t as favorable as Sonnastine’s. He’s under team control for 3 more years and there’s a team option for the 4th. He’s guaranteed $28.5 M over the next 3 (still a pretty good deal) and the 2013 option is for $13.5 M. All in all, I’d rather trade Ludwick straight up for Kazmir than Rasmus + 2 prospects for Peavy and it’s not even close.

Padres

I really think it’s a non-starter – pun intended. The Padres want to receive a top-notch SP prospect in return for Peavy and we don’t have one, unless we include Wainwright. We absolutely should not go there.

Braves

The Braves do not intend to trade BOTH Kelly Johnson and Yunel Escobar this offseason and Escobar has been rumored to be in any trade for Peavy, a deal I still think will happen. Last year Johnson was a 2.5 WAR player. He’s not yet arbitration-eligible and will be under the team’s control for 4 more years and he’ll be 27 in February. Like Zobrist, he appears to be a downgrade defensively. Isn’t Sonnastine and Zobrist then a better package? It’s not enough.

How about Escobar? Last year, Escobar was more than a 3 WAR player at a more-premium position. He just turned 26 and is under the team’s control for 5 more years. He’s liable to be a super-2 player, however, and eligible for arbitration at the end of this season. Still, doesn’t that just mean that he’s really good? It would be a nice problem to have – an excellent young SS under the team’s control for 5 more years. Is he worth Ludwick? I’d say probably yes – certainly more than Kelly Johnson is.

Indians

Not rumored, but they seem to have a need and could probably spare Jhonny Peralta or Asdrubal Cabrera to get another big bat in the middle of their lineup. Peralta was a 2.5 WAR player last year. He’s signed for $3.4 M for ’09, $4.6 M for ’10, and there’s a $7 M team option for 2011. He turns 27 next May. Maybe he’s just coming into his own but he’s averaged just a .332 OBP over the last 3 seasons. He has averaged 19 HR over those seasons but would be moving to a more pitcher-friendly ballpark. His wOBA over the last 3 seasons has been .335, .347, and .356. Ludwick’s last year was .413. There just seem to be better, younger, options. Like Zobrist and Johnson, Peralta appears to get almost all his value at the plate as his defense seems to be below average.

Cabrera was just less than a 1.5 WAR player in 418 PAs. A plus defender, he just turned 23 last week. He’ll be under the team’s control for 5 more seasons but has yet to put together a really strong full season in the majors. I’d like to have him, considering his youth, his defense, and his ability to play 2B, but I’m not giving up Ludwick to get him.

Angels

I don’t know that they’d be interested, but I have to think that if they don’t resign Teixeira (and it won’t be easy) I have to think that they’re going to want another middle of the order hitter. First of all, they’d have to include Brandon Wood and a starter – I’m thinking Joe Saunders or Nick Adenhart. Wood is a top-notch prospect but has yet to prove anything in the bigs. The same is basically true of Adenhart. Still, it would be hard to decline that kind of package. Saunders I’m less sanguine on. His tRA last year was 4.59 – in the same neighborhood as Kazmir and I’d rather have Scott. I think Kazmir’s more likely to improve considering his high K/9. Like Kazmir, Saunders is a lefty but his K/9 last year was less than half of Kazmir’s – 4.68.

What about Aybar or Kendrick and Adenhart? Despite Wood’s relative inexperience, I think I’d rather have him. Aybar was about a 2 WAR player last year while Kendrick came in at 1.5. Aybar’s probably not going to improve too much and I think I’d rather take a chance on Wood’s upside. If he fails, we can get 1.5 - 2 WAR from Izturis’s defense.

A match anywhere else seems to be tough to discern. There are probably 5-10 (at least) other teams who would be interested in Ludwick but not many that have young middle infielders or starting pitchers to trade. I’m not trading Ludwick for a closer. We have one of those (Perez) and Ludwick’s too valuable right now.

Again, my initial preference is to trade Ankiel this year and Ludwick next year. The main negative to Ludwick is the fact that he’s already 30 and I do believe we’ll need to sell high at some point. I just happen to think we can get 1 more year of really good value from him. It’s possible, though, that his value will be less after next year considering his age but if teams are drawn to him b/c of the fact that he’s cheap and 3 years free agency, well – they can read his driver’s license and perform basic math skills. The only real risk to keeping him 1 more season is a injury-plagued season or one in which there’s a severe dropoff. All 3 projections out so far have Ludwick falling to between an .869 OPS and an .879 OPS. That puts him in Pat Burrell’s neighborhood (though better defensively, but how could he not be?). He’d be very good, but not quite the player he was this year. So, you tell me…when is the right time to sell high? I’d say that if we can get a truly great package, we should do it now. Otherwise, it should be next year’s plan.

0 recs | Comment 84 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Luddy deal

I would move Ludwick for Kazmir straight up or a package of Wood/Adenhart from the Angels. Probably for Escobar too. Everyone else on that list, not so much. (and if we were to deal with the Rays, I would do everything I possibly could to expand the deal to somehow include Reid Brignac. They’d probably refuse, but I would push for it something fierce.

And no thanks on Jake Peavey for whatever it would cost to get him.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Nov 22, 2008 12:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Trade him...

… if we get that deal from LA. I just don’t think the Angels would pull the trigger. They have horded both Wood and Adenhart in the face of much better players than Luddy. But if we were gonna make a deal with the Angels I would start off asking for Ervin Santana. He is 25 and had a break out year last year. Whether or not the Angels would give him up is a good question, but I would have to think that if they would pull the trigger on Wood and Adenhart that they would give up Santana straight up.

by BigMac545 on Nov 22, 2008 12:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wow, no.

Santana was their best pitcher. Adenhart and Wood weren’t even starters.

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Nov 22, 2008 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Regardless

Adenhart had a 5.76 ERA…….at AAA!!!!!!! I wouldn’t trade Schumaker for a 4.99 AAA FIP.

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

by joker24 on Nov 22, 2008 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would. Salt Lake is a tough place to pitch and Adenhart was a lot better a year before. The Cardinals have oodles of LHB OF lying around, Skip’s maybe average right now and he’s probably going to look pretty crappy in two or three years, so it’s hard to see them missing him once he’s gone. I’d rather see something like Rasmus-for-Escobar, but if that’s not available, Mo’s in a position where trading one of the LHB OF makes an awful lot of sense, even if he doesn’t quite get an even trade of Expected(WAR) for Expected(WAR).

by greenback06 on Nov 22, 2008 10:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A 6.82 K/9 in AA isn't a whole lot better

Minorleaguesplits neutralizing for park/luck is a 4.16 FIP the year before. He was mediocre 2 years ago, he was terrible last year, he hasn’t missed bats for 2 years, PECOTA hated him before the year giving him a 20% chance of even being a major leaguer I can’t imagine those odds are very good now.

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

by joker24 on Nov 22, 2008 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Those PECOTA odds sound extremely low for a 20-yo pitcher with some success at AA. As it turns out, Adenhart made it to the majors (OK, he probably shouldn’t have), so I’m guessing PECOTA means “regular” MLBer.

Anyway, while a park-neutral 4.16 xFIP for a 20-yo at AA doesn’t sound that bad to me, I’m certainly not a big Adenhart fan. The point here is that I doubt you’re getting much more than that for Skip Schumaker, and there’s pretty good reason to get Schumaker out of the way for a couple of other LHB OFs.

by greenback06 on Nov 23, 2008 12:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

From one LAA fan's perspective

Chuck, nice article. After seeing MLB Trade Rumors mention of the Cards OF surplus, I looked at potential targets for the Angels. Ludwick was my top choice. He’s a good combination of average, power, and price. There is no reason to trade this guy unless you get the farm. You won’t get the farm from the Angels. I see the Angels asking about Ludwick and Ankiel late in the offseason after Tex, CC, and Peavy are settled with the Ludwick topic leaving the discussion early.

Many of my fellow board members at AngelsWin.com see Wood starting at SS and Aybar as expendable. Until we replace Garland, we will hold on to Adenhardt. With Lackey’s contract expiring in 09, Santana and Saunders are untouchable. Weaver is a different story. IMO Olympian Matt Brown, Nick Green, and Sean Rodriguez don’t get the attention they deserve and would be good chips.

Thanks for letting me post. The Cards are a class organization and the fans are always great to talk baseball with.

by Mauch Won on Nov 25, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Loss Of Offense

In almost any scenario we lose a lot of power that we probably need. Even if Ludwick falls off to hitting in the 270’s and 25 hr, that is production we need in the middle of the lineup. There are several teams in pursuit of third basemen. I would rather look at trading Glauss for some pitching or middle infield help. We have good replacements at third. I also would rather trade Ankiel unless we resign him this winter. Though he would be attractive to dangle at the trade deadline if necessary. If I had to trade Luddy, my first preference would be Escobar from Atlanta. If not then Sonnenstein and Zobrist or their Japanese starting second baseman (Igawa?) who impressed me could be included w/ Sonnenstein.
Still not mentioned was Dan Uggla.
All in all, signing Loogys from free agency and shoring up the middle by trading some outfielders would be good. I could see going into the next season with Miles at second. A shortstop upgrade is a must, but I am not willing to give up too much defense. As I see it, shortstop is the most imperrative upgrade for 09. Surely there is a shortstop that we could obtain via trade for our extra outfielders and brian anderson. We have trade chips without having to trade Luddy.

victim of the sixties

by victim of the sixties on Nov 22, 2008 12:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Glaus would have to waive his no-trade clause,

and probably wouldn’t do so unless the team he’s traded to signs him to an extension, which would complicate things considerably. I’d rather hold him until the trade deadline (he would probably be more open to a trade to a clear contender at that point without said extension, assuming the cards are out of it in this scenario) and see what our options are then, perhaps even just take the draft picks when he refuses arbitration about this time next year.

Hopefully we can get a look at Freese in 2009 and see if he’s a potential candidate for the starting job in 2010. If Wallace is fast on his heels and sticks at third, try to trade Freese next off-season for the middle infield help we’ll still need then (half-joking).

"I'm as nauseous as I've ever been. I have a terrible headache. My head is pounding. I feel like throwing up and I'm having trouble swallowing. And the beauty of it is, you want to feel like this every day." - Tony LaRussa

by adiueordie on Nov 22, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it's all dependent on whether you feel like you can get a full year

out of Glaus, Ankiel and Pujols. I guess you could argue that a lot of Glaus’s previous injury history is due to playing on turf, but still, that’s a lot of guys with chronic problems to worry about…

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

by Valatan on Nov 22, 2008 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry to comment twice

But I was just thinking that Luddy’s upside we have seen this year and it is huge. Considering he’s under team control for so long, I’d much rather have him than Manny. That’s how valuable Ludwick is. Even is he falls back, his value far, far exceeds his salary.

victim of the sixties

by victim of the sixties on Nov 22, 2008 12:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I got in to an argument

with some Rockies fans about Ludwick’s value being greater than Holliday’s. I cited the same reason: their contracts. Three years of Ludwick at possibly $4-7M per (really no idea what he’ll be awarded in arbitration each year) is WAY better than ~$20M per year for Holliday for four or five years.
I of course assumed Mozeliak wouldn’t make the trade without signing Holliday to an extension, and assumed it would start at about 4yr/$80M easily. If it were for just a one year rental of Holliday, the trade makes even less sense for the Cardinals.

by adiueordie on Nov 22, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is exactly how you have to view all transactions.

It’s not just Ludwick vs. Holliday, it’s Ludwick’s production/contract vs. Holliday’s production/contract. Which, since Ludwick is cheaper turns out to be Ludwick/cash vs. Holliday. And since $12-$15MM in cash per season will buy you something like Orlando Hudson or Ben Sheets, it’s really a Ludwick/Sheets vs. Holliday debate, which seems like a no brainer, right?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 23, 2008 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

here is hoping you have stumbled onto MO's plan

keep Ludwick, sign Sheets.
I don’t say that only because it helps my FA Guesslist look better, I am holding out hopes the Cards can figure out a way to sign Sheets to a 2 or 3 year contract

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Nov 23, 2008 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah

When I saw the title, I thought for a moment you were talking about BRENDAN Ryan. I couldn’t understand how you’d generated a full length post based on his value.

Whew.

by punditmoi on Nov 22, 2008 1:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

that would have been much more impressive, huh?

by chuckb on Nov 22, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

me, too...but

meager as it may be, I was actually looking forward to seeing B. Ryan’s value analyzed. I like him, actually, but he seems to have no place with the Cards. I would argue he hasn’t been given the most fair of chances, but that’s just me.

by the Tewk on Nov 22, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

how can anyone not like a guy named Boog?

I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!

by gdm426 on Nov 22, 2008 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

While we're speculating

I can’t help but notice the marlins might be a suitable trade partner as well. If they intend to be competitive (something that can be questioned), there are a lot of ways they can do it. They’re quietly rebuilding their roster for next season and have stated they would like to bring in a good defensive outfielder, and reports have Hermida being shopped, leaving an outfield of maybin, ross, and amezaga.

Ryan is arbitration eligible, seemingly going against the marlins M. O., so it would require taking back other arbitration eligible players. There are plenty to chose from, personally I’d like to see josh johnson, alfreda amezega, and logan kensing (all arb eligible) for a package of say Ludwick, anderson and an unknown prospect. It’s pretty far fetched, but beinfest’s deals are rarely predictable.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

by Dave Barry on Nov 22, 2008 1:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This isn't meant to sound sarcastic

Do you really think that many of the GM’s even consider things such as WAR? I don’t know. It just seems like most of the organizations are behind on such modern statistics.

by The Butcher on Nov 22, 2008 1:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

the better-run organizations do

and more and more are coming around.

by chuckb on Nov 22, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what would be interesting

is if someone did a post about the teams we are sure DO NOT consider such things. I might have to go do some searching over at BTB

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Nov 22, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure

that the Cardinals consider such measurements. Or, if they do, I’m not sure it factors into their decisions.

by spants on Nov 22, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guarantee you 100% the Cardinals do and consider it heavily in every decision

And I’d bet their proprietary stuff is likely significantly more advanced than anything we get to see.

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

by joker24 on Nov 22, 2008 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

without thinking too much about it

I would say the Red Sox would have to bear at , or near , the top in regards to this stuff.
From the way the Royals offseason has gone, I am starting to wonder about the stuff they use.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Nov 22, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My Guess

Is a 12 pack and dart board of names

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Nov 22, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I went to the winter warm up before the

05 and 06 seasons and they had a little siminar both years that gave a little insight into how indepth they go to evaluate players. It was the best thing of the whole weekend and amazing to see all of that stuff that went into it. I wasn’t as into that stuff as I am now so I didn’t take notes like iwish I would have but they had created their own number system to evaluate every player in the MLB. In 05 I remember the guy talking about how he could prove Albert was a lot more valuable than anyone else in the league. This was of course before Albert won his 1st MVP. I hope to go back again this year and pay more attention but long story short I can assure you they use highly advanced metrics like WAR.

"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it." -Rogers Hornsby

by nomar34 on Nov 22, 2008 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

when do they start selling tickets to the Warm up?

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Nov 22, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Friday November 28th 9:00am

Winter Warm-Up

"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it." -Rogers Hornsby

by nomar34 on Nov 22, 2008 9:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Explain

to me all the head-scratching decisions, then. BTW, I was being glib. It just gets frustrating, what with all the crappy players we pick up.

by spants on Nov 23, 2008 2:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that there

is the million dollar question.
I think the organization understands these more than a lot of us, but it still amkes you wonder how they can when you look at the simple idea of having a high OBP lead-off hitter, and the org can’t even seem to get that right.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Nov 23, 2008 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

by spants on Nov 25, 2008 1:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly, I have no idea.

I can merely speculate.

Get it, most probably:
Rays
Red Sox
A’s
Padres
Diamondbacks
Pirates, new regime
Indians
Toronto

Don’t get it, most probably:
Mariners, old regime
Astros
Orioles, at least old regime
Royals
Reds, old regime

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 23, 2008 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Seems to me that for a deal to be attractive

we would have to obtain a WAR equivalent equal to Ludwick’s value + one other player’s value. If Sonnestein and Zobrist are truly valued at 7.5 WAR (I think that is being very kind to both players) and we are trading a 5 WAR player for them, then we are not necessarily upgrading the roster. We would only be marginally better than keeping Ludwick and Izturis and would be depleting a strength of the current team for what would likely be a couple of league-averagish players.

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

by giveml on Nov 22, 2008 2:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I for one, completely agree...

Ludwick has shown himself to be something that neither of those two players have – a premium talent. He may play a position filled with more equivalent talent across the league, but at some point dont you have to decide that good talent at a generic position is more important than generic talent at a premium position? Even if we flipped him for an Escobar package, I have major questions about our offense without Ludwick in the middle. I dont like Glaus or Ankiel at cleanup and think that both are better suited to the 5 and 6 spots. Now maybe if we do the Escobar deal and sign Burrell or Manny or Dunn, that’s ‘an american league lineup’ as they say and I think finding a cleanup hitting OF would preclude the rest of the shopping list for MO this offseason – closer, more LHR, 2B and SP. I just dont know if MO would go that direction or not.

by rlgosnell on Nov 22, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

interesting

Intuitively, I think that a single 5 WAR player at one position is more valuable in the long-term to a team trying to improve than two 3 WAR players at two positions. I’m not sure how to do the math to prove it, since obviously 3 + 3 = 6 is greater than 5, but it’d have to account for the fact that you can then improve both of those 3 WAR players by trading them + other players, and the two 3 WAR players have a greater chance of being injured, slumping, etc. And you can find another 3 WAR player somewhere else while keeping the 5 WAR player (Maybe by trading two 2 WAR players).

Then again, the two 3 WAR players have a greater chance of having a breakout season…. you’d have to measure that and account for it.

There are really too many factors to figure something like this out without doing a master’s thesis level of research, but if someone has 3-4 free months, I’d love to see it done.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Nov 22, 2008 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I see what your saying

That two 2 WAR players does not equals one 4 WAR player. It isn’t just about positional adjustments but more about upward sloping curve.

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Nov 22, 2008 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes, there's a scarcity issue, and i haven't seen it worked into calculations all that much

It’s one reaso a stars and scrubs strategy works in fantasy baseball. the scrubs that work out are great, and you don’t mind cutting the scrubs who don’t work out in favor of better options.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 23, 2008 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

also important to consider contract length and contract dollars

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 23, 2008 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What about Pittsburgh?

I would be okay with Jack Wilson at SS. He always seems to make fantastic plays when playing against the Birds. Maybe we can get him and a lefty reliever for Anderson and someone else.

Then sign Lopez and trade the OF surplus for some more prospects at lower levels.

*Rasmus is to CF as Longoria is to 3B*

by Red Blazer on Nov 22, 2008 3:20 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Pitt looks to have a nice lefty in John Grabow

Am sure there is a hole in my whimsical trade proposal but Wilson & Grabow for Andreson and a young pitcher?

Would you do it and do you think Pitt would do that deal?

*Rasmus is to CF as Longoria is to 3B*

by Red Blazer on Nov 22, 2008 3:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

no and no.

by adiueordie on Nov 22, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice post, chuckb

My schedule has kept me from spending as much time on VEB as I used to, but I’m always impressed with the write-ups. (I still have trouble accepting your name change, though…)

This post reflects a lot of the thoughts I’ve had this offseason. Johnson or Escobar would be sweet. So would Brandon Wood or some Rays pitching. I’d rather see Ankiel go, despite the warm fuzzies he’s given me through the years.

My question is this: What are the odds we actually see any of these deals take place? While Mo seems competent at running a team, he still hasn’t proven himself as a GM who can do much on the trade market. The Rolen-for-Glaus deal has certainly worked out well so far, but it was sort of a no-brainer; trading equal parts to help team chemistry. The most serious rumor we’ve heard this offseason is Ludwick for Holliday, which, as you say above, is a RH OF for RH OF deal.

I love trade rumors as much as the next guy, but I’m having trouble believing that we’re actually going to see anything happen this offseason. I’m all for a trade if it means strengthening the team, but I fully expect to see both Ank and Luddy starting in the OF in 09.

defy, cards, defy. hey logic --- you suck.

by effin fisk on Nov 22, 2008 3:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

On trading Ludwick

The question to me is are we trading Ludwick because we are still in “re-building” mode or are we in “contending” mode??

I guess what I’m trying to say is the idea to trade Ludwick so we can be serious contenders in 2009 or are we pushing our re-bulding on for a few more years? I wouldn’t think too many teams would trade Ludwick for infield help if they are serious about contending now or if the infield help that Ludwick could bring back in a trade is close to bringing in offensive numbers to help make up for the loss of production with Ludwick gone.

To me I wouldn’t trade Luddy unless he could bring in a deal that would be hard to say no to. A deal like getting Escobar and a piece for the bullpen I could see. But trading Luddy for guys like Zobrist or Kelly Johnson doesn’t seem like a good idea. For one Zobrist hasn’t been an everyday player and Johnson isn’t worth Ludwick straight up. Selling high can be good…but I’m not sure if this is the case if we don’t get a real good talent in return. Sorry but guys like Zobrist, Peralta and Johnson to me doesn’t cut it as guys I would trade straight up for Ludwick.

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

by KYCards on Nov 22, 2008 4:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think Ludwick has more value to us...

than he does to other teams. I’m not sure other teams see him as a middle of the order power hitter. I would beleive they see last year as more of an aberration. Because he is so cheap to us I think he has more value than what he can return. that said, if we can get a return like chuck mentioned from TB or LAA than we jump on it. The chance to upgrade the MIF and the rotation while trading from our surplus is a dream come true. Mather coupled with our new SS would make up for Luddys production and Izturis lack therof and we still get a bonus #3 starter out of the deal.

"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it." -Rogers Hornsby

by nomar34 on Nov 22, 2008 4:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sign me up for Zobrist and Sonnastine/Jackson

Zobrist seems like a DeRosa mold player without as good of a glove. I would like him to see him get most of his time though as a 2B. Pujols could take up some of his range and allow him to be a better defender at 2B. While at SS I think he would be just horrible defensively.

Sonnastine would be a welcome solid addition while Jackson has nice upside. I would pick Sonnastine though because he just seems like the better pitcher. Sonnastine would allow us to get rid of Pinero even if eating majority of his contract would net us some kind of positive gain. The same could be said of Kennedy.

I would be very sad to see Ludwick go but replacing him with 3 cost controlled assets in his place would be worth. (OF, 2B/SS, SP). The money we would save in those 3 positions would give us financial flexibility not just not for 2009 but next 2 years at least afterwords. That additional financial flexibility would allow us to sign a big ticket player or two.

Imagine

1B: Pujols
2B: Zobrist/Miles
SS: Renteria ($8 mil)
3B: Gluas
C: Molina/LaRue
LF: Schumaker/Mather/Duncan
CF: Rasmus
RF: Ankiel/Barton

SP
Wainwright
Lohse
Sonnastine ($400K)
Wellmeyer
Carpenter

RP:
Perez
Motte
Franklin
Kinney
McClellan
Thompson
Miller/Manning/AAAA LHP
Fuentes ($12 mil)

We would for sure see a drop off in defense at 2B and SS. But we would see gains in the OF at all positions. Rasmus is a defensive upgrade over Ankiel. Schumaker is at his best defensively when he is a corner outfielder. I see Ankiel’s arm fitting well at RF. Plus, Any drop off down the middle I think would some what be balanced out 2B side by Pujols. The SS side would be a glaring hole for the future but Renteria is not a long term solution just a short term. With Wallace as 3B in 2010 I think an elite glove will be needed at SS than to take some of his range.

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Nov 22, 2008 6:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

how about this

you keep Kennedy at 2B. Miles backs him up. Freese backs up the corners and add’s a stick on the bench. Zobrist is listed as an outfielder. He will get plenty of reps at both MI positions. This gives him a year to tutor under Oquendo, but he still will get plenty of AB’s in right.

I would like to find away to get Zobrist and keep Ludstick.

by nybirdfan on Nov 22, 2008 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sonnanstine & Zobrist

Sign me up as well. Now, wouldnt that mean that Pat “the bat” make some sense. Here me out, would a 3 yr $45 contract be enough. He plays in left where he is a butcher but as we all know he can. Career 950 OPS against LH pitchers. Thus, when the Cards are facing a tough lefty, they play Bombs, Raz, and the bat. I like this lineup a WHOLE lot more than Bombs/Ank/Raz. We have Pat for two years and then maybe try to move him prior to 2011 or maybe we can move at the deadline as our OF prospects continue to develop (looking at you Daryl Jones),.

by njnick on Nov 23, 2008 10:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"but as we all know he can "hit""

by njnick on Nov 23, 2008 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're assuming the Burrell is going to take less than a 5 year deal

I don’t think that he will. This is his first chance to negotiate on the open market, and he’s going to be looking for a good size payday and a long term contract. Somebody will give it to him for the reasons that you listed above.

Keep in mind, what’s best for the Cardinals isn’t always best for the player involved, you have to take that into account.

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

by fourstick on Nov 23, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I just dont

think that Burrell will get a 5 yr deal. Maybe Im wrong.

by njnick on Nov 24, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the post and the analysis

Unless a steal comes across our path, I’d rather keep Luddy and see him develop into that mythical impact bat. If he is an all-star again, I don’t see how Tony could deny his impact batness anymore.
I don’t deny that Luddy would probably regress in some areas, but what if he became more disciplined with 2 strikes? Despite his age, he is still leaning at the highest level. Why would he potential improve in certain offensive areas?

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Nov 22, 2008 8:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Luddy and Ank

Are both more valuable to us than any other team. It’s hard for me to agree that Ank is the one to trade right now. In my eye, he’s still sortof a ‘prospect’-type player in the outfield, not having the oppertunity to polish as much as Ludwick. Also, if we do keep both, I wouldn’t be shocked that this time next year, we’re talking about how much value Ank has to the team and how Luddy is a league-average, aging, RH powerhitting outfielder that has some trouble with injury. I could definitely see Ank having a season like Luddy had last year if he has fewer injury problems and has more reps at the plate and in the field.

That being said, I also don’t know if now is the right time to trade Luddy either. Right now, it doesn’t seem that there’s a good option for the 4 spot in the lineup, and there are some defensive questions in our outfield next year (Duncan possibly coming back, Barton, ect.) and some veteran leadership will be necessary to help Rasmus into a Cards uni, if that’s how things pan out.

And with THAT being said, I like the Zorbist/Sonnastine proposal in the post, and should have consideration, but like one poster noted, it’s hard to justify one 5 WAR player (and one 1 WAR player) for two 3 WAR players.

by WyoCardsFan on Nov 23, 2008 11:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Small point:

I hate to give away Rays’ secrets, but you’d be MUCH happier seeing Sonnanstine on the team. He has the skills of a 2nd/3rd starter while Jackson is a 4th/5th starter. Just look at their peripherals.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 23, 2008 12:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I’m not at all a fan of Jackson and think Sonnastine would be very good in the NL particularly. He’s not an ace, but we’d get a lot more than many think from him.

by chuckb on Nov 23, 2008 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he's a legit #2 starter in the NL

I also think that he would benefit more from Duncan’s advanced gameplans than anyone else that you listed. I think he’s the “2006 playoffs Jeff Suppan” level of talent, without the horrible Jeff Suppan inconsistency from start to start.

Not only that, he would really improve the rotation from a health standpoint because the team could count on him to make pretty much every start he’s scheduled for.

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

by fourstick on Nov 23, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Trading either guy is a bad idea.

I have a feeling that Ankiel won’t be a very expensive free agent because he’s never played a full season, somewhat injury prone, and there will be questions about his makeup. I also find it hard to believe that the Cardinals would trade him.

Face it, you’re not going to get value for Ankiel in a trade so you might as well keep him. Before he hurt his side he was a .275/.350/.540 ish type player with plus CF defense. A full season of that is a borderline MVP candidate. Plus, Ank is still learning, (and because we have no one to compare him to it’s hard to tell when his development will be done), his strikezone judgment took a huge step forward last season.

Rasmus/Ankiel/Ludwick could very well be the best OF in baseball, add Pujols and Glaus into the mix, sign a solid player to play second/short and you’ve got a lineup with so much firepower, and fielding prowess (if they avoid catastrophic injury) that they have an excellent chance of reaching October even with sub average pitching.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 23, 2008 12:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

an excellent chance of reaching October even with sub average pitching.

Name me the last team that’s done that? You could make a case that the 2006 Cardinals had sub-average pitching, but not when the whole staff was actually healthy, which is what happened when the team came together in the playoffs. Everyone got healthy at the same time and turned the team into a tough one to beat.

Part of the reason that dealing either of these players is so attractive is that we’re going to be getting a young pitcher in return for them in just about every deal, and we have a plethora of potential everyday outfielders on the current 40 man roster, and one who isn’t even on there yet in Colby Rasmus. When you’re dealing from strength, you can’t be afraid to make a move when the timing is right and the return is excellent. I think the return on any of these trades outweighs what we would be giving up.

All that said, I think trading Ludwick would bring back more and better pieces, but I think that dealing Ankiel is probably the way to go since we’ll be losing him for nothing if he files for free agency and signs somewhere else.

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

by fourstick on Nov 23, 2008 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh... we won the World Series with a crappy pitching staff, even with everyone healthy

Name me the last team that’s done that?

2007 Phillies
2006 Cardinals (World Champions!)
2005 Padres
2005 Red Sox
2005 Yankees

Having good pitching doesn’t matter, there’s more than one way to win a pennant. All you have to is outscore your opponents.

plethora of potential everyday outfielders

No we don’t. We have three. Ludwick and Ankiel are prone to injury, Schumaker can’t play everyday, Rasmus may not be ready in April. Depth is a good thing. Pitching is one of the most overrated commodities in baseball.

…but I think that dealing Ankiel is probably the way to go since we’ll be losing him for nothing if he files for free agency and signs somewhere else.

Uh, he’s a bad trade chip as he’s going to be undervalued by other teams, and it’s likely he’s not going to get a big FA deal (and after all the patience the Cards have had with him and his relationship with LaRussa why wouldn’t he give a bit of a home town discount?). Why sell low on a player who in vital to our chances? That’s foolish.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 23, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh...you don't make any sense...lol

Ludwick and Ankiel are prone to injury,

How does this disqualify them as everyday players? I guess that means that Molina isn’t an “everyday” catcher because he gets every 5th or 8th game off? They ARE everyday players when they aren’t hurt.

Schumaker can’t play everyday

Actually, he can play everyday, we just don’t want him to play against lefties, so that means he wouldn’t start about 30-40 games a year. That still leaves him in the lineup for the rest of the 122-132 games a year. We also have Brian Barton to platoon with him against lefties if need be, Joe Mather would be a good candidate to get AB’s somewhere in the lineup, Colby could be ready by opening day and if not he’s ready at some point next season, Allen Craig played some outfield last year at AA, Daryl Jones and John Jay both had solid seasons at AA as well. The organization has a lot of depth in the outfield — but has little to none at the middle infield positions, where the big club needs the most help right now. Depth is a good thing, as long as you’re not sacrificing other aspects of your team just to have “depth” at one position. That is foolish.

Uh, he’s a bad trade chip as he’s going to be undervalued by other teams

I’m assuming that you’ve spoken to other GM’s about this topic and have come up with this general consensus based on that. Otherwise, how could you possibly know how he’s being valued? He’s a 28 year old center fielder that has 40 homer potential — teams would kill to have a guy with that potential, and would be willing to take a risk on him. How do I know this? I don’t, but teams have taken bigger risks and made bad trades that were not in their best interest (Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano anyone?). You’re simply making an inference that we shouldn’t trade him because other teams might undervalue him — you don’t have any idea what his value is until you put his name out there in trade talks.

it’s likely he’s not going to get a big FA deal (and after all the patience the Cards have had with him and his relationship with LaRussa why wouldn’t he give a bit of a home town discount?). Why sell low on a player who in vital to our chances? That’s foolish.

Yup, just like it was likely that Gary Matthews Jr. would be out of baseball and not making $12M per year right now. You don’t have any idea what will happen next year with him, but here’s a couple of scenarios:

He has a killer season next year, makes the All-Star team, plays 150 games, and wins a Gold Glove in CF.
He doesn’t play well, suffers through injuries, and the team has to keep an extra outfielder on the roster because they can’t put him on the DL for some strange reason (i.e. similar to 2008)

In option 1, he heads to free agency seeking a 5-7 year contract paying him $12M-$15M annually. His agent is Scott Boras, so he’s not taking a “hometown discount” when it will be the one time in his life he’s going to be able to negotiate a contract that will give him all the money he needs until the end of his life. In your words, he’d be foolish to not play the market and make as much money as he could. He might eke into the Type A FA category, so the Cards may get a draft pick.

In option 2, would the Cardinals even want to offer him a long term contract? Somebody will take a risk on him, and the Cards have Rasmus, Ludwick, Skip, Mather, John Jay, and Daryl Jones in the high minors or majors at the end of next year. Organizationally it wouldn’t make sense for us to sign an oft-injured high-ceiling guy when we have so many other options. So he leaves and we get nothing in return.

When ChuckB broke this down last week this is why his conclusion was to trade him now and see what you can get in return that could help the current team fill some holes. If you can trade Ankiel and get any combination of a starting SS/2B, closer, or starting pitcher, you have to look at that deal seriously.

As far as Ankiel being vital to our chances of competing? If that’s the case, the team is in far worse shape than you or I would like to admit. He’s a complimentary player — he’s not the type of player that carries a team.

I like Rick Ankiel, I really do, but baseball is a business, and putting him on the trading block right now is really in the best interests of the organization in building a winner in 2009 and beyond.

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

by fourstick on Nov 23, 2008 11:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, he can play everyday, we just don’t want him to play against lefties

Which means he can’t play anyday, because he’d be ineffective.

He’s a 28 year old center fielder that has 40 homer potential — teams would kill to have a guy with that potential, and would be willing to take a risk on him.

Why the hell would you trade a player like this? If I knew Ankiel would be the healthy .275/.350/.540 ish player from last year, and I could get 140 starts from him I wouldn’t trade him for Jake Peavy straight up. That would be idiotic.

(Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano anyone?).

Yes, because this is the norm.

Yup, just like it was likely that Gary Matthews Jr. would be out of baseball and not making $12M per year right now.

Yes because this is the norm. Most teams aren’t as stupid as the Angels. The Angels can only carry so many centerfielders on their roster.

He has a killer season next year, makes the All-Star team, plays 150 games, and wins a Gold Glove in CF.

Then he becomes a type A and we get two excellent picks. Or we retain a kick-ass player. Hard to see the downside.

His agent is Scott Boras, so he’s not taking a "hometown discount"

Tell this to A-Rod and Kenny Rogers.

In option 2, would the Cardinals even want to offer him a long term contract?

Uh, yes? In this scenario he is Grady Sizemore minus the steals. At $15m per that is one hell of a deal. You can move the other players too.

When ChuckB broke this down last week this is why his conclusion was to trade him now and see what you can get in return that could help the current team fill some holes. If you can trade Ankiel and get any combination of a starting SS/2B, closer, or starting pitcher, you have to look at that deal seriously.

Of course you should look at it. You should look at every permissibility. I find it unlikely they can get value.

As far as Ankiel being vital to our chances of competing? If that’s the case, the team is in far worse shape than you or I would like to admit. He’s a complimentary player — he’s not the type of player that carries a team.

Wrong. It’s not a coincidence the team started to unravel shortly after he was injured. If he’s healthy and he plays like he did last year pre injury He’s a ~.890 OPS center fielder who is +5ish or better on defense. That is one hell of a player, that’s guy who is in the running for an MVP. That’s a guy who is Grady Sizemore or Carlos Beltran without the steals. Players like that should be coveted.

Even if he doesn’t play as well as last year as long as he can OPS .800 and play good defense he still a huge asset. Good center fielders are hard to find.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 24, 2008 3:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re option #2:

I crossed my options. Obviously if he gets hurt and misses a bunch of time / becomes innefective, he’s not getting a LT deal from anyone. Maybe you give him a chance to rebound on a 1 year deal.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 24, 2008 3:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But why would we do that?

We have a young CF who’s cheap at AAA right now, Ludwick is cheap for another 3 years. So we should just sign an outfielder that can’t stay on the field to a one year deal for $7M or something even though we have the depth in the outfield to let him go. It’s bad business to stick with a guy who’s got injury issues, hoping that they’ll turn it around.

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

by fourstick on Nov 24, 2008 9:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, you're speculating. Get a dose of reality

Then he becomes a type A and we get two excellent picks. Or we retain a kick-ass player. Hard to see the downside.

The downside? We’ll only get two “excellent” picks if he signs with a team outside of the top 15. The first rounders aren’t guaranteed. If he signs for a team with a protected pick we get two supplemental choices, which can be anywhere from 32-100 or so. There’s a ton of supplemental choices every year. Basically we could end up with two second round picks for him, IF he has a great year. I’d much rather have a SS or 2B who can start and help the club next year rather than in 2014 when Albert is 33 years old and playing for the Yankees.

Tell this to A-Rod and Kenny Rogers.

A-Rod took a “discount”? I suppose he could have gone overseas and pulled a David Beckham or something…oh wait, he makes more money than David Beckham. He has a $300M contract with incentives, and that’s taking a discount? Hell, sign me up for that any day! He couldn’t have gotten a bigger deal anywhere else, despite what Scott Boras (the master of misinformation to make himself look good) says.

Kenny Rogers is 43 years old, has been a free agent multiple times and didn’t want to pitch anywhere but Detroit, I hardly see how that’s comparable to Ankiel. He’s going to be a free agent in his prime one time in his life, he’d be foolish to take a $10M per year deal with the Cardinals when there’s a $12-$15M per year deal, for more years, on the table. Would you take a $5M paycut just to stay in St. Louis when you can only make that kind of money one time in your life?

Wrong. It’s not a coincidence the team started to unravel shortly after he was injured.

Actually, it’s pretty coincidental that we lost Wainwright and Albert right after his first injury, had a crappy bullpen all season, and then lost Carpenter, again, after his groin injury. We had the third best offense in the National League last year! Our pitching and bullpen is what did us in, not that fact that Rick “Roy Hobbs” Ankiel didn’t play in the second half. Have some perspective please.

He’s a ~.890 OPS center fielder who is +5ish or better on defense. That is one hell of a player, that’s guy who is in the running for an MVP. That’s a guy who is Grady Sizemore or Carlos Beltran without the steals. Players like that should be coveted.

Even if he doesn’t play as well as last year as long as he can OPS .800 and play good defense he still a huge asset. Good center fielders are hard to find.

After saying all of that, you still think that he doesn’t have trade value to another team? I agree with your assessment, the only problem is that we have a Grady Sizemore type at AAA who is 22 years old and cost controlled for six full seasons, gaping holes in the middle infield and bullpen, and the need for another starter. I’d rather trade Ankiel, who’s going to cost us multimillions over the next 6 seasons if we sign him, than trade Rasmus, who could put up Sizemore numbers, with the steals, for the next 6 seasons for the same price as Ankiel would cost us for 1 season. If he were to take a hometown discount, he’d still make more in one season than Rasmus will make for the first 5 years on the big leagues. It’s just bad business, period.

Most teams aren’t as stupid as the Angels

Yup, dumb stupid Angels, who’ve been in the playoffs pretty much this whole decade and have won a World Series. I would love to be that dumb and stupid.

Yes, because this is the norm.

No, it’s not the norm, but it happens all the damn time, which was my point. Someone, somewhere, is going to own a team, have a checkbook open, and be a fanboy like yourself and pay Rick multimillions that the Cardinals can’t, on the slight chance that they can market him as a superstar player and he becomes a keystone in their franchise.

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

by fourstick on Nov 24, 2008 9:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

While I don't want to get in the middle of this

The Angels are lucky enough to be in a 4 team division with stupid, rebuilding and no-pitching-to-save-life.

The Matthews contract was pretty damn dumb though.

by azruavatar on Nov 24, 2008 9:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying that it wasn't

But they have to be doing something right when they’re competing every year, right? They were lucky last year and played in a division that didn’t have a pulse. Although if you buy JI’s theory that you can win with great offense and shitty pitching, Texas should have been an awesome team last year shouldn’t they?

My overall point is that someone, somewhere has a checkbook that they’ll open up to take a chance on Rick if he has a mediocre to great year next year, and he’d be stupid not to consider taking the money.

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

by fourstick on Nov 24, 2008 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Although if you buy JI’s theory that you can win with great offense and shitty pitching

You’re good at misunderstanding, and misrepresenting other people’s arguments aren’t you?

Furcal

by JI on Nov 24, 2008 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just quoting you...

that they have an excellent chance of reaching October even with sub average pitching

That is in your original post. Try to remember what you say.

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

by fourstick on Nov 24, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Big difference between sub average and shitty.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 24, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

After saying all of that, you still think that he doesn’t have trade value to another team?

I doubt he has proper value on the open market, my point is that you almost surely wont get a player with his high of a ceiling back in return, because you are trading 1 year of Ankiel for (likely) several years of another player, so that other player would likely be of lesser yearly value. Given Mo’s track record, I don’t trust him to make any hitter for pitcher trade, and honestly you’d have to pick up a borderline all star middle infielder to make it worth while. Good luck.

If he were to take a hometown discount, he’d still make more in one season than Rasmus will make for the first 5 years on the big leagues. It’s just bad business, period.

It may be possible to play both players on the same field at the same time! I checked into it and it’s true. Ramsus/Ankiel’s value doesn’t change because one is playing leftfield. False dilemma!

If Ankiel is the valuable player he was last year before his injury he’d be more than worth it at 5/70. That’s highway robbery on management’s part. Power hitting centerfielders than can play defense are hard to find.

Yup, dumb stupid Angels, who’ve been in the playoffs pretty much this whole decade and have won a World Series. I would love to be that dumb and stupid.

You can’t be serious. The Angels moves the last few years have been horrible.

-They traded Cabrera for Jon Garland
-They gave Justin Speier a 4 year deal
-They signed GMJ to a 5/50 deal
-They signed Torii Hunter until the age of 37.
-They refuse to play Napoli every day.
-They traded three years of Kotchman, plus another player, for two months of Teixeria (embarrassingly stupid, especially if they don’t sign him at a discount)

These are not moves a smart team makes, the Angels were already a mediocre team last year (just 84 third order wins), and if their track record is any indication, I have a hard time seeing how they’re going to pick up six more with out giving out another crippling contract. The West will probably be a bad division next year.

After saying all of that, you still think that he doesn’t have trade value to another team?

Sure he does, but it’s a better gamble to keep him. If you can tell me of a player they could realistically get in a deal that has a high a ceiling as Ankiel does— or not even that maybe someone who’s a good player, not an all star, but someone who is solid and extremely likely to stay healthy and fills a need I’d love to hear it. Because if you dump him for someone that can’t help this year you are basically conceding the playoffs in a year where we have a great core of players and the division is wide open.

Actually, it’s pretty coincidental that we lost Wainwright and Albert right after his first injury

Those guys went down in June. Ank went down at the end of July

and then lost Carpenter, again, after his groin injury.

Never was a factor. Irrelevant.

Our pitching and bullpen is what did us in, not that fact that Rick "Roy Hobbs" Ankiel didn’t play in the second half.

False dilemma. Maybe it was all three? You’re honestly going to tell me that losing Ankiel, a guy who was arguably the best centerfielder in the league, and a legit MVP candidate on the day he went down wouldn’t have much of an effect? Are you kidding? Losing one of the team’s star players hurt the offense and defense, and made it harder to save/score runs to make up for the bad pitching.

Look, I’m not saying Ankiel is the key to winning, it’s obvious that Pujols is the best player in the game, and by a wide margin. However, great teams are built around strong starting lineups. The Cardinals need all of Glaus/Ludwick/Pujols/Ankiel healthy and productive to win.

Yes you can trade Ankiel, and make yourself better, but what I dislike is the process, We “need” pitching, and have “lots of offense”, therefore we must trade some of that offense for pitching. There’s some flaws here, 1) You are almost completely ignoring the value of team depth and defense, and 2) If you trade Ankiel for a pitcher, you’ve made your lineup considerably worse to add pitching. That could very well have a negative effect, and at best a neutral one. Pitching is overpriced on the market, I find it very unlikely that you can get a worthwhile pitcher in return.

I think we should do what we always do, dumpster dive for a couple of live arms, or sign an averageish pitcher to a 1 year deal (like the Loshe signing from last year). Right we have Wainwright, Loshe, Wellemeyer, we only need a couple more guys similar two the latter two, an average guy at the BOR that won’t get destroyed. The bullpen will be better (it would be hard to be worse), and if the lineup stays healthy (and we add a decent middle infielder or two), this is a team that can win 90 games and reach the postseason without having to wildly overspend on an “proven ace”.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 24, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We have a proven ace already

Wainwright will make that jump next year I believe. Carp may or may not help us, that’s up in the air.

If we could add #3 starter type to this rotation we wouldn’t be relying so heavily on Lohse and Colonel repeating 2008’s performance and we’d have a little insurance in case the Colonel gets hurt.

If we get two good lefties in the bullpen that will help immensely. I’m all for turning the keys over to Perez in the ninth inning and letting Motte and McClellan set up, but I still think that trying to find an established closer on the cheap (like Saito, Percival, or Hoffman) would be a good idea on a one year deal.

Middle infield is the bigger problem to me. I think that if you can trade Ankiel for a player like Yunel Escobar, Dan Uggla, Kelly Johnson, or Brian Roberts I think you have to make that trade. Mather/Rasmus could probably fill in fairly well for Ank’s numbers, and I think that those two plus an upgrade in the middle infield, especially at SS, would make up for losing Rick’s offense. Defensively, I think Rasmus is just as good as Rick is, if not better (I know that’s hard to believe, but the kid is a natural in CF), Skip can be an average defender in center, and even Ludwick could play there in a pinch if needed.

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

by fourstick on Nov 24, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I love Ank, but I would be open to this:

think that if you can trade Ankiel for a player like Yunel Escobar, Dan Uggla, Kelly Johnson, or Brian Roberts I think you have to make that trade.

But if Kennedy is half as good as the metrics indicate, you give Kennedy a platoon job, offense be damned. Personally, I’d try to sign Furcal and then play Kennedy.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 24, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd make the Texeira for Kotchman trade

everyday of the week and twice on Sundays. That move wasn’t under the pretext of a straight WAR for WAR analysis, it was solely to improve their odds in the playoffs. It’s not like Kotchman is anything special — maybe an average player at best.

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Nov 24, 2008 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kotchman is a fantastic defensive 1B with a slightly above average bat.

That’s a pretty good player.

It was a pointless move, the Angels had a huge lead in the West. Their odds of winning the WS before the trade roughly: 1 in 4, their odds after: roughly 1 in 4.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 25, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

On pitching...and I'm talking about World Series Champs

You can back your way into a pennant in a shitty league with shitty pitching and a great offense — but that usually catches up to you in the World Series.

Good pitching does matter….look at how well those “crappy” Cardinal pitchers pitched in that 2006 postseason. Suppan had a ERA that was worse that league average that season and was the MVP of the NLCS for Pete’s sake! Jeff Weaver didn’t throw a decent 5 innings in any start the entire final month of the season, then became unhittable in the postseason. We also had a true ace in Chris Carpenter to throw three games in any 7 game series, and Anthony Reyes pitched the game of his life in Game 1.

All the other teams on your list were done in by pitching in the postseason by teams with better overall pitching staffs. Nearly all of those teams also had a certified “ace” on their staff which tilts things in favor of them, similar to Cole Hamels for the 2008 Phillies, Schilling and RJ for the 2001 D-Backs, and Schilling and Pedro for the 2004 Red Sox. You don’t need to have a great staff up and down, but you really need at least 2 solid starters to make a legit playoff run.

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

by fourstick on Nov 23, 2008 11:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That doesn't change that Weaver, Suppan, and Reyes all blow

and yet we won anyway.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 24, 2008 3:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You don't seem to get it

Yes, they sucked for most of the season — I acknowledged that. But they didn’t suck for the entire postseason, and they were the reason that we won the World Series. We didn’t score 7 runs a game in any series in the entire playoffs, so it’s ridiculous to say that you can just load up on a bunch of sluggers on offense and win a World Series with shitty pitching. That’s completely untrue and it hasn’t happened. You need good pitching, or good pitching performances to win in the playoffs. You’re much more likely to get good pitching performances out of good pitchers, since rolling the dice with a bunch of crappy ones tends to give you crappy results, the 2006 Cardinals excepted. The 2008 Cardinals had the league’s third best offense, but didn’t have an ace on the staff for most of the season and despite a career year by Kyle Lohse and Todd Wellemeyer, the team still ended up in the middle of the pack in terms of pitching, when we play in a pitchers park. If that doesn’t prove my point I don’t know what does.

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

by fourstick on Nov 24, 2008 9:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think you as much as individual player value as you think you do.

it’s ridiculous to say that you can just load up on a bunch of sluggers on offense and win a World Series with shitty pitching.

You must not be paying attention. Those sluggers have to be able to field, that’s why our current lineup is so good. This isn’t the post 2000 Yankees where you have a team that scores, but has butchers like Jeter, Williams, Sheffield, and Giambi etc. all over the lpace that give many of those runs back. it’s a top 3 offensive team that can play defense, that’s rare and special.

Baseball is on 35-40% pitching, the most important to a component to a good team is a good starting lineup.

a career year by Kyle Lohse

Loshe didn’t have a career year, his tRA was almost five. He was the same mediocre pitcher he’s always been.

You need good pitching, or good pitching performances to win in the playoffs.

No you just need to score more runs than the other team. Whether it’s 2-0, 6-4, or 12-9, I don’t care. You’re missing the point, the point is that you shouldn’t trade a guy, especially one who is a good player, simply because you “need” pitching. There are many scenarios where you can trade Ankiel for an established pitcher and lose the trade. Since this is a team that gave Loshe and Piniero long term deals, I have zero confidence in their ability to evaluate pitchers correctly when making a trade. Remember, elite position players are almost always worth more than elite pitchers.

If that doesn’t prove my point I don’t know what does.

Maybe if we fixed the team’s historically awful bullpen we pick up 3 or 4 wins and make the playoffs? Worked for the Rays. (Not using Franklin for anything but mop-up. and cutting ties to Isringhausen basically solves this problem. Perez could be incosistant, and our bullpen could show a huge improvement.

The way I see it, is now you can deal Ankiel for something safe, but mediocre, or you can take a risk and potentially have an MVP caliber player next year. It’s worth rolling the dice on, because the payoff on Ankiel’s ceiling is worth a hell of a lot more than the payoff an average starting pitcher. (Did you see what the Rockies got for Holliday? This is not a sellers market).

*I forgot about Peavy’s new contract. It’s an extremely favorable contract, so yeah I would deal them straight up, but that’s not going to happen.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 24, 2008 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the Rays

had awesome starting pitching this year. They essentially had 4 #2 starters on their team (Sonnanstine, Garza, Kazmir, and Shields). They’ll add David Price to that mix next season. Their inability to score runs against really good Philly pitching in the World Series really did them in.

It’s the same in every sport, but more so in baseball and basketball. The teams that repeatedly play good defense and have solid pitching — things that are easier to repeat consistently, are going to have a better shot at winning in the postseason. The NBA Finals last year were a prime example — you had an LA team that relied on jump shooting, which is notoriously streaky, against a Boston team that played great team defense and relied on getting to the lane and the line to score points.

You can have an awesome offense going into the playoffs, but great offenses still struggle against great pitching. You can have a team with Ruth, Aaron, and Mays on it with a bunch of cruddy pitchers, and I’ll stand a good chance with a rotation of Gibson, Feller, and Koufax and a bunch of sub-average position players. Those three guys are going to keep the game close enough that my putrid offense might be able to win some games 2-1 or 3-2. In the history of baseball, the teams that win the most in the postseason have at least one or two really good pitchers, regardless of how good their offense is.

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

by fourstick on Nov 24, 2008 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

l. The teams that repeatedly play good defense and have solid pitching — things that are easier to repeat consistently, are going to have a better shot at winning in the postseason.

Again, there’s nothing wrong with this, but there’s more than one way to win. Right now defense is one of the most undervalued commodities on the market, and we are swimming in it (that it is attached to quality hitters is a bonus), it’s hard to get equal value for a premium defensive player.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 24, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Their inability to score runs against really good Philly pitching in the World Series really did them in.

Then why didn’t the Rays win? They had much better pitching after all. The Phillies rotation wasn’t exactly great. Obviously Hamels is good and Myers is decent, but Kendrick and Eaton were disasters, and Moyer and Blanton were OK, but not great. IMO, If our rotation is healthy it would be similar into performance to that one. A big reason why they were so effective on a team basis at preventing runs is because Utley is a god, and Rollins and Feliz are big defensive pluses as well.

I’m not saying the pitching is fine, but I think adding a star to the middle infield will be much more feasable than adding a big difference maker to the staff.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 24, 2008 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's not base any conclusions on a handful of World Series games

The Rays lost because they didn’t play as well as the Phillies. To extrapolate from that to more grand statements about the Rays and Phillies true talent, or even grand statements about “what wins champsionships” is folly and short-sighted…

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 24, 2008 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs