Sheets Leaving Home (bye bye)

by the red baron on Dec 10, 2008 10:04 AM EST Comment 826 comments

Does anyone else out there love the Winter Meetings as much as I do? It's just such a fun time of the year; at no other time (not even the trade deadline), do you ever have a rumour mill like this. Both the sane and the completely absurd are legion, and sifting through them is just more fun than I can possibly believe is morally acceptable.

But I digress. I do have a specific topic upon which I plan to pontificate on this chilly December morn, and I shall move on to it posthaste.

This little nugget comes to us courtesy of Mr. Joe Strauss (aka Droopy), in his chat over at the Post Dispatch website yesterday:

therealdealankiel: Joe,

Jon Garland, Oliver Perez, Andy Pettitte, Randy Wolf or Ben Sheets. You can have one of them for a 1-2 year deal and they bolt. Who do you sign?

Joe Strauss: Garland for durability reasons. Next.

From the sound of it, Joe didn't even really think about it, did he? Maybe he should have.

Now, I'm not looking to pick on Mr. Strauss here (or at least, that isn't my primary goal), but I'm really bothered by this line of thinking. See, the thought process here is that hey, Jon Garland is a durable, dependable pitcher, right? Right. He absolutely is. Garland has made at least 32 starts every year that he has played in the major leagues, with the exception of his rookie season. So yes, Jon Garland is very, very durable. He will take the ball every fifth day.

But here's the problem with Jon Garland: he's just an average pitcher. Hell, by some measures, he's a bit below average, but I'm willing to give him averageness. I shall endeavor, in fact, to deliver avergeosity to Jon Garland on a silver platter. So average it is.

Last year, Garland had an ERA of 4.90. See, that's not so good. What's worse, though, is when we look at his FIP. It was 4.80. Unfortunately, that means that Garland wasn't just unlucky for the season, the victim of bloop singles and well-placed groundballs. No, Jon Garland is the victim of not striking out pretty much anyone, to be perfectly frank. Now, he also doesn't walk hardly anyone, but with such low K rates (he struck out just a hair over 10% of the hitters he faced last season), the margin of error for Mr. Garland is always going to be razor thin.

Now, the real problem with this is that Garland is going to get paid. And you know what? That's fine. A guy that takes the ball every single day should get paid. But, along with all of that comes the knowledge that some team out there is going to give Garland a multi year deal, probably somewhere in the four or five year range, for big money. (Every time I hear the phrase big money, I immediately think of the old Nintendo game Smash TV. Anyone else?) Now, I realise that the above question was asked of Mr. Strauss as a hypothetical, a which-guy-do-you-want-if sort of thing, and was predicated on a two year deal or something, but I think Strauss' answer is still very illuminating. Looking at Jon Garland as the best guy of that group above because of durability is really kind of a bad idea.

See, Jon Garland made 32 starts this season past, throwing 196.2 innings. That's the good part of his skillset; again, he is very durable and dependable. Ben Sheets, one of the guys on that list that I'm sure everyone is scared of due to his durability issues, made 31 starts and threw 198.1 innings. Sheets probably would have thrown even more than that, except he missed a couple of starts, as he very nearly always does.

But here's the rub: in those 196.2 innings, Garland amassed a VORP score of 11.6. Normally, I'm not a big fan of VORP, honestly, as I tend to prefer rate stats, but it's all kinds of useful here. Sheets, in less than two additional innings, posted a VORP of 51.7.

Just let that sink in a second.

Little longer.

Okay. Got it?

In less than two innings more than Jon Garland, Ben Sheets accumulated slightly less than five times the VORP rating. I don't know about you, but that's mighty impressive to me.

Since 2005, when Garland broke out with the White Sox, the two players have put up these FIPs:

Year	Garland	Sheets
2005	4.33	3.37
2006	4.40	2.40(!)
2007	4.44	4.05
2008	4.80	3.36

Look at that. In every season but one, Sheets has been almost a full run or more better than Garland. Hell, in 2006, Sheets was two full runs better. That's ridiculous.

Of course, the equalizing factor here is the innings pitched. In 2006, for example, when Sheets was putting up that absolutely absurd 2.40 FIP, Garland threw 211 innings to Sheets' 106. You can't just ignore that.

However, in those 106 innings, Sheets also put up a 24 on the VORP-o-meter, as compared to Garland's 32.4 in his 211 innings. In a little over half the innings, Sheets put up 75% of the value that Garland added to his team.

Here are the same years of each man's career as above, with VORP scores this time:

Year	Garland	Sheets
2005	50.7	32.1
2006	32.4	24.0
2007	26.6	31.4
2008	11.6	51.7

I was honestly a little surprised to see just how good Garland was in 2005; I was under the impression that he had a good season and looked even better due to the team he was on, but he was, in fact, absolutely brilliant that season. Sadly, he hasn't approached that kind of outstanding performance since. He's been pretty solid at times, just okay at others.

Now, Sheets is another story entirely. In the only season in which both pitchers had a similar number of innings, 2008, Sheets simply destroyed Garland's performance. Despite innings totals that are consistently much, much higher, Garland hasn't added more real value to his team.

And the best part? Sheets shouldn't cost you a four year deal. According to mlb.com, the Yankees have offered Sheets a contract for two years, worth somewhere in the 26-30 million dollar range. (The mlb story says 30, but I've heard a little lower. Regardless.) Now, which would you rather have? Garland for, say, four years, at the end of which he'll be 33 years old, and whose performance has dramatically declined over the past four seasons, or Sheets for two, at the end of which he'll be 32, and whose performance has remained quite consistent, with only nagging injuries conspiring to keep him off the field? For me, it's not really a tough question.

The other question, of course, is whether or not the Cardinals could, or should, beat that offer. Well, I think they definitely could do as well, and maybe do a little better if necessary. Personally, I've always gotten the feeling that Sheets likes it here in St. Louis; if the offers were the same from the Yanks and the Cardinals, I actually think he might be inclined to take the Cards' offer. Note that I'm not advocating the so-called 'hometown discount'; one, I don't know where Sheets is from, nor do I particularly care, so the hometown in question may not be anywhere near here, and two, I've always thought that was kind of bullshit anyway. If a player likes playing for your team and in your city, he may take a little less. But trying to lowball people constantly leads to mediocre talent. If the talent is there, pony up.

The other big rumour that's been flying again the past twenty four hours is that the Cardinals are supposedly big in on Brian Fuentes again. Oy. I can't tell you how disheartened I am to hear this sort of thing. Luckily, it appears that there may not be much to this rumour, as Mozeliak was fairly quick to dispel it last night, but still, one hopes this isn't a where-there's-smoke situation.

See, the thing about relievers is this: relievers simply don't throw enough innings to save enough runs to justify the difference in salaries you're going to pay for the elite ones. In order for a reliever to make even one wins' worth of difference in the run column, he would have to put up an ERA a full run lower than some other reliever over the course of 90 innings. Given the fact that no reliever throws 90 innings anymore, you start getting into a situation where the difference in performance between two relievers simply isn't large enough to be worth large amounts of salary.

What sort of salary are we talking about? Well, there has been a lot of speculation, but say that the Cardinals were able to get a good deal on Fuentes, say, 2 years, $18 million. (I'm not saying that's a good deal to me, but given the market costs for closers...) Now add on to that salary the loss of the Cards' first round draft pick in 2009. Now, tell me: how much better than Chris Perez/ Jason Motte/ Kyle McClellan would Brian Fuentes have to be to justify those costs? One win? Two? More? Chances are, and I mean this strictly from a mathematical standpoint, Fuentes has zero chance of being that much better, whatever number you chose. We're talking about a strictly marginal upgrade for non-marginal dollars, plus a draft pick. No thank you.

The other thing that I hear a lot about Fuentes is that he would somehow come in and fulfill the Cards' need for a shutdown lefty. No, he wouldn't. This one, in particular, really sticks in my craw, because it's based on a terrible assumption.

See, if Fuentes and his big contract were brought in here, it would be as a closer. Closers aren't lefties. They aren't righties, either. Closers are closers. When people talk about a lefthanded or righthanded reliever, they're talking about a guy who will be used in a certain way, to get out batters of the same orientation. That's not how closers work. Closer usage patterns don't conform to the patterns you see in the rest of a bullpen. What side a closer throws from is completely irrelevant; he's going to be used the exact same way either way. Now, we can argue about whether or not that's the best way to do things or not all day long, but it is what it is. Thus, thinking that Fuentes is going to come in and help out the left side of the Cardinal bullpen is just flat wrong. He's here, he's closing, and the hand he throws with becomes irrelevant.

So what I say is this: if the Cards are really serious about having another $15-14 million to spend, I think there's only one player out there right now that would justify the cost. They don't like Randy Johnson, for whatever reason. Personally, I think the Unit would be a good one year stopgap, but if the organisation is committed to not bringing in old guys just looking for another year or two, then I can respect that. But guys like Garland, while durable, don't add enough value to justify the extended contract. Burnett is a hell of a pitcher, but again, I don't like giving up draft picks, and he wants a four or five year deal too. Any closer you can sign is going to be a marginal upgrade over the triumvirate of young arms the Cardinals already have. I know it's tempting to just look at that 31 blown saves number from last year and say, "With even an average bullpen, the Cardinals would have...", trust me, I do. I've done it myself plenty of times. But that's overly simplistic. The Cardinals need to improve the team, period. The best bet to significantly do that, where value (two year deal), meets performance (ridiculous numbers when healthy), is Ben Sheets.

Just take the rest of the money you have to spend this offseason and give it to Sheets. Plug him in to the rotation. You've still got fifty outfielders on the roster; someone has to have a good LOOGY they'd be willing to give up for Skippy. Deal whatever outfielders you can, trying to maximize the value return. If Ankiel can get you an upgrade at second, do it. If not, go with Kennedy. It's the last year of his deal, and he'll help the pitching staff. You can do worse. Seriously.

The bullpen will take care of itself. You've got Perez, Motte, McClellan, Franklin, and Kinney all down there from the right side, plus a couple of prospects that look to be very close to stepping in. Maybe a Wainwright-style apprenticeship for Boggs would be in everybody's best interest? Point is, there are lots and lots of relief arms available, nearly all of them with significant upside. You've got Trever Miller from the left side, along with possibly the returning Tyler Johnson and some other spring training invite type guys. I know, it's tough to be so casual toward the 'pen after last year's implosion, but it's kind of just the nature of bullpens. Any other good relievers you can bring in for one or two of those outfielders would be welcome, of course, but even as is, I think that's a pretty good group.

The bottom line, as I see it, is this: the Cardinals need to field a better team this year than last if they want to have a chance at really contending. Most of the upgrades we're hearing about are going to be marginal, at best, while costing an arm and a leg and a pick. Sheets has the potential to be much more than a marginal upgrade, you don't have to hand him a deal that'll keep him here through the next presidential election cycle, and he won't cost you the draft picks that the Cardinals need to have in order to keep building this thing. Is he an injury risk? Yes, he is. But as we saw above, even while missing time, often significant time, Sheets still managed to contribute comparable value to his team as one of the pitchers on the market that's most likely going to get a deal twice as long due to the virtue of durability. And just think of what kind of numbers he could put up with the Cardinal defense behind him if he were to stay healthy. It boggles the mind.

So there's my plan to fix the team by the end of the Winter Meetings. Did I tell you how much I love this time of year?

Editor's Note: I screwed up; Sheets was offered arbitration and is, in fact, a Type A free agent, meaning that he would cost the Cardinals their first round pick in '09. I had confused Sheets with Randy Johnson, the other pitcher I've been stumping for this offseason. It makes Sheets less attractive to me, but I still think the other factors (short contract, quality of pitcher, etc.), make him a big enough upgrade to justify the loss of the pick. My apologies for the mistake.

-RB

0 recs | Comment 826 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

“Now, I’m not looking to pick on Mr. Strauss here”

No worries, I’ve got this one. (I have no idea what anything in your post is about after this because I need to post on this before returning to reading.)

Joe Strauss is a baseball oldtimer who relies far to heavily on antiquated conventional wisdom. He doesn’t understand how to value players properly in the context of their marginal worth to the team. He’s the beat writer but his opinions are often misguided or flat out wrong.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. . . .

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2008 10:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Garlands 2009 WAR

4.43 FIP * 180 IP = 89 runs
5.50 * 160 + 5.00 * 20 = 110 runs

Garland is a 2 WAR player next year. Sadly, his contract has the ability to make the Lohse signing look dumb. I think I might be slowly turning on the Lohse signing.

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2008 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

At least Lohse had a non-embarrassing K-rate while improving his BB and GB rates last year.

by mikedallas45 on Dec 10, 2008 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he has better stuff than garland

by vivaelpujols on Dec 10, 2008 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not to mention

strauss is woefully ignorant of who is in the farm system

Amaury translates into "Punisher of Spheroids" in the lost tongue of Atlantis. Marti means "Belgian Waffle." www.futureredbirds.net

by erik on Dec 10, 2008 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Woefully or willfully?

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 10, 2008 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

woefully and willfully

and he’s smug, too. not sure how you can be so smug about what you know so little about.

Amaury translates into "Punisher of Spheroids" in the lost tongue of Atlantis. Marti means "Belgian Waffle." www.futureredbirds.net

by erik on Dec 10, 2008 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I particularly liked

his line about Tony not joining in on the ‘organisational fetish’ with Tyler Greene. Now that’s good smug.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 10, 2008 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i'll credit him there

TyGreene just isn’t good.

Amaury translates into "Punisher of Spheroids" in the lost tongue of Atlantis. Marti means "Belgian Waffle." www.futureredbirds.net

by erik on Dec 10, 2008 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that's because you are a hyperventilating prospect geek

or something like that. If you were a sedate veteran cool guy, like him, you’d understand.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strauss should absolutely

be limited to reporting what happens on the field and in the clubhouse. He should never be asked, nor allowed to answer, any questions that involve analysis of baseball players or teams. Report that Glaus bobbled the ball or that Pineiro walked 7 or whatever. Don’t tell us how great Pineiro is.

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2008 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strauss

Agree completely on Strauss. His one utility is access to TLR. Beyond that, it’s like getting a report from Joe 6-pack who goes to lots of games (and I may be defaming Joe 6-pack). Derrick Goold is light years ahead of Strauss.

by jjray on Dec 10, 2008 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strauss seems to parrot

TLR’s thinking, pretty often. I think he’s a decent writer, although his odd sentence constructions sometimes make me stop and re-read to be sure I understand his points.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 10, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cards made big offer for K-Rod.....

per mlbrumors.com

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/12/cardinals-made.html

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 10, 2008 10:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

ugh

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2008 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice new avatar, by the way, AZ.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 10, 2008 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do what I can.

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2008 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That means that cash is still laying around

waiting to be spent on some other not needed closer.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 11:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

this whole "need a closer" argument

baffles me day-after-day. We really could get Sheets. It’s totally plausible. Put Perez at closer and we can have another ace on our pitching staff. Is Fuentes really worth giving that opportunity up? Of course not. Hopefully Mo will realize this . . . or someone will just offer Fuentes ridiculous money. (I’m so glad Wood was signed by someone else and is off the table).

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Dec 10, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The whole argument against it baffles me...

The Cardinal bullpen was the single root cause of us not being in contention last season — if it had not blown a league average amount of saves the club wins about 14 more games, nearly enough to win the division.

The starting rotation, with only half a season from Wainwright, finished just above league average in the national league. If we anticipate a full season from Wainwright and similar performances by Lohse and Wellemeyer next season the rotation should still be pretty good, and that’s without even discussing the possibility that Carpenter is ready by May or midseason which seems more likely by the day.

I would agree that adding Sheets would be a better overall move because you get a whole lot more value out of a starter than you do out of a reliever, but stating that the back of the bullpen isn’t a problem that needs to be addressed is just false. Perez has shown signs of being a good closer, but he was also very shaky at times. We didn’t offer arbitration to our best reliever from the last two seasons and currently our 7th and 8th inning guys consist of a guy with one great pitch and nothing else, and a guy who was nails for the first half of the season and wore out in the second half — and LaDunc have dropped hints about putting him in the starting rotation. Our bullpen for 2009 is anything but set. Adding a closer to the mix would really help the situation by shoring up the 9th inning and leaving LaDunc the opportunity to mix and match the 7th and 8th inning guys to get the most out of them.

Honestly, I like Perez, I do. But from Mo’s perspective, the two best ways to help the current ballclub at the start of the offseason were to get help at SS and in the bullpen. He’s taken care of the SS position with the trade for Greene, and adding a quality closer would be the single best thing he could do to help the bullpen.

"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 Dec 10, 2008 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

as long as

the closer is on a deal of 2 years or shorter. I think nearly everyone believes that even if CP isn’t able close this year, he should definitely have the stuff, control, or whatever TLR and Dunc want from him by the end of next year.

"Little League Baseball is a very good thing because it keeps parents off the streets." -Yogi Berra

by jacksonian on Dec 10, 2008 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We'd be better served to trade for a closer...

I believe Putz, Capps and Rauch were all mentioned in the same MLBTraderumors post cited above. Trade Anks salary for one of them and we can still go after the Sheets, Johnsons, (or Pennys?) of the world.

by BustaCard on Dec 10, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How can we expect similiar performances

by two guys who had career years?

In 2007, the rotation was in shambles and the bullpen was superb with 2 young guys waiting in the wings.

2008 rolled around and the rotation was very good and the bullpen was a complete mess, mostly because we clung to two established Major League pitchers who weren’t getting the job done.

It’s not like building a house. You can’t see that you need an extra room for the new baby and simply add a new room to complete the house. As far as you know, the foundation may be cracking elsewhere in the building.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also.....

We were without Waino for a while, and didn’t have Carp at all (which may change this year).

I see no reason Lohse can’t duplicate or come close to duplicating last year. Same with Welly. Both have decent reasons for not having performed as well as they did last year in the past.

Would I like to add another SP? Absolutely. I still think it makes more sense to sign a guy like Fuentes, and try to trade Ankiel for one of TB’s starters, then to sign a big name SP, and trade Ankiel for a reliever.

Just me though.

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 10, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i think the knocks on Fuentes are as follows

he isnt that great.
yeah, he has closed and has been great at times…but he has also lost his job twice.

we already have a closer who could probably do a reasonable job, almost as good as Fuentes

Signing Fuentes will probably cost around 10 mil, and our 1st round pick

what if he becomes ineffective again? We have a 10 million dollar lhp and no pick

www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D

by jealousblues on Dec 10, 2008 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well said.

I’ll be really upset if we don’t sign Sheets or Burnett. For years, we’ve been told “the money is there for the right guy”, and if Sheets isn’t that guy, then who is?

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why Sheets?

Dude is an injury risk. A big-time injury risk. And I don’t care what is reported, he is likely to get a 3-4 year contract. Mo has stated he wants 1 or 2 year contracts.

I’d rather trade for the SP. Between TB and NYY, surely we can land somebody solid for Ankiel.

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 10, 2008 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

because Sheets is that good

that’s why… he’s worth the risk

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

plus, we would still have Ank

;-)

www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D

by jealousblues on Dec 10, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nobody is that guy

anyone with a flaw is too flawed
anyone without one is too expensive

www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D

by jealousblues on Dec 10, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because both of their peripherals indicate a trend that would lead to similar, if not better, performances

Lohse and Wellemeyer both improved their walk rates last year, both of their FIP’s improved, and both had K/9 up as well. Yes, they had career years, but Welley has shown this improvement over the last two seasons, and if Lohse keeps the ball down in the zone and throws strikes I see no reason he can’t be nearly as good as he was last year. Wainwright should give us #1 or #2 starter innings, and Carp may be back in the fold.

Adding Sheets would help, but the fact remains that the bullpen isn’t in the greatest shape, as I outlined above. Signing a closer on a 1-2 year deal wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world to help that situation.

"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 Dec 10, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lohse's first half was much better than his second half, though

Nearly a run better, ERA-wise. He also gave up more HRs (10 vs. 8) in the second half of the season in almost 40 less innings.

FWIW.

by Ray Lankford on Dec 10, 2008 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

40 fewer innings?

I’m not a grammer guy.

by Ray Lankford on Dec 10, 2008 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nor a spelling guy

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mariano Rivera was worth

just under 3 wins last year — 2.9. He was the best reliever in baseball. There’s no way 1 closer, no matter how good he is, will make up 14 wins. That doesn’t even include the fact that he’d be replacing Perez, not a replacement-level pitcher. At most, Fuentes or KRod is worth 2 wins more than Perez, and it’s probably a lot closer to 1/2 a win. How much do you want to pay for that 1/2 a win? 3 years, $37 M? Not me. 3 year, $30 M and a first rounder? No chance.

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're talking WAR

I’m talking “number of leads the Cardinals held in the 8th inning or later that ended up being losses”. That number is about 17 and since the average closer will blow 3-4 a season I assumed 14 wins vs. losses. I don’t think that’s an obscene suggestion.

I said nothing about WAR, and I stated that Sheets would provide a great value, as a player, than any closer that we could sign.

I wasn’t saying that we should sign either of those guys — but saying that there’s no bullpen issue that needs to be addressed is flat out wrong. The pen was the teams biggest Achilles heel last year, and I don’t think that just adding a couple of kids to the back end of it and letting the best reliever we had last year walk is just going to magically solve that.

"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 Dec 10, 2008 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

That’s the thing I disagree with, too. This math is based on a closer giving up 9 runs less than the other guy to make one “win”. But if a closer gives up 9 more runs than another guy, there’s almost certainly going to be more than one loss added in the standings, no matter what the pythagorean xW-L record says the record should be.

I don’t believe in the innate ability of one pitcher to do better in the 9th inning than another, but I do believe that relief pitching is undervalued in sabermetrics.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

unless he's the Rick Ankiel of pitchers

wait, that gets really confusing….

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Look at the numbers again

If you look at all of the teams in the National League and take out our pathetic numbers, you will see that the remaining 15 clubs had a save percentage of 62.8. Comparing that to our 57.5 completion rate and 73 save opportunities, the Cardinals should have picked up app. 4 more saves to be considered league average, of which probably three would have prevented losses.

If you want to look a little deeper into our “save opportunities”, the Cardinals also amassed a league-leading 106 holds, meaning that our “real save percentage” was 82.7. Again going through the rest of the NL, the remainder averaged out at 82.8 – no significant advantage.

The average closer does not blow only 3-4 saves per year; that would presume that closers normally have a 90% save percentage. Trying to get an idea of what an “average closer” is, I started with the assumption that the closer would garner at least 80% of the team’s saves (sometimes the job changes hands, due to injury, trade or ineffectiveness). I then checked each NL team this year and grabbed enough relievers (in order by save totals) until at least 80% of the team saves were accounted for. Looking over those numbers, it appears that the “average closer” had 8 blown saves and an 81.2% save percentage.

Comparing that to the Cardinals, our top 3 guys (Franklin, Izzy, Perez) had blown 19 opportunities; switching to the league-average conversion rate above, this trio would combine for 45-of-55. Adding that to the 6 additional saves by the rest of the team, St. Louis would have led the league in saves – and still wouldn’t have caught the Cubs for the division lead. The team lost less than 2/3 of the games that were blown, so you could only safely assume 6 more wins in the ledger. (And you can’t focus on the closer for the 9th, then lump in the blown saves in the 8th at the same time; don’t cherry pick the stats.)

Another way to figure it is to look at it by WPA for relievers. Our bullpen WPA was -1.92, meaning the bullpen as a whole pushed our record basically two games worse in the standings (down from 88-74). Or even better, compare us to the Cubs bullpen, a similar bullpen performance with league-average save numbers; their WPA was +1.94, so that would improve our record by another 2 games (to 90-72) if we had their relievers.

No matter what way you add it up, there is no way that our bullpen problems realistically handed our deserved division title to the Cubs. We had plenty of problems in the pen, but not so much more than an average team.

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

by Solanus on Dec 10, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

quibble

wouldn’t -1.92 WPA be ~ 4 wins (i.e. .5 WPA = 1 win)

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2008 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

1.00 vs 0.50

A difference of +0.50 would be the same as adding one win to your record without removing a loss. A difference of +1.00 would be the same as improving our position in the standings by one game (add one win, remove one loss).

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

by Solanus on Dec 10, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

gotcha

thanks

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So our bullpen was average last season?

That may be your opinion, although this quote:

If you look at all of the teams in the National League and take out our pathetic numbers,

seems to make me think that your opinion of 2008’s bullpen is pretty much like mine.

I think that you’re overlooking a couple of things with your analysis:

Getting a closer doesn’t solve all of the problems, but it’s the best solution to getting the best bang for your buck, because it creates more depth in the current pen, by moving Perez to the 8th inning, and allowing Motte and McClellan to be the mid-game situational stoppers.
.5 WPA = 1 win, so by your example, the Cubs bullpen would have actually been 4 wins better than ours, putting our record at 92-74, which puts us in the playoffs as the Wild Card team.
I said nearly enough to win us the division, not that it wouldn’t have gotten us there. But it would have put us in the playoffs, even with the terrible September that the team had.
Did the bullpen single handedly lose us the division? No. Was a giant piece of the problem last season? Absolutely. Ignoring that fact isn’t going to make the 2009 Cardinals any better. I’m all for waiting out the market and seeing what closer is left without a job, but saying that we shouldn’t address the back end of the bullpen and just hand it to Perez, who wasn’t much better in save situations than Franklin, is shortsighted.

"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 Dec 10, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Our bullpen was definitely subpar,

I am not disagreeing with that. The Cardinals had a real problem last year at the back end of the bullpen. Izzy was unable to get the job done at all, Franklin was miscast as a closer, and Perez did not have enough experience for LaRussa to allow him to work through his inevitable 9th inning growing pains. If they had a reliable closer, I think everyone else would have been slotted better and the cascade effect would have improved our record by more than what I’ve already shown.

As for WPA, I explained that above.

What you said was that the club would have won about 14 more games; the Cubs won 11 more games than we did, so we would have won the division by at least 3 games, assuming none of those reversed contests were against the northsiders. My point was to say that your comments were far from correct. (If you had specifically mentioned that the team would have made the playoffs if not for the bullpen, I would have agreed with you.)

Can we make a reasonable assumption that Perez will improve in his second season in the majors? I think so. Was Franklin really that bad as the closer? Not really; his overall save numbers suffer from being used a set-up man, who gets all of the blame & none of the glory. Will he do better in a set-up or lesser role next year? He seemed to this year; I would think he would do nearly as well, variability of relief performance notwithstanding.

Signing a FA closer would obviously improve our bullpen, but not by enough to justify the contract needed to get him. Most of the needed improvement would be gained by simply getting rid of the dead-weight anchor to last year’s staff (Isringhausen). As for what is shortsighted, I think signing a FA closer is; building from within takes a much longer view than you seem to be giving it.

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

by Solanus on Dec 10, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we pretty much agree...

Except on one point:

As for what is shortsighted, I think signing a FA closer is; building from within takes a much longer view than you seem to be giving it.

I agree that building from within takes a long time, but doesn’t signing Sheets for 2 seasons pretty much go against that “building” phase too? Sometimes if you think you have a chance to compete for a playoff spot you just have to go get the pieces needed to do it.

The above quote also suggests the reason why I think handing the keys to Perez and not pursuing any closers (free agent or otherwise) might be a bad move. Can we expect him to be better? The optimist in me says yes, but that same optimist says that Carpenter will contribute 25+ starts next year too and I wouldn’t bet on that. I don’t think that Perez being the setup man for a year would be a bad thing.

I’m not saying we should sign a high cost closer — there are a few lower cost closers out there right now, including the all time saves leader who was pretty darn good last year and hasn’t been hurt in the last decade. With Hoffman in the fold, Perez would still get some save chances, but wouldn’t be counted on to go out there 50 games a year and shut the other team down. I believe this to be the best case scenario.

"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 Dec 10, 2008 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

closer and closer

my 2 cents is that we have potential closers in the pipeline, but no frontline starters. so, i say if we spend money approaching $10M/yr on a pitcher, it should be a starter.

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

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1 to chuckb

"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

by bgh on Dec 10, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Preach on brother

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Where are you coming up with 2.9??

Inaz had him at 38 FIPRAR before leverage, BPro had him at 30.3 Runs and 6.1 Wins.

That said, a reliever can have a huge impact, but the variability in their performances as well as even their opportunities makes year to year much less reliable.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But he is replacing a replacement level pitcher

Perez doesn’t disappear if we sign K-Rod. Perez goes into the setup role, and the worst guy in the back of the pen goes to Memphis.

But yes, it’s completely stupid to spend on a closer when there are SO MANY good starters out there this offseason.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“it’s completely stupid to spend on a closer when there are SO MANY good starters out there this offseason.”

Actually, isn’t that a reason TO spend money on a closer? The SP pool is deep, and there is likely to be a bargin or two lying around in January or February. So, you use the majority of your funds in an area where supply is low, and then use what’s leftover to buy something more readily available, and thus, cheaper….

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Dec 10, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ace level pitchers are never going to be cheap

we’re getting them at a bargain rate this offseason,, but that bargain rate is still $10-$15M per. We dont’ have the money to throw at a superstar reliever and then to pick up a starter. The difference-making starters aren’t going to get any cheaper than they are right now. If we’re trying to build for Pujols’ best years, the time to invest is now.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

It looks like you’re saying they don’t have the funds for BOTH a big time closer and a difference making starter. I’ll go along with that, for sure. But I have to think they could get one at retail and still have funds left over for a guy a few notches below “difference maker.” There are a bunch of available SPs that fit that second description, and not many available RPs. (and really, if you’re going to go with a guy like that, it makes no sens to go out and pay for him when you have internal options like the Cardinals do.)

I’m not arguing that a top closer is more valuable than a top starter, only that 1) the financial outlay to a top closer is going to be less than that to a top starter (See F-Rod’s deal v. Sabathia’s deal); 2) the list of available closers is shorter than the list of available starters this year, which means that there is less chance that any of them will be around during “bargain time” before the 2009 season.

To be clear – this is not an argument about the value of starters and closers, only a guess as to why maybe the team is willing to spend some $$$ on a closer now, and then look for a starter later…

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Dec 10, 2008 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

we'd be much better off

getting a core group of guys together that can holds leads than spending all of our money on one big closer. Look at the Rays as an example. They had incredible starting pitching, a solid offense, and solid middle relief, and they destroyed the AL.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Dec 10, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sheets was offered Arbitration

thus it would cost us a pick, but I would be willing for that cost for that type of upgrade.

by JBagKY on Dec 10, 2008 10:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Our 1st round pick, I mean

by JBagKY on Dec 10, 2008 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Crap, you're right.

I could have sworn Sheets didn’t even get an arb. offer. I hate it when I get players mixed up. Who was I thinking of?

Eh. I still think Sheets is worth it, but it does change my valuation somewhat. Damnit.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 10, 2008 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Randy Johnson, that's who.

That’s the big name guy who didn’t even get the arb. offer. Stupid.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 10, 2008 10:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Like I Said

I still think that for the value, it might be worth it. If we had offered Looper Arb and he signed elsewhere, the compensation pick would make signing a Type A all that much easier to take. Then again, we should just sign RJ and be done with it, but I don’t understand their lack of desire for him either.

by JBagKY on Dec 10, 2008 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sheets

I am all for signing him. Maybe the Yankees will back off him now that they have apparently signed Sabathia for 7 years & $160 million. Part of the bullpen’s problem last year was over-exposure. The Cardinals did not have enough horses in the rotation to take pressure off the bullpen when it was needed. At least that was my impression.

How good could this team be if Carpenter is healthy, Wainwright is healthy, and they sign Sheets. How is that for a front rotation?

by rthorat on Dec 10, 2008 10:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yankees are after Burnett too

I can’t see them signing all three of them.

by mikedallas45 on Dec 10, 2008 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And Lowe

by BustaCard on Dec 10, 2008 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Funny...

I actually could see them signing all 3, but I still don’t think it will happen.

by Beware the Molinas on Dec 10, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If...

If we should out right sign sheets… then why not trade for Peavy? Impact and durability…

It's not what you do, It's who you do...

by pattimagee on Dec 10, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cost.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RB, consider me sold!

I gotta say I was kind of lukewarm on Sheets, due to durability issues (we have plenty of those already). After seeing your very eloquent argument, however, I have reversed course. The shame of the whole thing is this. It now looks like we might have been able to squeeze enough out of the budget to pay Looper in arbitration and add Sheets. We would then have an insurance policy for the inevitable Sheets/Carpenter breakdown this season.

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

by Eckstreem on Dec 10, 2008 10:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Preach on, Brother Baron

One other point I would add to your excellent post: Which guy was holding the gas can the most often after the bullpen had torched yet another game? That would be the big-money “proven closer”, Izzy. If Sheets gives you 275-300 innings over two seasons then the deal turns out ok, if he gives you more than that then there’s your upside. Or to put it another way, what is more likely: that Sheets manages to stay healthy for a full season, or that Garland suddenly becomes a 3.XX FIP pitcher?

by mikedallas45 on Dec 10, 2008 10:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sheets From Louisiana

That’s good for the Cardinals. St. Louis is a lot closer to Louisiana than New York is to Louisiana.

"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Dec 10, 2008 10:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

once you

have to get on a plane, what’s the difference?

by spencegrif on Dec 10, 2008 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Or a steamboat...

Can you get from Louisiana to NYC on a steamboat? Advantage, Cardinals.

by BustaCard on Dec 10, 2008 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that's why they built the erie canal, dude.

by tom s. on Dec 10, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but how much longer would that take?

All you midwesterners and your Great Lakes knowledge…

by BustaCard on Dec 10, 2008 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I&M Canal

The Eerie Canal may get you from the Hudson River to the Great Lakes, but leaving Lake Michigan to get to the Mississippi River requires navigating this fine piece of 19th C. engineering

My advice to Sheets would be to take a schooner from New Amsterdam to Louisiana.

Advantage: St. Louis

by ncgostl on Dec 10, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm serious

The Great Lakes knowledge on VEB is amazing. I believed the whole Erie canal thing, although I do know a thing or two about schooners.

by BustaCard on Dec 10, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it's a sailboat

by spencegrif on Dec 10, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Before anyone swoops in

This was all a little tongue in cheek.

Here is how you get from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Sanitary_and_Ship_Canal

by ncgostl on Dec 10, 2008 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just watch out for those jumping carp along the way!

If you haven’t seen the videos I highly recommend heading over to youtube and watching

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iLKbtZsIsk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb8OmEr7VqI&feature=related

Another advantage for St. Louis!

by birdo rojo on Dec 10, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sheesh,

by ArkansasTravs on Dec 10, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

(stupid me)

Sheesh,

Now look what y’all have done. I suddenly can’t get it out of my head….

“I’ve got an old mule and her name is Sal…..”

by ArkansasTravs on Dec 10, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Replacing Chris Perez/ Jason Motte/ Kyle McClellan?

That’s a false choice. Fuentes would not limit any of thos players innings, he would just change their roles. I think he may even change them in a positve way, using Perez/Motte in high leverage non-save situations in the 7th or 8th innings. Fuentes would be replacing the worst player in our bullpen and would probably be around a full run over him. Now, I’m not sure I’d want to make this deal either ( I want Orlando Hudson)… I’m just saying if you think that Fuentes will be replacing our best relievers’ innings instead of our worst, you are incorrect.

by Stevo5 on Dec 10, 2008 10:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 10, 2008 11:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cost vs. Innings Pitched

The argument was that spending an extra $8M or so per year for the duration of the contract is not justified given the limited number of innings a proven closer will throw at his level of run prevention. The return on the $8M (give or take) is not worth the expenditure. It’s money more wisely spent on a starting pitcher in the rotation. Would you rather pay, say, $6M more per year for Sheets than, say, an Oliver Perez type, and get about 190 IP of high levels of run prevention or pay $8M more than who would otherwise fill the closer role for about 70 IP? It’s a question of how to spend the money that is apparently available.

"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

by bgh on Dec 10, 2008 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That might be how you look at it.....

I don’t necessarily agree. Not every inning that a SP throws is high leverage. Nearly every inning thrown by a closer is. We all saw last year what not being solid at the end of the pen does to a teams’ wins/losses. We have to close that hole this year. Some of you think Perez/Motte can handle it. Maybe. But maybe not. Why count on them if we don’t have to?

At this point, the question becomes do you want to add Sheets and a guy like Downs, or would you rather add a Sonnastine/Ian Kennedy and Fuentes/K-Rod.

I know which I’d prefer. We have young closers up and coming. What we don’t have is quality young pitching.

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 10, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sonnastine/Ian Kennedy?

We could only be so lucky. I’d rather have one of them before dropping $8M or $10M on a closer, though. What’s more, would LaDunc even install such a young pitcher into the rotation? And, aren’t they to the rotation what Perez/Motte/McClellan are to the bullpen? (As in, young and “unproven” players…) I would love to have either one of those guys, but wonder if they would even get a chance to start over Jo-El Pineiro…

I don’t disagree with signing a closer to compete with any of the youngsters. What I do disagree with is overpaying for what a closer brings. I’d be happy to use McClellan/Perez/Motte in high leverage situations and then trot out someone else for the 9th inning. I think that a guy like Fuentes is just not worth the extra millions in cost given his performance compared to the average closer. It’s just not worth it.

Also, one thing that I agree with LaDunc about and very much believe in is that having a good bullpen is fairly dependent on the performance of the starters. If you can get through the sixth inning with great regularity, then you don’t have to stretch the ’pen and guys can settle into defined roles. This allows guys to pitch in the situations they have the skills for. Thus, getting a fifth starter with demonstrated ability would help in this area.

"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

by bgh on Dec 10, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

We could sign a closer for 8-10 million and have a few million left over for a SP with no trade options, or sign a starter for 8-10 million, trade for a reliever at half the price, or less, it would cost for Fuentes (Putz, $4.4 Rauch, $2.9 Capps, virtually free) and have a murderer’s row of RPs for the 7th-8th and 9th while being able to count on ALL of the starters to get us there most of the time (especially if Carp is back and healthy).
I hope MO concentrates on a 2nd-4th starter type and another, quality LOOGY in FA and another, late-inning reliever via trade.

by BustaCard on Dec 10, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Leverage is such a bogus concept

If your starter screws up for 5 runs in the first three innings who cares how lock down your closer is. See Cordero, Francisco – Reds vs. 2008

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno about bogus

But raw reliever leverage is exaggerated.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's one of the few areas where I deviate from modern sabermetrics

but I think the concept is fundamentally flawed. I have real philosophical issues with WPA because of leveraging. We could get into a long drawn out discussion but, as you said, most managers aren’t effective (smart?) enough to truly leverage their bullpens to the full extent.

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Me too

Maybe I don’t understand the concept fully, but WPA seems like sophistaced RBIs.

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh I know

But all I’m saying is that a 30 run closer is much, much more valuable than a 30 run starter due to leverage.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

If a starter throws a no-hitter against a great team there is no point during which he’s in a high-leverage situation, but clearly those innings were extremely valuable.

by spencegrif on Dec 10, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Unless the score is 1-0

Ben Sheets is only being offered two years? GO GO GO

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Or 0-0 'til late in the game.

by spants on Dec 10, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And.....

If your SP gives up 5 runs in the 5th inning, after your offense has already scored 10 runs, who cares, right?

Works both ways.

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 10, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I care.

That’s kinda my point. A run is a run is a run. Until someone can show me that pitchers can control the distribution of the runs they allow, I don’t particularly care when they’ve allowed them in the past because it’s not indicative of what they’ll do in the future.

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2008 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There is Plenty of anecdotal evidence that they change strategy, though

Pitchers with a big lead are told to just throw strikes and force the opposing offense to put the ball in play in order to save the bullpen.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 8:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And there's research that says

that anecdotal or seemingly intuitive conclusions may be wrong.

THT did an article on it recently. Just because there’s a change in strategy doesn’t mean there’s the ability to execute it.

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 10, 2008 9:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's certainly true.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

someone at BP

did some research on this vis-a-vis Jack Morris and whether or not he belongs in the Hall. Many people say his ERA is so high relative to other HOFers b/c he “pitched to the score.” Turns out that argument is major BS. Morris wasn’t as good as his advocates claim and there’s little evidence to support the “pitches to the score” theory.

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2008 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Pitcher may not have control of when he pitches well,

but a manager ha control of when relievers go in. I’m not advocating that LaRussa does a great job of this, but imagine he did the exact opposite of worrying about leverage. He only puts his best relievers in when up or down 4 + runs and uses his worsy relievers in the opposite situation. You don’t think that this would have an extremely negative effect on a team? Let’s say your closer has a 2.50 era and your mop up guy has a 5.00 era. The mop up guy is gonna blow about twice as many saves as the closer would. At this point you could be talking 3 or 4 wins based solely on leverage. Allowing the ammount of innings each pitcher pitches to be the same. This indicates to me that leverage can be extremely important.

by Stevo5 on Dec 10, 2008 11:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

exactly, save what?

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

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2008 6:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because you're still counting on Fuentes, which is FAR from a sure thing himself

It was just in 2007 that he was bombing so badly they had to take him out of the closer’s role. He had a fantastic season in 2008, the best in his career, but to say “Why count on them if we don’t have to?” is severely discounting the inconsistency that pitchers, especially relievers have.

Aside from that, we currently don’t have a big league 5th starter (I like Boggs’ stuff, but even his AAA peripherals were bad). It’s far more pressing concern actually having a lead going into 7-8-9 than whether 2 young guys with dominating stuff can hold them.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

fuentes

is just too damn overrated

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

this is the true bottom line

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

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2008 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You assume too much on the presidential election cycle.

Sheets has the potential to be much more than a marginal upgrade, you don’t have to hand him a deal that’ll keep him here through the next presidential election cycle, and he won’t cost you the draft picks that the Cardinals need to have in order to keep building this thing.

It is apparent, to the most casual observer, that the 2012 presidential election cycle has already begun. Mike Huckabee was on John Stewart and Sarah Palin seems to want to be in the news constantly. I expect that both will visit Iowa before the end of January.

by ckeiner on Dec 10, 2008 11:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

LOL

that is sad how true that is

"I've got this thing and it's [expletive] golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for [expletive] nothing. I'm not gonna do it." - Gov. Rob Blagojevich on Obama's Senate seat.

by elirock83 on Dec 10, 2008 11:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why is it that every day

I get on here and I scroll down and see several posts discussing politics. It’s becoming an every day occurrence. This just isn’t the place.

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2008 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Did you hear

that Blagovich was arrested?

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

for someone who just joined the site

You may want to look at the community guidelines and you may also want to take a look at who the runs the site. That is one of the main posters you are mocking there.

"Baseball is like Church, many attend, few understand" - Wes Westrum

by scoot on Dec 10, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Puuhhlleeezzzee!

Geez. Get over yourself. He was making a JOKE! I’m sure that Chuckb gets it, and if he wants to go after STL, let him be his own man.

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

by Eckstreem on Dec 10, 2008 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My bad

Im on the same side as Chuck, it is frustrating to see the continual political discussions on here. I see that he is joking, but his post was the one that pushed me to say something. I guess you could say that I was a little over the top for what he said.

For those who may not know, here is the community guidelines for political discussion:

No political discussions: there are other blogs where you can discuss politics. this one is for talking about baseball. we want everybody to feel welcome here, regardless of his/her political beliefs.

"Baseball is like Church, many attend, few understand" - Wes Westrum

by scoot on Dec 10, 2008 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't joking

I can tell you that. Every day there’s one of these. A couple of days ago there was a long, drawn-out thing about Clinton or something. There are a million political blogs out there. Trust me; I was a pre-election regular. However, there’s no place for that here.

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2008 6:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

+1 bajillion

by spants on Dec 10, 2008 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't mean you were joking

I knew you were serious. The post in reply to yours by STLRegalia, the one that I replied to, was the joke that I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion!

"Baseball is like Church, many attend, few understand" - Wes Westrum

by scoot on Dec 10, 2008 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no harm

no foul. My biggest fault is my inherent inability to walk through an open door. I will attempt to restrain myself

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wow,

that made no sense. I think I meant my inability to NOT walk through an open door.

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd take the risk...

if I thought that the Cards were close for 2009 – but I don’t. Plug K-Mac in for the final rotation spot, replace him in the bullpen w/ Boggs, sign a LOOGY and call it good.

I know the general fan would never go for this line of thinking, but I’d rather the Cards save the $15 million this year and spend it in 2010 and 2011. Or use that savings for the Pujols extension

by IA Card on Dec 10, 2008 11:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Unfortunately...

I don’t think most teams work that way: your yearly budget is your yearly budget and you don’t get to carry over a surplus to next year. Sort of like in the Office a couple of weeks ago when Michael had to decide whether to buy new chairs or a copier. About the only way to “bank the savings” would be to lock up a guy long-term like Rasmus where you give him more than league-minimum now so that you can save money on him vs. market rate later on in the contract.

by mikedallas45 on Dec 10, 2008 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

explain this to me...

like I’m a 5 year-old. Great show.

by IA Card on Dec 10, 2008 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"your yearly budget is your yearly budget

and you don’t get to carry over a surplus to next year."

I hear that all the time, and can’t for the life of me figure out why it would be true. It’s not like it’s government money that goes away at the end of the year (so you use it to buy new office chairs or something…) You might lose some percentage of it because of taxes, since you can’t write off the salaries, but the majority of it should carry over.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it's because the Cards' budget is part of a larger corporate budget...

that does have to show turnaround at the end of the year. Dewitt and the boys are looking for quarterly profits and anything the Cards don’t spend out of the budget will just end up in there pockets, or reinvested in one of their other ‘interests’, not set aside for next year. Farsightedness is not something our economic system is built for. And if Mo proved he could build a winner with a $75 million budget, guess what his budget would be next year?

It really doesn’t seem to be the smartest way to do things, I agree with that. But ‘the profit system’ is not really known for rational logic.

by BustaCard on Dec 10, 2008 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I declare.....

BANKRUPTCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...

by RunninRedbird on Dec 10, 2008 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So insulting for Cards' PR team to let us know that

we made an “offer” for KROD…..it’s just to appease certain “idiot” Cardinal fans who will now give the organziation a slap on the back to say how “serious” they are about spending money to improve the team…but just lost out.

by stanchar on Dec 10, 2008 11:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

okay

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 10, 2008 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

While I agree with you

I don’t think anyone who has followed the team for the last 10-15 years would be surprised. It is a recurring M.O. No pun intended.

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

by giveml on Dec 10, 2008 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anybody else get the Beatles reference?

in the post title? Obscure Sgt. Pepper’s song, but clever RB.

Baseball Fever.... Catch it!

by skcabrozar on Dec 10, 2008 11:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yup

Can’t get it out of my head

by OCCardsFan on Dec 10, 2008 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, I'm ashamed to say I

didn’t get it until you mentioned it. (I am one of the world’s largest Beatle freaks.)

A great headline, right up there in quality with a lot of LBoros’ headlines, which were usually really clever.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 10, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There might not actually be a Beatles song that I don't like...

And I am a huge Beatles fan… but that song comes closest. I’ve just never cared for it (I tend to think Sergeant Pepper is an overrated album anyway… man, can you smell my snobbery over the internets?)

by mattybobo on Dec 10, 2008 9:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mmm.

“She’s Leaving Home” is pretty sentimental. I’m not big on “When I’m 64,” either.

But calling Sgt. Pepper overrated? Wow.

by Youneverknow on Dec 10, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would agree, only if it's due to the fact that most people rate it ahead

of let it be, revolver, abbey road and the white album, all of which I enjoy more than sgt pepper.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Beatles are overrated

…but thats just my opinion

Smell the Glove

by emrfg8 on Dec 10, 2008 11:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

eh, if you look at what came before and what came after, that's a hard argument to make

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Well not really

They are considered one of the best bands of all time if not the best. That is like say A-Rod is over rated. He might be over-rated but doesn’t mean he isn’t great

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 11, 2008 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

heh

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

here's a mind bender

I think (and always have) that the Beatles are really boring… and so are the Rolling Stones, so I’m really at a loss when someone asks me “are you a Beatles guy, or a Stones guy?”

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How about

The Who?

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Dec 11, 2008 12:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

about as early as I become interested

is King Crimson, then Rush… but then again, I’m a music geek.

before that, jazz is far more interesting than rock imo

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rush?

[blargh]

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 12:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

amazing musicians

not for everyone, unless you like lyrics about science fiction or philosophy, written by the greatest drummer, like, ever

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I love

Zeppelin, and they get kind of fantastical in some of their lyrics. But what really drives me bonkers about Rush is the singing.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

that seems to be the deal breaker… what I don’t get is the singing is almost identical to Led Zepp, but with a Canadian accent. so maybe you just don’t like Canadians….

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i actually love geddy lee's voice

or at least, did in the 80’s and 90’s. He’s well past his prime now.

Much like geoff tate in that way.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 11, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

geddy is one talented mofo

he sings, plays the bass among the best, and plays a few synths at the same time. pretty god-like to me

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No.

It’s far more nasal. Plant is more soulful. Not that same, even if the range is.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 12:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I bet if you busted out a sonic analysis

they would be really comparable

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Only when I am playing Missile Command

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 11, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Rec'd!

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 11, 2008 9:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We need to sit down and listen to some vinyl

I don’t think you’re wrong, just confused. Very, very confused.

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Dec 11, 2008 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but at least his mind is not for rent to any god or government

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

or hers (damn gender neutral names)

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Eh...

Roll the bones.

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Dec 11, 2008 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that song is awesome live

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have vinyl

and I am not confused

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I still say that vinyl is clearer than cd quality if you have a decent turntable and an unscratched lp

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd say they are about equal

but different… dvd audio though, that sounds better

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Clearer...

I don’t necessarily know that vinyl is clearer; CD or DVD quality audio is pretty much perfect in terms of clarity. However, the trade off is a significant loss in terms of spectrum. Even when dealing with the new SACD or DVD audio formats, once a wave goes through the compression process that turns it into digital, you lose something. And unfortunately, it’s pretty much impossible to recreate.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 11, 2008 9:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It seems that this could be easily confirmed or denied with an external soundwave analyzer.

by astrostl on Dec 11, 2008 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It really doesn't need to

in principle, all digital formats lose something, as no fast fourier transformer can integrate a signal out to infinity. They have gotten really close, and in the case of the new high-end digital sound, perhaps have gotten close to the point that the human ear can’t really hear it. But there still is a cutoff.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“in the case of the new high-end digital sound, perhaps have gotten close to the point that the human ear can’t really hear it”

Agreed, and I think with analysis one should be able to determine the difference in perception to the average human.

by astrostl on Dec 11, 2008 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, I don't get why the Who aren't coequal with the other two

especially considering that Kieth Moon singlehandedly made drumming cool.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought that was Buddy Rich

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Touché

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel ya on the Stones

Beatles are good for me just not great. Pink Floyd is were its at

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 11, 2008 12:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh yeah

how could I forget… so Pink Floyd, then King Crimson, then Rush, then heavy metal, and then it gets crazy…etc

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Very old Floyd

sounds a lot like the Beatles, interestingly.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

were they contemporaries? my sense of history before my lifetime is very foggy

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sort of.

Floyd started in ’65. Beatles in ’60. It was really just the first album that felt Beatles-ish.

Check this out.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

for some reason

I thought that Floyd was earlier than that by quite a bit

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nope you're right

’65 it is

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not at all

But early Floyd and late Beatles were both very into acid.

Early floyd was a bit more anarchic in some of their work, while the beatles still loved them melodies.

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Dec 11, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

because of one

Syd Barrett… now that’s anarchic. piper at the gates of dawn is so schizo… I like interstellar overdrive though

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Darkside of the Moon synced to Wizard of Oz

Money in the bank

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 11, 2008 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pink Floyd

is the amazing. Every three years or so i forget how much I love their catalog and dive back in for a month or two, then totally forget about them again. Might have to watch the wall this weekend.

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Dec 11, 2008 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do the exact same thing.

And always in the fall for some reason.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like Meddle quite a bit

but yeah, Dark Side is hard to beat

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wish You Were Here

is an awesome album, too.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Their best work,

if you ask me

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Dec 11, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah.

It’s perfect. Every song on that album is flawless.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Meddle and Animal are both awesome

as is Music from the Film More. Off of that, Ibizia Bar is one of their best tracks done.

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Dec 11, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Feh.

The Wall sucks. Everything up through Wish You Were Here is absolutely mind blowing, then Roger Waters decided he just had to be the Man. After WYWH, I just don’t feel the Floyd. But good lord, what the accomplished ’til then.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 11, 2008 9:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Have you listened to Exile?

Sticky Fingers?

If the Stones would have broken up/ Jagger died in 1979, they’d be considered the greatest band of all time.

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Dec 11, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

unless you figure in musicianship and technical abilities

then they would rank pretty low. I like to think of music as a mixture of sports and art

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if you figure in musicianship and thechnical abilities

then Bob Dylan is one of the worst musicians of the 20th century.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

he is a lyricist on par with Cole Porter though. I’m much more into music than vocals/lyrics though. very geeky about it.

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and that explains why you and I part ways on the beatles

John Lennon was crazily visionary. it’s astounding what he could say in four minutes.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you and I, fellow Tupelo fans, agree

fantastic little discussion, though, all. Took the tension of the impending Fuentes era off for a bit.

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Dec 11, 2008 12:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

now I am mad that there is no Tupelo cover of 'working class hero'

because that woudl have been the best thing ever

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've been meaning to buy an Uncle Tupelo cd for years now

where should I start?

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Depends

If you like folksy, old style western: Uncle Tupelo 89/93: An Anthology

If you like faster, harder stuff: No Depression.

their cover of “I wanna be your dog” is, if i may be so bold, breathtaking.

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Dec 11, 2008 12:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

cool

I’ll check out No Depression, I do like older western sounding music though

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"No Depression" is the standard.

it’s probably more lo-fi than the other albums, but it certainly has some of the better tracks, like “Whiskey Bottle.” The best-produced one is probably “March 16-20 1992”. I would probably start with one of those two, but “Still Feel Gone” is pretty stellar, IMO.

The band was pretty much broken up when Anodyne was released, and it kind of feels like a Wilco/Son Volt compilation album.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

id say anodyne or no depression

www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D

by jealousblues on Dec 11, 2008 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll check out both

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Echo

the above, and say No Depression. Jay Farrar has never sounded quite so powerful as he did on that record.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 11, 2008 9:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

before my time

I don’t really pretend to know what’s going on then. I was born in the 70s, and grew up through the nuclear scared 80s, but at least I’m not a marketing generation kid

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

whoops

how could I forget this guy?

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm an autodidact also

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

pop quiz

who’s the (almost) famous female musician in my picture (I’m the dude)?

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Randy Johnson probably

won’t want to end up in St. Louis for a sort of reasons

if you look at the entry on Randy Johnson, it seems to disqualify the Cardinals because of RJ’s desire to stay on the West Coast and train in Arizona where he keeps his home. As much I’d love to have the Big Unit, I think his price would be higher relative to the Dodgers/Giants. Which of course makes my desire for Ben Sheets that much stronger. His health problems have always been overstated(most of his early injuries were fluky, etc) and he once posted a 262/24 k/bb ratio. which is ridic.

"...and pujols has given st louis the lead"

by tgreenfield on Dec 10, 2008 11:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

and i forgot the link

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8916168/LIVE:-Tuesday-updates-from-winter-meetings

"...and pujols has given st louis the lead"

by tgreenfield on Dec 10, 2008 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rotoworld claims Andy Pettitte

won’t accept a 1-year, $10 mil offer from the Yanks b/c he won’t accept a paycut from last year’s $16 mil. Then they go on to say that the Cards are one of 3 teams that could be in the mix for him. Q: would he be better and/or cheaper than RJ? I don’t see Johnson signing for $16 mil. I only hear about both RJ and AP doing 1-year deals, and neither seem particularly interested in coming here.

There was Gibson in the Reds' dugout, visibly manhandling about three Reds and tossing them bodily out of the dugout and onto the field...He was the toughest athlete mentally I ever saw, and the greatest competitor. JACK BUCK

by ISawGodInGibby'sRightArm on Dec 10, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RJ is better than Pettitte and it's not close

*But Pettitte is still good

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd take Pettitte at $16 M

for 1 year than nothing at all.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In fact

I’d trade Ankiel for Jackson or Sonni, promote Rasmus, sign Hoffman to a 1 year deal and offer 1-2 years to either Pettitte or Sheets.

Rotation:
Wainwright
Pettitte/Sheets
Wellemeyer
Lohse
Carpenter/Pinata

CL: Hoffman
SU: Perez
RP: Motte
RP: KMac
LP: Miller
LP: one of the other LOOGYs

Lineup:
CF Razzle
LF Mather/Skippy
1B Pujols
RF Ludwick
3B Glaus
SS Greene
C Molina
Pitcher
2B Kennedy/Miles/whoever

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like this plan a lot

by OCCardsFan on Dec 10, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Where's Jackson or Sonni?

I figure if you’re trading for them you might as well use them right?

Do like the idea though.

by birdo rojo on Dec 10, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

HAHA

I’m an idiot. They replace Carpenter.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like it as is (w/o ex-Rays)

Keep Ankiel and trade Skippy for whatever you can get (prospect, lefty bullpen arm, etc.)

by Willie McGee's Twin on Dec 10, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You didn't include

Jackson/Sonanstine in the rotation

by OCCardsFan on Dec 10, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I see that now

They replace Carpenter and if we get into May with 6 healthy starters, one gets dealt.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i love it

i remember bringing up sonnastine a while back, i adore that lineup. i think sheets over pettite would be a better investment. say the yankees offer is true (2 y 30 mil), the cardinals can match that or go 2 y/33 mil and not completely break the bank. the most wonderful thing about sonnastine is the fact that he’s cost-controlled.

"...and pujols has given st louis the lead"

by tgreenfield on Dec 10, 2008 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

this is less likely to be a mistake, but franklin's getting paid to play solitaire on your scheme.

by tom s. on Dec 10, 2008 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not a mistake

just as I planned it.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

short sheeted

just another 2 cents on ben. i’m not in favor of him solely on the basis of a drat pick loss for probably 2 years of ben. otherwise i’d say yes because winning a playoff spot is one thing, but winning in the playoffs is another. i’d gladly take a sheets caliber pitcher with boggs or whoever filling in when he can’t go so that come playoff time we have a pitcher with a good chance of winning a game in the early, crucial 5 game series. over a season a boggs/sheetts combo might be equivalent to garland, but when that first playoff series starts, is garland who you want to send out there, or sheets. i’d say sheets.

also, gotta go with rb’s comment of what a waste fuentes would be. exactly how are we going to get to these crucial 9th inning situations with our current rotation? our blown saves did not all happen in the ninth. much better to put that money in the rotation and admit that carp’s probabilities for for full season is about nil.

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

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2008 11:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

usually

5th starters usually get relegated to the bullpen, assuming that Boggs has to replace Sheets, the rotation would do a bit of shuffling and Boggs would probably get slotted down. Plus, we started game 1 with Anthony Reyes, so how bad can Boggs possibly be? :)

"...and pujols has given st louis the lead"

by tgreenfield on Dec 10, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

If Sheets is decent the next 2 years we could let him walk and get the draft pick back in two seasons, conceivably.

by mikedallas45 on Dec 10, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that would be the bet

only mo and jeff have real handle on how much it wold hurt to defer a first round pick two years—assuming ben keeps it going.

w/o ben, though, i’d take hard look at penny among FAs. after that, tampa seems the ideal trade partner as far as pitching for outfield exchanges go. wonder why nothing has happened there, especially with ankiel the floridian.

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

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ankiel for LOOGY?

How sweet would it be for him to just come in from CF get a guy out, and then go back to CF? I wonder if it would take the pressure off him knowing he would only have to face one guy….

This is obviously just fantasy, but I wonder if it crosses the mind of the managemnt.

by rva on Dec 10, 2008 11:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Based on rotoworld

Ankiel might be headed to Tampa or New York.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

to Toronto for Downs would be GREAT!

by stanchar on Dec 10, 2008 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No it wouldn't

If we wanted a LOOGY at his price they could’ve just gotten Affeldt without having to deal a + in CF.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Trading Ankiel for a reliver is retarded unless the Royals wanna give up Soria

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If they did

I’d drive Ankiel to Kansas City myself.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would send Dayton Moore a gift basket

by bearcatcardfan on Dec 10, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and an invitation to be the next GM of a certain team from Chicago

by bearcatcardfan on Dec 10, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I live in KC

and would be more than happy to take him to all the good BBQ places so he feels welcome.

by birdo rojo on Dec 10, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This deal

makes itself.

I don’t see how it isn’t happening.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I might need a new wife though

Pretty sure she’d try and upgrade pretty quick.

by birdo rojo on Dec 10, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

mets or yanks?

I hope neither. I love that guy. Dude can Slug. Got to keep him,

by rva on Dec 10, 2008 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he's a late-inning disaster...other than that GW off K WOOD last year

by stanchar on Dec 10, 2008 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you're ready

to make a judgment about a player’s late-innings readiness based on seventy close-and-late at-bats last year? After seventy at-bats Troy Glaus looked like he’d never hit another home run, Ryan Ludwick looked like Babe Ruth, and Cesar Izturis looked like he’d walk a hundred times, and just because they were spread out over the course of a season hardly makes them more predictive than anything else. It’s just not enough data to support any kind of conclusion.

by DanUpBaby on Dec 10, 2008 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, but did you WATCH the AB's?

Sometimes anecdotal evidence actually does tell a better story than statistics. Ank took horrible swings at horrible pitches virtually every time he was up in a close-and-late situation. It’s not like he hit into bad luck. He was a bat hitter in those spots.

That is a fixable problem, though. He may not be that bad a hitter in those situations this year, but he will have to change his approach to do so.

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

by Eckstreem on Dec 10, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you and strauss should form a scouting company

How depressing is it being you? Is it closer to being a lifelong cubs fan or being born without lips? - Janitor

by themanthemyth on Dec 10, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That was low, man. Really low.

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

by Eckstreem on Dec 10, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Eck's right...

if you look at Ankiel’s stats close and late, he was terrible. he is the anti-clutch.

in 71 AB close-and-late, rick hit .127.

let me say that again, because it bears repeating: one-twenty-freakin’-seven.

this is why i fear glaus+ankiel+ludwick+greene – lots of 9th innings where the side is K’ed.

by RedbirdAvenger on Dec 10, 2008 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is anti clutch does not equal will be anti clutch

Luke Scott hit .141 .256 .295 close-n-late in 2007 (78 ABs), .288 .395 .575 close-n-late in 2008 (73 ABs). But let’s make blanket assumptions off of tiny samples because they happen to fit our conceptions!

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nice comparison

He also changes leagues and played for an entirely different team last year, so the comparison isn’t exactly apt.

I agree with what you’re saying, but his approach is what concerns me as well, and I believe that is what Eck was pointing out.

"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 Dec 10, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A harder league?

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do wish it were easier to find career splits

I am curious how many players have significant departures for close n’ late over their careers. Over six or seven seasons, it is a significant number of PA.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes,

I watched almost all of them. I don’t like that the assumption is that I didn’t watch the games since I developed a different opinion from a tiny bit of data than you did.

What I got out of watching Ankiel all year is that he took bad swings in almost every at-bat in any situation, that’s the kind of hitter he is. This close-and-late myth develops around every not-quite-superstar hitter with a distinctive style—people like Ben Grieve or Adam Dunn take too many pitches in the clutch when they need to put the ball in play, slap hitters won’t wait for a pitch to hit in the air when they need to, and Rick Ankiel swings at bad pitches when it’s a tight situation.

And because the situation is different people ascribe all of these personality traits and approach changes to very insignificant moments—one swing, four pitches—that they wouldn’t think to animate like that in the third inning or in the middle of July. But that’s just what they do all the time. If Ankiel goes up there and says “I’m going to wait for my pitch now, because it’s important”, he’s probably going to end up striking out looking, because as a hitter he just has bad judgment. If he could wait for his pitch and deliver more often he would probably try to do that all the time.

I don’t doubt that an effect might exist for some players, in some situations, but the number one problem I have with anecdotal evidence like this is that there’s no way to test it next year. If he hits .300 in close and late situations in 2009 people who called him a choker last year are going to assume he fixed it this year, even though it’s just as likely that he just had a good seventy at-bats in 2009 that he wasn’t lucky enough to have in 2008.

by DanUpBaby on Dec 10, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Whether or not it will continue

onward, Ankiel was absolutely dreadful after the 7th inning. Truly bizarre. But he’d hack and hack and hack.

He also has a big time case of the Jim Edmonds. The closer to his eyes it it, the better he can see it and the more he likes it.

Both are fixable things but both were very prevalent in 2008.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BTW, there must be something to my observation

because HL and I agree, and that NEVER happens.

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

by Eckstreem on Dec 10, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't assuming that you didn't watch them.

I was making my assertion of what I saw of them. Ank’s approach at the plate in those situations was noticably different than his norm. Yeah he did take horrible swings all year, but they were even worse in “clutch” situations.

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

by Eckstreem on Dec 10, 2008 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have an idea.

What were his numbers for pitches per at-bat split over the two situations? Again, I suppose sample-size is a still problem. What was his swing and miss % in "clutch situations?

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

by Eckstreem on Dec 10, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it seemed to me

that he got better with his free swinging as the season progressed and before he got injured

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if it was anyone but Rick ankiel

I’d be in full agreement with you, but we’re talking about a guy who already cracked under pressure once to the point that he had to start his career over as a totally different kind of player.

And we’re not talking about the difference between a .250 and a .300 batting average here. We’re talking almost 500 points of OPS between his innings 1-6 and his 7-9 performance, and it’s over a lot more than 77 PA’s (144 PA’s at .537 OPS in innings 7-9, vs 309 PA’s of 1.014 OPS from innings 1-6).

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you are right

and it is why the pitcher should bat 9th, rick 3rd and albert 4th. no one on the team needs albert’s protection more than rick.

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

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2008 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why not just bat ankiel second, then?

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

because

batting albert 3rd results in too many at bats with 2 out and no body on. if albert bats 4th, then he either bats with men on in the first or leads off the 2nd, and he has the highest obp on the the team. combine this with the winning percentage for teams that score first and the scoring percentage for innings when the lead-off man gets on, makes it clear to me that albert’s unusual balance of power and obp makes him the ideal 4th place hitter.

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

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2008 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that's only true in the first inning

and I don’t know if it’s necessarily even true then. It also gets Albert more ABs to bat him 3rd and not 4th. It could be the difference between him coming to the plate in the bottom of the 9th or not.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am pretty sure Albert

batte 53 times last year with in the first with two out and nobobdy on, while batting third was only good for 11 more PAs over 162 games. Most lineup generators say the best hitters should bat 1st, 2nd, or 4th. Albert batting third hurts his numbers and the Cardinals offense.

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

by giveml on Dec 10, 2008 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agree, albert should bat second or 4th

but the “pitcher hitting 8th” idea is a good one.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Albert can’t protect Rick but he could bat 4th and the pitcher should bat 8th.

by astrostl on Dec 10, 2008 11:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

pitcher 8th

is still a mystery to me in that it means the person on the team with the lowest ba bats more than someone with a higher average. i don’t see any advantage to that.

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

by sportsman on Dec 11, 2008 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Focus on OBP, SLG, OPS, wOBA – anything but BA :-)

Pinch hitters have to be included, highlighting one point – one can’t just consider the performance of pitchers versus the other slot, but rather the eight slot versus the ninth slot. Crazy amounts of variables in this game.

There’s a specific study of TLR’s use at http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/is-larussa-right-to-bat-his-pitcher-in-the-eight-slot/

by astrostl on Dec 11, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

mmm

Sonnastine…mmmm…..

"...and pujols has given st louis the lead"

by tgreenfield on Dec 10, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe we are confused...

I want Ankiel to BE the LOOGY, not get traded for one.

by rva on Dec 10, 2008 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

More confusion

Sonnanstine is neither a lefthanded nor a reliever, so he doesn’t exactly qualify as a LOOGY.

He is, however, the perfect SP to fill out our rotation for next season.

"Baseball is like Church, many attend, few understand" - Wes Westrum

by scoot on Dec 10, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the only time you'll see ank on a mound is

1) when he’s celebrating after winning a division/clinching a series in the postseason;

2) when he charges it after somebody threw a fastball eight inches behind his ear.

by tom s. on Dec 10, 2008 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jackson's stuff....dreamy

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wishlist:

Flip him to Tampa for a cost-controlled young starter — preferably Sonnanstine.

Flip him to New York for Robby Cano

We start the year with Rasmus in CF or put Skippy there and Mather in LF and let Rasmus work out the kinks from last season in AAA and bring him up in May or June.

"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 Dec 10, 2008 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would take Zobrist too...

by BustaCard on Dec 10, 2008 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

flip Sonnastine for Cano?

No way. Sonnastine’s worth about 3 Canos. If we trade for Sonnastine, we keep him.

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

those are separate suggestions, i believe

by Phizzle on Dec 10, 2008 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes...they were

He’s rumored to be going to one of those two places — those are the two guys I’d want from either of those teams, with Sonnanstine being at that top of the list.

"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 Dec 10, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh sorry.

I understood trade Ankiel for Sonnastine and then Sonnastine for Cano. My mistake.

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2008 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i have always wanted to see that

in a blowout or something just for giggles.

by spencegrif on Dec 10, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Suprised Piniero's name isn't mentioned anywhere.....

don’t we think the Cards are probably trying to dump him?

by stanchar on Dec 10, 2008 11:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Who? D.GOOCH

-- GOOCH

by GOOCH24 on Dec 10, 2008 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what's your handle, again?

Amaury translates into "Punisher of Spheroids" in the lost tongue of Atlantis. Marti means "Belgian Waffle." www.futureredbirds.net

by erik on Dec 10, 2008 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

heh

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

GOO…awwwww, you kidder you. D.GOOCH

-- GOOCH

by GOOCH24 on Dec 10, 2008 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

leave Arnold alone

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Dec 10, 2008 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Arnold was a punk.

Guy wouldn’t quit asking me what I was talking about. I thought it was very clear what I was talking about. D.GOOCH

-- GOOCH

by GOOCH24 on Dec 11, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

pinata?

you missed him listed on the mlb “lost and not found pitchers” category. too bad too. saw him early on in seattle and he was a great looking young pitcher.

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

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cesar signing with the Orioles

pending a physical.

by Phizzle on Dec 10, 2008 11:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

At $6M

So, roughly the same as Greene, but Greene might hit 20 HR…

"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

by bgh on Dec 10, 2008 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that's utter insanity.

now ship us brian roberts for mike parisi, angelos! it’s PERFECT!

by RedbirdAvenger on Dec 10, 2008 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought it was $6M over 2 years

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that's moderately reasonable...

and if so, disappointing.

by RedbirdAvenger on Dec 10, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It might be

I just saw $6M and figured…

"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

by bgh on Dec 10, 2008 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

as someone else had said previously

2 yrs? really? locking your team into 2 yrs of iz2?

by FunkeeC on Dec 10, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But at $3 M

he can simply slide to utility IF in year two for that price and not cripple your budget.

It’ll be interesting to see who is more valuable this year, Iz2 or Spicoli.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

good point

although i don’t think the O’s have any SS’s coming that soon so they would be again on the market for someone just hoping to push iz2 to the bench

by FunkeeC on Dec 10, 2008 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

From the Baltimore Sun

The Orioles have all but finalized a two-year contract with free agent shortstop Cesar Izturis (right) that is believed to be worth about $6 million — according to a pair of sources close to the situation — but may have to wait until after the winter meetings to announce the deal because he almost certainly will be required to undergo a physical.

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Goddammit the Orioles suck

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why we have better now

by bearcatcardfan on Dec 10, 2008 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

6M total

not /year

by spencegrif on Dec 10, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Averageosity? I think you meant

Adequacious, or adequosity (thank you, Phil Hartman, RIP).

by ISawGodInGibby'sRightArm on Dec 10, 2008 11:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agree mostly...

…but I think you’re missing why closers are considered valuable (and thus command high dollars). It’s not so much their marginal contribution during the regular season…it’s the leverage they have in the post-season. In the post-season, closers pitch a much larger percentage of the innings available than they do in the regular season, they are much more likely toe be used in high-leverage situations, and thus they are much more valuable to a team and much bigger part of the winning formula…when it most counts. D.GOOCH

-- GOOCH

by GOOCH24 on Dec 10, 2008 11:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

your right about the post season

Look at the past few WS champs and their closers. All were money…

by rva on Dec 10, 2008 12:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

um

i hope that was sarcasm :)

lidge was signed on the cheap, waino/papelbon/jenks all came from the farm.

"...and pujols has given st louis the lead"

by tgreenfield on Dec 10, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

money as in 'shut-down', not as in 'expensive'

by Phizzle on Dec 10, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

thank you

for clearing that up for him. Money as in “money in the bank,” money that you can count on.

by rva on Dec 10, 2008 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Garland

I can see the argument for preferring Garland’s durability. How many times has the bullpen suffered due to being overworked? If you’ve got a guy you know will be out there every five days and can eat some innings, it takes a lot of pressure off the bullpen. Plus, I can see Garland as a good Duncan Disciple. (AL to NL helps too)

All innings equal, of course Sheets would be better. But how many seasons have the two been equal in Innings pitched?

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 12:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

We already overpaid for durability with Lohse

I’ve been someone who has often stated that durability is undervalued in the market, but no more. Our Lohse signing was ridiculous and signing Garland to a similar deal would make me weep. Imagine suffering through both of these average pitchers for four years. It would officially put an end to my childhood. I’d rather gamble two years on Sheets being exceptional than four years on Garland being Garland.

"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

by bgh on Dec 10, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and unfortunately

with pinata

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

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2008 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the Lohse signing

already addressed this issue

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What Better way to sabotage Milwaukee.............?

and sign Fuentes, thus forcing the Brewers to go with Hoffman as closer?

by Czechguardsman on Dec 10, 2008 12:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather 1 year of Hoffman

than 3 years of Fuentes.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And I hate

Trevor Hoffman.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Me too

Fuentes is a very good pitcher, but he’s not worth the cost

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fuentes vs. Sheets

RB, you’re absolutely right – just because Fuentes happens to be lefthanded, doesn’t mean we’ve solidified the left side of the bullpen any more than a week ago. And the Fuentes over Motte/Perez difference, I think, will be negligible. At least all would be an intense improvement over broken Isringhausen.

Sheets, however, is another story. His upside is incredible, particularly when discussing what he could do with a Dave Duncan gameplan. If he breaks down, you’ve got Jo-El or Boggs waiting to hop back in (maybe Todd?) – assuming Carp’s in the rotation (which, granted, is a fat assumption). But if Carp’s not, Sheets presence gives you a shut-down guy, presuming he stays healthy.

The team won’t pursue Sheets for that reason – you must HOPE he stays healthy, and his track record doesn’t dictate that. They’ve been bitten by Mulder and Clement’s injury issues and if Sheets went down in a similar way, it would be a public relations disaster. Though Sheets – unlike our past dalliances – hasn’t had major recent reconstructive surgery. He just keeps getting these bum little injuries.

A healthy Sheets kicks us up into the top rotations in baseball. Do it, Mo. Pleeeeaaase.

by RedbirdAvenger on Dec 10, 2008 1:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think we've paid our karmic dues with those guys

so Sheets will stay healthy

/extremely scientific analysis

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow Smash TV

The hours I spent pumping tokens into that one at the arcade are more than I wish to admit, the Nintendo version was a let down if you ask me.

This Fuentes thing has me a bit baffled but I think there is some sort of logic there. Mo said that he wanted another lefty, hopefully one that isn’t just a LOOGY, and would maybe bring back a vet like Springer for set up work if we were using the kids as closers. That’s $5-6M for a lefty like Ohman and another $3.5-4.5M for the Springer type. That’s when we thought Fuentes would cost about $12M per year, if the price has dropped to around $9M we can kill two birds with one contract. I’m not advocating they should do that, just there could be some logic to their thinking

RB is right that it doesn’t matter what side your closer throws from but what if we think about him as a closer/set-up guy. It seems like if we don’t sign a closer it’s going to be a closer by committee situation anyway, why not make it a committee of closers like the Reds Nasty Boys from the 90’s. If you need Fuentes for the eighth fine, Perez/Motte take the ninth or vice-verse depending on what the game dictates. Of course we would have to get Tony to buy into it so that will never happen. Oh and FWIW I had a dream Monday night that we had signed Fuentes, guess it’s just that time of year.

"Do what you want to the women and children but leave me alone"- George Carlin

by That's a Winner on Dec 10, 2008 1:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i actually had a dream...

that the mets signed both k-rod and fuentes last night.

i think it is that time of year.

by RedbirdAvenger on Dec 10, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Big Money, Big Prizes...I love it!

Good call on the Smash TV reference!

by stlfan on Dec 11, 2008 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

starter vs. closer

Definitely would rather have Sheets than Fuentes…but am not convinced that Motte/Perez would be as good as Fuentes. Of course, there’s the cost difference.

If the Cards did pick up another starter, would there be any problem moving Pineiro to the ‘pen (assuming Carpenter is healthy)? Even as shaky as he was last year, not sure they’re going to make a major move for a starter and go into the season with 6 (although they probably should).

I think this happened last year when Carp briefly came back, and Joel had come off one of his good starts. He had to wait around before getting another start, and it’s like they weren’t sure what to do with him.

by phesto on Dec 10, 2008 1:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

We are all missing the point

they want to sign a starter so that we can move Wainwright back to the closer role, duh ;)

"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."

by StLHugo on Dec 10, 2008 1:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

lol -- but just for the postseason, right

Wainwright closing…such fond memories….

Cards fan (off and on) since ’84. missed ’82, so 2006 was very nice

by phesto on Dec 10, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Im glad you posted this!!

I just signed up for an account last night, but I had to wait to make a comment, because I wanted to state this very thing. I think Sheets would be a very good signing for the Cards if you can get him for 2 years and if he performs near what he has then you get your pick back if he leaves or you can resign him or flip him next year. I think a shutdown pitcher is just what the we need we have enough power in the pen that more likely than not someone down ther will step up and close out games just fine. So sign Sheets trade schu or dunc or both for a lefty and see what we have. then we still have some chips to filp a deal at the deadline if we need something.

by ALLCAPS on Dec 10, 2008 1:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

that ain't all CAPS!

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's 'A Limited Liability Corporation Against Panda Sex'

Common misconception.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh

thanks for clearing that up

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he was going to post in all caps

but during his probationary period TOLAXOR’s lawyers filed a CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.

by DanUpBaby on Dec 10, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

LOL

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, ROFLAO

by ArkansasTravs on Dec 10, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He's drawing one up against you two, now...

by stlfan on Dec 11, 2008 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This article was very good

I support this plan, and had been kicking around my head that fuentes would be much more useful to us as a non-closer (personally I hate how we have to designate a guy for this situation in the first place) who was brought in to actually face tough lefties.

On the other hand, this all seems kind of moot as I think the season will depend A LOT more on the health of Carp and Kinney and the bat of Ludwick (is he a fluke?) than any offseason move. A guy like Sheets may be able to swing us into playoff contention though if everything else remains about the same from last year.

by TheBirds on Dec 10, 2008 2:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Also I think if MO could have gotten sheets for 2 years

The deal would already be done.

Perhaps that will become a possiblity as the offsesaons wears on.

by TheBirds on Dec 10, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If those are the offers that Sheets is getting

it would make a lot of sense for him to hold out and at least wait for CC to get a deal from someone.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought CC signed with the Yanks?

7 years, 160 mil+/-…… or is this rumored?

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Dec 10, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

7/$161m is what mlbtr is reporting

just enough to make it more than johan’s annual salary.

"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 Dec 10, 2008 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Which it apparently blows away even still

Olney reported there’s NO DEFERRED MONEY. The way MLBPA calculates it (which I’m pretty sure is actually wrong—-it’d take a long uninteresting fanpost to say why—-but it’s the way they look at it) I think he said Johan’s was like 20.5 mil per year and CC’s is 23 mil.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and he has an opt-out clause after 3 years

so the only way he’ll only earn what he signed to here is if he gets hurt or his performance falls off.

Which, if you think he’ll be healthy for at least 3 years, is a brilliant move on Cashman’s part. If he gets hurt, it’s possibly the worst decision in baseball history.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know

This is an absolute steal of a deal for Sabathia. If he does what’s expected, he’s in line for another huge payday in 3 years, if he fails he’s in line for just a gigantic payday.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but not too much longer

The starting pitching pool is very deep. Some agent will overvalue someone and that person is going to end up getting the Kyle Lohse treatment.

by TheBirds on Dec 10, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just because NYY offered Sheets two years

everyone assumes he’s looking for a two year deal now? A team will give him more than two years, and he’ll take that offer.
I hope the Ankiel for Sonnanstine idea works out, personally.
And even though I hate it, the Cards will probably sign Fuentes… though I wonder who that bumps from the pen? TLR will still need two Loogy’s, and we know Franklin and McClellan are staying, so that leaves two spots for Perez, Motte, Kinney, and Thompson.

by adiueordie on Dec 10, 2008 2:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

thompson to be an SP

And [john madden]BOOM![/john madden] Off Season is over.

by Evilfrog on Dec 10, 2008 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BOOM! Tough actin' Tinactin.

by spants on Dec 10, 2008 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No -- it's not that we think that way

But it does give us an idea of where the market is on Ben Sheets.

"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 Dec 10, 2008 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've really had a hard time...

… getting a grip on this offseason.

- I really hope the rumor about Ankiel plus a prospect for Putz isn’t true. I really feel like we need to spend Ankiel on a younger pitcher that we’ll control for a few years… even if we have to thrown in another prospect or two… because we’re going to have Lohse, Carp, and Wainwright’s contracts used as excuses for not investing more money in the rotation for the next several offseasons. Why waste Ankiel on a closer when we already have two potential closers playing for the minimum?

This would also leave money on the table to grab another loogy… or beef up the bench… or sign a short-term starter… or extend Pujols…

Someone said the other day on the forum… “Never allocate a significant amount of money towards a position where you can already get similar production for the league minimum” (paraphrased by me). Couldn’t agree more.

If the line is drawn so thick at 110 million, then why use the last bit of coinage on a position we already have?

by AndyB83 on Dec 10, 2008 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BBWA adds some "new fangled" internet writers

Yahoo is reporting that Will Carroll, Christina Kahrl, Rob Neyer, and Keith Law have been added to the BBWA

Finally

"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."

by StLHugo on Dec 10, 2008 2:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

the collective iq of the BBWAA

went up a few points. Alright.

Hyperventilating prospect geek

by erik on Dec 10, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

two from BP and 2 from ESPN (meh), now they need to consider more mainstream internet media. I can understand not admitting erik or Az ;)

"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."

by StLHugo on Dec 10, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, but Law and Neyer are the best

writers they have. By far.

Hyperventilating prospect geek Future Redbirds

by erik on Dec 10, 2008 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

though it does make me wonder

Why the hell did it take them so long to add Neyer? Really?

That guy just oozes respect for and knowledge of the game.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

my only issue with signing sheets is...

they would get three first round picks next year…of course if any team in the bottom half of the first round signs him that will happen

but yea, i’d much rather have sheets than fuentes

by VolsnCards5 on Dec 10, 2008 2:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

if the yankees sign him

they don’t get the pick because they already have their first rounder.

by adiueordie on Dec 10, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think than the Brewers would get the Yankee's 2nd round pick

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i guess

that’s better than them having three first round picks, though

by adiueordie on Dec 10, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but don't they get their second rounder?

by bearcatcardfan on Dec 10, 2008 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

we already have our durability guy

now roll the dice with the Sheets-man

SmashTV! for the Super Nintendo is one of my all time favorite video games btw

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 2:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

um... Who is or durability guy again?

by Evilfrog on Dec 10, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lohse

"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."

by StLHugo on Dec 10, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought that was obvious :)

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Waino

by bearcatcardfan on Dec 10, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not yet

He has only 2 seasons as a starter and one of those he was injured for half of, you can’t say he is durable yet

"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."

by StLHugo on Dec 10, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Definitely not Waino as

a durability guy.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Dec 10, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I’m hoping that was sarcasm?

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what year was it

that the cardinals 5 starters started every game?

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2004

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Dec 10, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2005 was better I think.....

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Dec 10, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2 starts from others

reyes and eldred

"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."

by StLHugo on Dec 10, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yep, 2005... only 2 starts NOT started by a "Starter"

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Dec 10, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

about 7 starts from others

"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."

by StLHugo on Dec 10, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

04?

by TheBirds on Dec 10, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

never

the mariners did it about five years ago i think. pretty sure they’re the only team to have done that. ryan franklin and joel pineiro were part of that rotation too, i think.

by adiueordie on Dec 10, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I could have

sworn they did it one year. I think Garret Stephenson was part of the rotation

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2000

in 2000 there were 6 “starters” that started every game, one of them started 7 games and another 27 (reames and benes)

"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."

by StLHugo on Dec 10, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe you're thinking of 2003?

link – they only used six starters that year: williams, tomko, morris, stephenson, haren, hitchcock.

in 2000 they also used only six: kyle, hentgen, stephenson, ankiel, benes, reames.

by adiueordie on Dec 10, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2003 had 9

fassero, simontacchi and kiko in addition to those listed as “starters”

"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."

by StLHugo on Dec 10, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

shi

i didn’t scroll down enough. fassero, simontacchi, calero… so just 2000 then…

by adiueordie on Dec 10, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wow

fassero and Kiko started games?

Glad I missed that, I wonder how they did

www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D

by jealousblues on Dec 10, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fassero was actually not all that horrible as a starter

better than you would expect at least. But by 2003 standards, almost anything non-disastrous was a ‘bright point’.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

found it

link

freddy garcia, jamie moyer, ryan franklin, gil meche, joel pineiro

by adiueordie on Dec 10, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who are these Ryan Franklin and Joel Pinero people

I mean they can’t be that good? can they?

by bearcatcardfan on Dec 10, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

they were pretty awesome in 2003

by adiueordie on Dec 10, 2008 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not really

they were good but not awesome

"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."

by StLHugo on Dec 10, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2005 was awesome

I miss that rotation :(

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

That rotation was Carp, Marquis, Mulder, Suppan and Morris

Marquis would one year later draw the ire of cards fans for being what he always was, sub average but durable, Mulder would blow up physically, Morris would move on to the Giants and Carp and Suppan would lead us to a world series.

"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."

by StLHugo on Dec 10, 2008 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Marquis was still 'unknown' in 2005

and actually was great up until August. Then he went back to being BiPolar Betty.

Matty Mo was in his last hurrah, Anthony Reyes came in and had some great spot starts. Mulder wasn’t great but he was a solid #2. Carpenter was a demon and Suppan was medium (per usual).

It was a melding of what (at the time) I thought was going to be the entire decade of Cardinals pitching.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

jason's problem always seemed to be that he would crap out in july.

soup always took about 4 months to get going. So we had four good pitcher, we just had a cast change around the all-star break.

by tom s. on Dec 10, 2008 8:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wow

thats a whole stable of crap-ish pitchers now.

www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D

by jealousblues on Dec 10, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Miles

The man’s pure grit.

by TheBirds on Dec 10, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Brewers suddenly don't seem like so much of a threat

now without CC. Which makes us seem like more of a contender now. At least for the Wild Card. Thank God CC is in the AL. I wonder who the Brewers will try to sign? If they lose Sheets too, their rotation will be in shambles. I bet they will have to try and trade Prince for pitching.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 2:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The Reds

don’t underestimate the Reds. They’ve got good young players, great pitching and this year, hopefully their MIF doesn’t spend eleventy billion combined innings on the disabled list.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if the harangutang can bounce back

they could be pretty good

Hyperventilating prospect geek Future Redbirds

by erik on Dec 10, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As long as Dusty doesn't ask him

to pick up 4 innings for him on 1 days rest in an extra innings game, he should be fine.

I HEART DUSTY.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The reds are always supposed to be decent-to-good

Then drop off after a month.

by TheBirds on Dec 10, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah the Reds are starting to turn the corner

but unless Walt pulls a few rabbits out of his hat, I don’t think they will be wild card contenders in 09. They will be better than last year for sure.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Astros will be there too.

As usual they will probably start off slow but will make a push after the All-Star break. I wonder if they are serious about trading Miguel.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

isnt it weird

how both of those teams seem to do that year aftter year?

www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D

by jealousblues on Dec 10, 2008 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

they do have gallardo coming back

he’ll come pretty close to replacing sheets, if he stays healthy.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone Else Having a problem reading JSL

I’m seeing like 5 questions on Joe Strauss Live right now. Can anyone else see more?

www.salukihoops.com

by salukihoops on Dec 10, 2008 2:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i have a major problem with reading anything he writes

wait, what?

by adiueordie on Dec 10, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This whole argument goes back to the Wainwright v Carpenter

debate we were having in August. Tony and Dave believe that a stable force in the 9th inning is far more valuable than having 2 top shelf starters pitching every 3 days. As I did then, I still disagree with that assessment. I think that you can get away with having ‘stuff’ guys in the 9th inning, even if they are one dimensional as long as you treat them like milk. Once they go bad, they go bad. Don’t try heating the milk up to burn off the bacteria and putting it back in the fridge. Won’t work. You’ll die.

Tony seems to think we can still drink the spoiled milk.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand why Tony likes the closer's role so much!

I think he overvalues the closer position way to much, probably more than a starter. Spending a lot of money on a FA reliever is annoying, moving an ace starter to the pen is a tragedy. It would be like trading Wainwright or Carp for Fuentes straight up.

by TheBirds on Dec 10, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

probably related to the fact that he basically started the fad of the one inning closer

with eckersley

by FunkeeC on Dec 10, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

because he's sort of lazy?

and wants to hit cruise control through the 9th inning? i dunno

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One theory is that TLR

puts a lot of stock in the psychology of the game (just speculating here). Maybe he thinks that nothing demoralizes a team more than a lousy back end of the BP, meaning you should always try to have a guy you trust in that role?

by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 10, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

so following that logic, izzy soured in 2006, turned into relatively tasty cheese in 2007,

then became moldy, gross cheese at the bottom of the cheese drawer in 2008, and is now a puddle of putrescent curds?

did I follow right?

by tom s. on Dec 10, 2008 8:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hypothetically speaking, of course,

what kind of money is Smoltz looking for?

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 2:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

but he won’t pitch in a game until midseason.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 10, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Stay away from Smoltz

Yeah it would be cool to say he pitched for the Cards but in the long run I don’t think it would be worth it. The guy should probably follow in Maddux’s footsteps and call it a career here soon. And a HOF career at that.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

his problem

If healthy, I’m sure Smoltz could go back to being a solid closer(not for cards, just in general)

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Garland v. Looper

What’s the point in going after Garland (per Strauss’ desires) if you no-offer arb to Looper? I’m too lazy to run the numbers but is Garland any better than Loop? I guess Garland’s got more history of “durability” as an SP but Loop would accept less money and less years.

What type of contract is Penny rumored to be looking for (besides the best one he can get)?

by Willie McGee's Twin on Dec 10, 2008 2:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

good point

and I’m wondering the same thing

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If we have to make a disastrous trade for a reliever, let it be this:

3:00 p.m. — Latest on Putz, Fuentes

Mariners closer J.J. Putz remains a popular trade target.

The Tigers are interested in Putz and the Cardinals have offered center fielder Rick Ankiel and a prospect, according to a rival general manager.

Ben Sheets is only being offered two years? GO GO GO

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 3:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

just

saw that. What is Putz’ salary and injury history?

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

$5 million in 09, $8.6 club option for '10

by mikedallas45 on Dec 10, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

High Injury Risk

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nto sure wihtout looking

but he had been ok injury wise til last yr..but rick missed games too..or wait he played htem hurt forever cause he wasn’t but thats another topic

I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2

by punchinjudy on Dec 10, 2008 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I really hate to see Rick go

Are they for certain that they don’t think they can re-sign him? I guess he is the odd man out if Rasmus will for sure make the team. (I think it should be Shumaker myself) I really hope Colby can live up to the huge expectations.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Note that I think Schumaker should be the one to go

and not Ankiel. But I realize there probably isn’t much of a market for Skippy.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I'll be sad to see him go too

but something really needs to be done about the OF glut. if he goes to another team, they’re my new 2nd favorite team (barring the unforeseeable possibility of him going to the cubs or ’stros)

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think I like that.....

Why were his numbers so bad last year?

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 10, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here is an Article at the Mariners Blog about trading Putz

Trading JJ

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he was hurt

like all year long, off and on

www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D

by jealousblues on Dec 10, 2008 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am not a fan of Putz

Would rather the Cardinals go after Scott Downs, Who if you don’t know is amazing.

Scott Downs Fan Graph

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand...

the Scott Downs thing. What am I missing? Is he that much better than the FA LOOGYs that we should give up players/prospects for him?

by IA Card on Dec 10, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He is probably one of the best LOOGY in baseball

He handles righties well and dominates lefties. He is a younger and cheaper Fuentes

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not Fuentes vs Downs...

it’s FA LOOGY vs Downs + players/prospects + $ (Downs making around $4 mill/year). Agree to disagree, I suppose.

by IA Card on Dec 10, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Downs could be a closer though

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So to reiterate, trading Ankiel for a reliever is really dumb.

Ben Sheets is only being offered two years? GO GO GO

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is dumb...

overall. Why would the Mariners trade Putz for 1 year of Ankiel? They know they won’t be good next year, right? I’d be shocked if this went down.

by IA Card on Dec 10, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There is the possibility of the Mariners playing well next year

considering the core talent.

But yes, I agree, the Mariners should jump on the Matt Joyce deal, or find another player that they can control for 4-5 years.

Ben Sheets is only being offered two years? GO GO GO

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Schumaker would make more sense

They do need some help against RHP. They were a pitiful .691 Team OPS against righties last year

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it's one year of Putz

he’ll make 4 times what Ankiel will make, he was hurt last year, and scouts have been waiting for him to break down totally for 2-3 years. I’d do it to get rid of him as well. Why we’d do that is beyond me.

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2008 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If he bounces all the way back

There’s a team option. Assuming the price is right, that’s a great gamble.

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 8:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

putz

was a very frustrating fbb closer last year due to the injuries (and the fact I traded Ludwick for him…yeah, I know)

tbh im kind of scared of having him on he team

www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D

by jealousblues on Dec 10, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Think of it this way

Ankiel PLUS a prospect for a closer who saved 15 of 23 attempts AND made two trips to the DL.

Yeah good plan there Mo.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

1y, 5m commitment, with a team option for next year

That’s an extremely favorable contract.

Ben Sheets is only being offered two years? GO GO GO

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

only if he's good

save the bucks and get a starter

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

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2008 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I rival general manager

I smell ROckies

by bearcatcardfan on Dec 10, 2008 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

say it ain't so

rick for the putz just seems like the basis of a good nightmare

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

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2008 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So if we trade Ankiel

and Rasmus struggles or gets hurt what is the back-up plan?? Mather or Barton??

I think trading Ankiel just to trade him because of who his agent is is a bit silly. Do they think that they won’t be able to sign him???

I’m really at a loss with this.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 3:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Would you want to pay Ankiel any where from

4 years/$40 to $60M

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that's the thing

is they probably won’t be able to afford him and they have not reason too afford him

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but I'll be happy if he stays...

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would do it if he can prove he can stay healthy for all of 2009

It just seems like they are pushing him out the door before they really have to.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not pushing him out the door

But dealing from a surplus (left handed outfielders) to improve a weakness (pitching).

by Ray Lankford on Dec 10, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yup

go with Mather or Barton if we trade him is what I would do, except they’d probably use skip instead, so hopefully he’ll get traded too

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's just hope that Rasmus is the real deal

because Mather or Barton won’t give us the offensive numbers Rick can. Maybe Mather could but that remains to be seen.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agree

I still think Rasmus should start next year at AAA to prove that he is ready before we trade away our current “CF with 40 HR potential”.

Worst case scenario, ankiel stays with the team, we offer him arbitration next year and he leaves, and we keep colby another year before HE leaves. A year of colby’s prime (2015) plus a year of ankiel (2009) for a year of putz?

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I we trade Ankeil for Putz

Then Mo to me is the Putz. Sorry but I had to say it.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are over rating Ankiel

And under rating our need to trade an OFer

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

technically, there is no NEED to trade an outfielder

Mo’s hands are not tied here. He has options; Barton and Rasmus can still be sent to AAA, leaving Ankiel, ludwick, schumaker, mather and Duncan to fill the MLB roster, or Duncan can be DL’d and Barton can take his place.

Having a piece to trade does not mean you HAVE to make a trade, if it isn’t one that really helps the team.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

anti-low hanging fruit move

It is time for Rasmus to get his shot. The only way that will happen is if Rick goes. If Rick is in STL, then TLR will play him as many games as he is physically able to play (and even some games when Rick is not physically ready to play). Rick has to go for Rasmus to get his shot in CF, period. It’s just the dynamic of the LaRussa-Ankiel relationship. You can’t bring up a talent like Rasmus and waste him on the bench. If the Cards wish to keep Rick then they should go ahead and trade Rasmus.

Is it is risk to trade Rick and rely on Rasmus to pick up the slack? Well, of course it is but life and baseball are calculated risks … unless you are the Yankees. If Rasmus succeeds while giving us 6 years of cost controlled output then the Cardinals become a much stronger team allowing them to redeploy their assets to other places such as an extension for Albert, a long term deal for Luddy if he shows 2008 was no fluke, middle infield help … etc.

Dealing Ankiel is a roll of the dice to try and make the team better rather than just plucking low hanging fruit (like trading for K. Greene). Aren’t we all tired of the low hanging fruit? I sure as hell am. I want a smart, calculated move. But the issue still remains if we are going to trade Rick, is a closer the best way to maximize return on that asset? What about 2B? Kelly Johnson? A young starter? We have other lesser trading chips to package with Rick to really land a player that upgrades the team today and going forward. I’m not sure Putz does that.

by jjray on Dec 10, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought Khalil Greene

was a smart, calculated move… among others he’s done

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"It is time for Rasmus to get his shot."

Why? He’s 21, and had a .742 OPS in AAA last year. Bringing him up before he is ready wastes one of those precious cost-controlled years.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

FWIW

Rasmus is 22 and will be 23 in August. Do you think what happened in AAA in ’08 totally washes out what he achieved in ’07 at AA? Do you agree that he is still a top ten prospect in all of MLB?

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

by giveml on Dec 10, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

however, it might not necessarily be the end of the world if he spends time at Memphis this season

Or at least have it be made clear to him that he has to earn a roster spot, rather than just be given it. Albert believes that he has to earn his roster spot, after all.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 5:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hate when you have to earn a roster spot

Than have a kick ass spring than don’t make the team.

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ok, I hate the fake Tony competitions, too

I though that Wainwright deserved Ponson’s spot in the rotation, that Ozzie deserved the starting SS job, and so on and so on. Unless, of course, there is some hidden coaching thing that was clear to the players and to Tony but not revealed to the press that was supposed to be done and wasn’t in these cases.

But, I would just as soon not be in favor of running around telling the kid that he’s the best thing since sliced bread before he’s even seen a MLB curveball.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by spants on Dec 10, 2008 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

fake Tony competitions

by jjray on Dec 10, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If he had a kick ass April in AAA

He probably would have been called up when Duncan got hurt. He didn’t, and that isn’t TLR’s fault.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

uh, yes, no, and yes.

and I don’t see where any of that is relevant to the discussion.

Historically, very few players have performed well in the major leagues at (season age) 22, which is what colby will be next year. In fact, only 8 players since 1980 have put up an OPS+ over 100 (500 PA’s) in their rookie year at age 22 or lower. Making a blanket statement like “he deserves his shot” without recognizing that he is very, very likely to be MUCH worse than ankiel in 2008 is unfair to Mo, TLR and especially Colby.

I’d rather see Colby spend a year in AAA, get his confidence back while knocking the cover off the ball, and then come up to MLB and do the same thing in September ’09 or 2010.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Now it’s slippery territory though. The GM, not Tony or Dunc has stated that if Colby comes to ST fit and prepared and does well he’s on the roster. Mo’ has silenced all doubts in that area and it’s all on Colby’s shoulders to prepare well.

I say if he does all of the above, he’s not going to AAA, he’ll be on the 25 man. I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe that Mo would turn back on words he’s said, and the fall out from doing so would be detrimental.

And note to others, this would be a world’s difference between Colby getting a chance to battle for a roster spot of last year. Mo made it quite clear cut.

One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.

by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 10, 2008 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, but I didn't make the blanket statement

I was really more curious as to your thoughts as to whether you felt the .742 OPS was a true indicator of his ability. I don’t recall the details, but I am pretty sure I remember some discussions that Rasmus was in pretty elite company with his performance at AA in his age 20 season. There is at least some objective reason to believe he might legitimately be an elite rookie.

Isn’t the real calculation whether Rasmus + whatever Ankiel is traded for + whatever can be acquired with any leftover payroll space (if any) is at least equal to Ankiel’s contribution? It is not a certainty, but I think it is likely Rasmus will be a superior defender to Ankiel, so that needs to be considered as well.

For example, if an Ankiel for Sonnanstine trade could be worked out then wouldn’t it be likely that Rasmus + Sonnanstine would be superior to Ankiel + Pineiro in the rotation? Also, in that scenario Rasmus + Sonnanstine would likely be cheaper than would Ankiel would get in arb, so we might be able to afford a better LOOGY or some such thing?

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

by giveml on Dec 10, 2008 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I’d also add the value of Rasmus’ age-28 year to “the real calculation” as well. By playing him this year, in a year that he is likely to hit about as well as brian barton (or adam jones, if you prefer) did last year, we’ll lose that year of control, or pay a lot more for it. And we risk stunting his development.

The thing is, though, there’s a decent chance that Ankiel is a better player than what we could acquire at any price, next year and in the future; 40+ HR-potential players with excellent defense and an incredible arm don’t grow on trees. There’s a good chance he falls off a cliff, as well, or doesn’t recover from the 2008 injury, and also a pretty good chance we won’t be able to re-sign him, but to trade him for no other reason than to give a 22yo a shot at the majors is a crazy mistake, imho.

We have to at least make a reasonable offer to try to extend him before we trade him.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 9:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I see your points

but I guess it depends on how real this Ankiel for Sonnanstine talk is. I would be willing to pay Rasmus market price a year early if it meant we could obtain a young, cost-controlled starter.

I agree completely with your assertion that, “to trade him for no other reason that to give a 22yo a shot at the majors is a crazy mistake…”.

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

by giveml on Dec 10, 2008 9:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

And I’d trade him for 4 years of escobar or Johnson, etc. but not for a year, maybe two, of a marginal, possibly injured closer getting paid more than we can afford in his option year.

And to be fair to Colby, I have no idea what to expect out of him. I thought his bat looked ready in spring training of last year, and still wouldn’t be shocked to see him put up an .850 OPS next year, but I wouldn’t bet on it. I just think we should temper our expectations a little bit based on historical rookie performances.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 9:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well that

and the fact that I think that the expectations on rasmus have now reached the point where people will be disappointed if he’s not Mays.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Then they can trade Skippy or Mather

If we need to trade an OFer.

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

by KYCards on Dec 10, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

heh

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Blue Jays Interested In Clement

How bad can you be and “not” be interesting in this winter meeting?

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Dec 10, 2008 3:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i haven't heard any jeff weaver rumours yet

by adiueordie on Dec 10, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

day ain't over yet!

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Dec 10, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just saw

that Washington is willing to offer 10 years at $20M plus/year for Texieria. That seems ridiculous to me…

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 3:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You know what the scariest thing is

We might have to beat it to keep Pujols

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Might?

Will.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

might as well

offer him a 10 year extension now…

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

one of the high points in the JSL chat yesterday

IIRC was that he said there is a high likelyhood that the cards will do this in the next 12 months.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

that if it is allowed, the Cardinals should give Albert a “lifetime contract” in which he is paid like a “franchise player” in football. He gets the average of the top 3 salaries at his position, but add 10% to it or something. That way, we are paying market price for him every year, but never have to give him up. How about that?

by stlfan on Dec 11, 2008 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fuck that.

If he’ll lock in below market rate for another 5+ years, I’d take my chances.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by astrostl on Dec 11, 2008 10:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Worth it

Ben Sheets is only being offered two years? GO GO GO

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Nuts"

At least that is what Gen. McAuliffe would have said.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Dec 10, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it's jim bowden

i sometimes think he does crazy signings or trades just to see how it affects the baseball world.

by RedbirdAvenger on Dec 10, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

really

what else does he have to look forward to?

www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D

by jealousblues on Dec 10, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He is Dr. Doofinschmirtz!

He does idiotic things, then wanders why they didn’t work.

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

by Eckstreem on Dec 10, 2008 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nats offered 8 years 160mil

"There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary. And there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance."

by Bahamaredbird on Dec 10, 2008 8:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I still think

Peavy could have been traded for. I would have even been willing to give up Rasmus for him. I’ll trade a posible A+ for a proven A. Peavy under control for 5 yrs(correct me if I’m wrong) plus WW being locked up, I’d say that would only be a good thing (health assumed)…I guess that’s just my fantasy world though, and you guys have probablly discussed Peavy in detail, I definitely don’t like the idea of having him in the division though…

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 4:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

peavy's arm scares the crap out of me

much rather trade for a younger cheaper guy(sonnastine)

by VolsnCards5 on Dec 10, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He’s due 8M/15M/16M/17M over the next four years with a 22M club option. Possible full no-trade, possible forced exercising of the club option upon trade. What you give (cost-controlled Rasmus) plus what you get (Peavy with contract) must be less than or equal to Peavy’s actual fair market value for the deal to be positive. I’m often surprised at how much people will trade just to pay somebody, though.

by astrostl on Dec 10, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take

that salary for a guy like Peavy. I can’t always follow all of the semantics(never tried to spell that word before) with trades, it’s just the thought of having him locked in at under-market for 4 years that I like.

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why would you rather have Peavy than Sheets

when Sheets wouldn’t cost a prospect, would sign a shorter contract, and aside from that first year, would be paid the same?

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have fancy stats to back me up,

but Peavy is 3 years younger, has more K’s(in less IP), and always has a monster dip in, which i think is a cardinals requirement…

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It would be arguable if they were both free agents

but they’re not. The costs for Peavy are just so astronomically higher than they are for Sheets.

Not to mention that Peavy’s been playing in a ridiculously extreme pitchers’ park.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what

costs are so “astronomically” higher? that’s why you trade, to get what you need with what you’ve got…

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That

we’d have to trade a prospect or two. Those are cost-controlled players we’d be giving up for a pitcher who doesn’t perform quite as well outside of Petco, which is a park that helps pitchers. Further, we’d have to pay him for four years, whether he’s pitching well or not. A two-year deal with Sheets is less risky.

It’s not just the $ cost of trading for Peavy. It’s the opportunity cost.

by spants on Dec 10, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

Not counting everything else (Petco, Injury) Peavy is a door blocker on the pitching talent we do have. All spots are blocking this year and all but one for the next few. With Garcia, Boggs, Todd and KMac (all cheaper mind you, without the risks involved) in the pipeline, it’s a lot more cost effective to try to pull some farm talent in at some point. Peavy moots that issue.

One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.

by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 10, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

perhaps

I’m just smitten with Peavy. Strikeouts aren’t park specific. and i think on baseball reference they have some park adjusted stats, and they are still better than sheets’

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

actually, strikeouts ARE affected by ballpark

and Peavy gets a big boost because of it. Petco causes batters to strike out about 8 percent more often than they would in a neutral park.

link

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I wonder why that is...

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well

what I thought of, especially with the question at the end of the article, is that lighting may be a factor

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Given the presence of the Marlins and Mariners at the top of the list, and the Rockies and Diamondbacks near the bottom, it seems that humidity is one of the biggest determinants of strikeout park effects.

by astrostl on Dec 10, 2008 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sweat pouring into one's eyes I suppose

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

an interesting thing about humidity

is that, counter-intuitively, it makes the air LESS dense, theoretically causing the ball to have less movement, since the boundary layer won’t be as thick, so there is less aerodynamic effects (lift, drag, etc) on the ball. it also causes them to travel farther when hit for the same reason.

As far as the quoted study goes, maybe it makes the leather softer, making the ball easier to grip? Or maybe there’s a spitball effect going on? I know peavy makes the ball do bizarre things while pitching in Petco.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 11, 2008 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

More in depth study

Natural Effects

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 11, 2008 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

also

that spreadsheet is pretty interesting… the Cardinals stadium sure helps the pitchers a lot by reducing home runs (.87) and increasing the amount of foul outs. other than that, it’s very very neutral, which I like.

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wrigley is pretty much the opposite

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no one is knocking Peavy’s talent, strikeouts or etc.

it’s just that when you weigh the rotation as is plus the genuine concerns about Peavy in the future, it’s a risk not worth taking.

If you’ve never seen Ras play, he’s good. There’s going to be some hype and Ras may not be hitting 30hr a year. But numbers aside, the kid is good, really good. (and young which leads to getting better/upside).

One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.

by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 10, 2008 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DING DING DING!

You are indeed smitten with Peavy. Look, I wouldn’t be heartbroken if Peavy was on the Cardinals. But if I get the choice between Sheets at 2 years, and Peavy at 4 years, I’m picking Sheets, especially under these circumstances. Sure, the Cards lose a draft pick with Sheets, but they can get another one later by, as someone above suggested, offering him arbitration after his contract is up. In business, and in many life situations, it’s never just about what a decision costs you financially. There are many other things to consider.

by spants on Dec 10, 2008 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The costs are astronomically higher

just because they are paid pretty much the same, but Peavy has more years, and costs an extra prospects.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I see your points

but I still don’t see 4/5 years of really good pitcher as an “astronomical cost” to the team. There are obviously injury risks, but they come with any pitcher.

I agree to disagree

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would agree with you in a vacuum

but Sheets is also a really good pitcher, of at least comparable ability and age, who is willing to sign at a similar salary for a much shorter timeframe. Thus he has both a lower cost and a lower risk, while offering the same upside.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In other words,

I’m not saying that Rasmus for Peavy might not make sense in certain environments, just that it doesn’t make sense in the Cardinals’ current environment.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rasmus projects to be a top-tier CF, top-tier CFs are worth a ton of money, and we get to pay him the league minimum until he becomes eligible for arbitration.

by astrostl on Dec 10, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess

I just don’t value projections as much as I value history.

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just remember

pay for what a player will do, not what they have done.

Acquire Boof Bonser. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.

by Dave Barry on Dec 10, 2008 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

upside has more value than credentials any day.

One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.

by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 10, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Credentials ARE upside

if a player has put up a season in the last four or five years, it’s at least marginally plausible that they might repeat that. the more bad/average years in between, the less likely that is, but it’s still plausible.

The upside argument, to me, is about signing a guy like Mark Kotsay, who has been ok for a long time, or someone like Juan Encarnación. They weren’t goign to get any better, they were just going to provide you something within some window of average. So why not give someone younger a chance and see if they might beat that cieling?

This is wildly different than someone like Peavy. His upside is a Cy Young season. He has as much upside as almost any pitcher that we could plausibly acquire.

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

by Valatan on Dec 10, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I generally agree with you without our roster in context. I s’pose I’m defining upside in a different way.

Rasmus will be cheap. He doesn’t need to do much in order to “earn his check”. Anything above that will be upside.

Even Peavy the next couple of years will be in upside territory in the manner I’m looking at it. But then towards the end of his contract and especially his last year his upside will pretty much need to be CY Young candidate worthy in order to adjust off his price tag – all during his decline years.

We can look back and assume what Peavy may be able to do, it’s harder for Rasmus, that I’ll agree. But with the risks and opportunity costs that Peavy adds to the table, the upside of Rasmus outweighs the credentials of Peavy.

In my opinion of course.

One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.

by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 10, 2008 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

for a 32 year old

yeah, but for a 27/28 yr old?

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what someone's done in the past

is only relevant to the degree that it impacts what he might do in the future. If a person’s history is good, it’s likely they’re projections are good as well. But if all you do is focus on his history, you’re paying for what they’ve done and not what they will do. That ’s a huge mistake.

by chuckb on Dec 10, 2008 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Peavy is awesome

I like everything about him. He’s got that cowboy attitude, an arm slot that’s similar to my own (which I like for stupid personal reasons), filthy stuff, and a couple of funny stories. Plus, he pitched a game against the Cards with a broken rib. That’s intense (even though he kinda sucked).

That said, trading for him makes no sense.

by mojowo11 on Dec 10, 2008 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Trading Rasmus for Peavy is stupid.

Ben Sheets is only being offered two years? GO GO GO

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Stupid like a fox.

The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.

by Tackle Box on Dec 10, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

your entitled to that opinion,

but like I said; we know what Peavy can do in MLB. We hope to know what Rasmus can do. And it would settle some of the surplus in the OF problems by not needing to clear a spot.

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you shouldn’t clear “OF problems” by moving your cost controlled talent who actually has an upside. You clear said issues my trading players around the margins for pieces of need.

I would argue that getting an AA high upside LHP for Skip carries more value than Colby for Peavy, without the risks and nothing but upside in front of you.

Peavy’s option year is insane, not counting injury concerns.

One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.

by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 10, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We know what peavy has done in the MLB

We have no idea what he will do, another year older, w/ more innings on his arm, not pitching half his games at Petco.

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Dec 10, 2008 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Peavy pitches in SD

he’s a fine pitcher, but he’s not Roger Clemens.

Dealing six years of Rasmus for Peavy’s contract is flat out dumb. Look at the Erik Bedard trade and tell me the Mariners wouldn’t like to have Adam Jones back.

Ben Sheets is only being offered two years? GO GO GO

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oliver Perez Looking For Five Years, $70MM

haha

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 4:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hughes and Kennedy

Sorry if this has been posted or asked, I am getting my first real opportunity to get on VEB today and was surprised to already see almost 350 posts on today’s main post.

Anyway, I’m seeing the Yankees sign CC and they’re supposedly now going after Lowe (to go along with Wang and Joba), so I’m wondering if they’re completely giving up on Hughes and Kennedy. Now, I know they both stunk to high heaven last year and really the only thing I truly know about these two guys are that they were both pretty highly touted two years ago and the Yanks actually went into last year counting on those guys somewhat.

Anyway, who knows what they’re in the market for, but I’d figure a guy like Ankiel (although, I’m not sure about the mixture of Rick and the Big Apple is a recipe for success) would look pretty good hitting in the new Yankee Stadium. It has the same dimensions as the old stadium and we all know that was a dream park for lefties.

Just throwing it out there and sorry if this has already been brought up.

by Tackle Box on Dec 10, 2008 4:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think it is a great idea

Yankee’s are out to buy every good SP

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope they get Lowe and Burnett

Lowe would look superficially worse going NL to AL East so the fans would chew him alive, not to mention their infield defense rates somewhere between below average and genocide depending on who they get at 1B. Burnett is a Carl Pavano situation.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 10, 2008 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If Rick was traded to NYY the Babe Ruth comparisons would be out of control

I mean no one seriously thinks he’s Babe Ruth, but the media would go overboard with it.

www.salukihoops.com

by salukihoops on Dec 10, 2008 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that Rick in NY would probably not be a match made in heaven

but I’m wondering what people think of Hughes and Kennedy. They were fairly highly touted just a year or so ago and it seems obvious the Yankees want nothing to do with them after their abysmal abbreviated seasons. While Rick for one of those guys would be too lopsided of a deal, I was wondering if it would be in the clubs interest to at least inquire about those guys. They are about 2 free agent signings away from being completely buried.

by Tackle Box on Dec 10, 2008 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i think your point is well taken.

I see anderson fitting well there, too.

by tom s. on Dec 10, 2008 9:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Masterplan

Three-way deal: Ankiel to the Rays for Andy Sonnanstine, who the Cards deal to the Pirates for Matt Capps.

Then the Cards buy Sheets for 2yr 30m.

So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)

by Titus Pullo on Dec 10, 2008 4:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

fail

by adiueordie on Dec 10, 2008 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perez 08
ERA+ 123
WHIP: 1.344

Capps 08
ERA+ 137
WHIP: 0.969

Capps 07, even better
ERA+: 191
WHIP: 1.013
ERA: 2.28

That’s called progress.

And we avoid Fuentes.

So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)

by Titus Pullo on Dec 10, 2008 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perez – 24, RHP – 2008 tRA:
4.39 (41IP)

Capps – 24, RHP – 2006, 2007, 2008 tRA:
4.29 (80IP), 4.00 (76IP), 4.51 (52IP)

Fuentes – 32, LHP – 2006, 2007, 2008 tRA:
3.70 (65IP) 4.51 (60IP), 3.08 (62IP)

tRA explained sans numbers

by astrostl on Dec 10, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fuentes is the better pitcher

he just costs too much.

So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)

by Titus Pullo on Dec 10, 2008 6:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You know it's an EPIC FAIL

when adiueordie doesn’t even take the time to attach a gif or some other funny pic.

When he simply writes “fail”, you sir FAILED.

by Tackle Box on Dec 10, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

"When he simple writes 'fail'"

you know its a hackneyed Internet cliche. Ridicule is no substitute for evidence.

So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)

by Titus Pullo on Dec 10, 2008 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

whatever

by Tackle Box on Dec 10, 2008 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

if only

the pirates weren’t absolutely ridiculous in their trade demands. see above for jack freaking wilson.

"...and pujols has given st louis the lead"

by tgreenfield on Dec 10, 2008 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

unless they are trading away a star player

then they give them away for nothing. To the cubs. or the red sox.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why would the Rays trade Sonny for Ankiel

Why in the balls would we trade Sonny for Capps?

Ben Sheets is only being offered two years? GO GO GO

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Because they want more offense

as reported here

Also, the Cards are in greater need of a dominant pitcher than they are of yet another developing pitcher. And TLR wants a closer with more experience than Perez, obviously.

So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)

by Titus Pullo on Dec 10, 2008 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That article says nothing about trading Sonnanstine

It’s merely speculation, and the Rays aren’t stupid.

Ben Sheets is only being offered two years? GO GO GO

by JI on Dec 10, 2008 6:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

who isn't in need of a dominant pitcher

if we got sonnastine for ankiel we keep him…flipping him for capps is like trading ankiel for capps…thats just not great business if you ask me

i would much rather have a young cost controlled developing pitcher for cheap than a dominan pitcher for a huge salary plus half the farm

by VolsnCards5 on Dec 10, 2008 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i hear

the cubs are looking to get rid of Marquis…trade for him, resign Izzy, and trade for Suppan…i’m sold…

by STLRegalia on Dec 10, 2008 4:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

might work

i figure the brewers would take rasmus for suppan straight up…we don’t need colby since we are going to re-sign edmonds

by VolsnCards5 on Dec 10, 2008 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

heh

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What is up with 'heh'?

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 10, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He's chuckling.

by spants on Dec 10, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's his onomatopoeia for laughing

Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...

by RunninRedbird on Dec 10, 2008 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe he really doesn't laugh out loud

to a computer so ‘heh’ suffices

One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.

by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 10, 2008 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it's a tradition

I picked up on a different bbs… one for the band Mr. Bungle. this one guy called Noiseman433 started saying it, and then everyone else started doing it, so there, that’s the story. so yeah, it’s just a smartass chuckle or something to that effect

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 10, 2008 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It reminds

me of Beavis and Butthead.

Aside: so weird to see a Mr. Bungle reference on VEB.

Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

Viva El Birdos -

Sheets Leaving Home (bye bye)

Comments