Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Steve McNair Found Shot to Death

Paying the cost to be the boss

Adam1_tiny by chuckb on in News Comment 566 comments

Well the big rumor going around here and elsewhere last night was the one that had the Cards on the verge of signing Brian Fuentes to a 3 year, $30 M deal. Around these parts, some of us were salivating at the thought of him in a Cards’ uni while others of us were ready to break things up to, and including, our own skulls. If true, it would certainly be Mo’s most noteworthy free agent signing and address what one man believes is our top priority.

Now, I’ve gone on record myriad times as saying how stridently opposed to this deal I am – for various reasons. I was, similarly, opposed to trading for him at the trade deadline last July – a deal that seemed a distinct possibility in these parts for some time. Is Fuentes a good reliever? He certainly is. However, he’s also 33 years young and would turn 36 during the final year of that 3 year deal. He is left-handed, it’s true. I find that nearly irrelevant for a guy who won’t be a platoon specialist. It matters if Trever Miller is left-handed. It doesn’t matter if your 9th inning guy is left-handed.

There’s some disagreement as to how good Fuentes is but it is beyond dispute that he was fantastic last year. (That’s fortuitous if you happen to be Fuentes’ agent.) In any case, he was, w/o a doubt, one of the 5 or 10 best relievers in baseball last year.

FIP (ML rank) FIPRAR (rank) tRA (rank) BB/9 K/9 HR/9
Fuentes ‘08 2.24 (5) 29.2 (5) 1.97 (5) 3.16 11.78 0.43

It’s difficult not to like a guy who strikes out nearly 12 men per 9 innings and who, while pitching half his games in Coors Field, only yields 0.43 homers per 9 innings. It was, by all accounts, a terrific season. It also was, indisputably, his best season…in his contract year. Whatever…

In terms of wins, Fuentes was worth around 3 wins above replacement last season. Fangraphs has him at about 3.1 WAR, statcorner has him at about 3.8 WAR, and Justin Inaz has him at about 2.9 WAR. Let’s call it 3 WAR. If that’s the case, then Fuentes is worth about $13 – 15 M on the free agent market. Using Tom Tango’s salary scale, Fuentes would be worth $35.9 M on a 3 year contract. Therefore, a 3 year, $33 M deal is a pretty good deal, right? Not so fast.

It’s important to remember that Fuentes is also a type-A free agent. Therefore, signing Fuentes costs the team next year’s first round draft pick as well. We know from Nate Silver’s research and inflation that a first round pick between picks 16-25 was worth about $10.36 M. This puts the value of the cost to the Cards at somewhere in the neighborhood of $43 M over 3 years. That’s considerably higher than the $36 or so M that Tango says he’s worth. That also presupposes that Fuentes will be a 3 WAR player in his age 33, 34 and 35 seasons. Remember, he’ll turn 36 at around the All-Star break in the final year of that 3 year deal. Anyone around here betting he’ll be a top-5 reliever in baseball in 2010 and 2011? Not me. Even if he is, he’s still not worth what it costs. If he were a type-B – costing no draft picks – or if the Rockies hadn’t offered him arbitration….maybe.

But, the argument goes, our bullpen was so bad last year, we have to fill that role, no matter the cost. Fuentes is the best guy still available (true!) and that hole he’s filling is so massive and so critical that it makes the Cards an instant contender. Fuentes, at his best, is a 3-win player. The Cards finished in 4th place in the division – 11.5 games behind the Cubs. Even if he replaces a replacement-level player in the pen and pitches as well as he pitched last year, we’re still 8 ½ games shy of the Cubs. However, it’s simply not true that he’s replacing a replacement-level player.

Who would Fuentes be replacing? Remember when the Cards chose not to offer arbitration to one Russ Springer? I sure do. We could have had him for, at most, 1 year and $4.5 M. Springer was worth at least 1 WAR last year and possibly up to 2 or 3. So, Fuentes adds, at most, 2 wins to the team’s total at a cost of 3.5. Wouldn’t paying Springer, using Perez to close, and adding Randy Johnson to the rotation make much more sense?

But, the Cards blew 31 saves last year – most in the big leagues. If we could reduce that to the amount blown by the average team (21.83), we add 9 wins to our total and are just 2.5 behind the Cubs. Now we’re a contender. (pause and reflect) Is there anyone out there who truly believes that Fuentes adds 9 wins to our total? The best player in baseball, one Albert Pujols, is about a 9 win player. Fuentes is no Albert Pujols. For one thing, the idea that by adding Fuentes and reducing the number of blown saves we can add 9 wins to our total is a tremendous fallacy. The table below shows the team’s blown saves last year and the outcomes.

BS Dates Team wins Team losses
Franklin 8 4/1, 4/21, 6/5, 6/26, 7/24, 7/26, 8/5, 9/26 4 4
Izzy 7 4/12, 4/25, 5/2, 5/7, 5/9, 5/15, 6/25 2 5
KMac 5 5/17, 6/18, 6/25, 7/12, 9/1 1 4
Perez 4 6/22, 7/12, 9/3, 9/5 0 4
Flores 2 4/17, 5/5 1 1
Springer 2 6/15, 8/3 1 1
Thompson 1 7/20 1 0
Mulder 1 7/2 1 0
Villone 1 5/10 1 0

The team’s record in games in which we blew a save – 13-18 (.419 winning %). Doing the math, reducing our number of blown saves by 9 would only gain us 5 wins at most. It’s also important to remember, and should be evident by looking at the table, that many of our blown saves didn’t occur w/ the closer in the game. 2 of Perez’s blown saves, in fact, came w/ him in a setup role. About half of Franklin’s came that way and nobody probably remembers Villone, Mulder, or Thompson in the closer’s role last season. Those blown saves will still occur. And, did I mention that Brian Fuentes actually blew 4 saves in his career year last season? Therefore, the idea that bringing a strong closer will improve the team enough to push us to the top of the division or to justify overpaying for him simply isn’t true.

We have a young closer who’s paid the minimum. We need to see what he can do. I realize the team has some money to spend. If so, let’s spend it on Randy Johnson or on a 2 or 3 year deal for Ben Sheets. Not only will we be getting a better baseball player, but we’ll be improving the pen (over last season) and the rotation. The Springer/Perez/Johnson (+ the first round pick we keep) combo I mentioned above will add more wins next year and beyond than overpaying Brian Fuentes will – Tony’s comments notwithstanding.

0 recs | Comment 566 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

It's been said before...

…and damn it I’m going to say it again. If Tony La Russa doesn’t like the players he’s given, he should quit. Chris Perez or Jason Motte can be exceedingly good relief pitchers NOW. Mozeliak needs to have the courage to NOT sign a new guy, tell TLR that Franklin is a swingman/long guy, and tell him that he needs to either use Perez or Motte. If La Russa doesn’t like that, then tough shit. Mozeliak is the one who is more likely to be here longterm, not the TLR and Duncan duo. He’s the one who needs to be making the best decisions for the team NOW and in the FUTURE, not just NOW. The guards need to run the asylum, not the inmates.

I also would like to point out that if the Cardinals have a staff with three six inning at most guys (Pinata, Wellemeyer, and Carp) then it won’t matter who the closer is, because the entire bullpen will be pitched into the ground. I mean for Pete’s sake…sign Randy Johnson, who will go 6-7 as long as he’s healthy (which I would imagine would be a good chunk of the season) or take a longer risk on Sheets, or hell even Derek Lowe. Another good, durable starter would help the bullpen as much if not more than a good “closer.”

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

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 11, 2008 12:58 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

agreed

+1 It’s pretty clear the smart play with the most benefit to the team would be to sign a starter with the money rather than a closer. But TLR is near meltdown over not having a vet closer. This move is borderline stupid if it happens.

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

On the other hand

It’s hard to simply discount the opinion the guy with 2461 career wins, 5 pennants, 2 world series, and four manager of the year awards.

So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)

by Titus Pullo on Dec 11, 2008 11:05 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's not hard for me

TLR has won a lot of games, but that doesn’t make him an expert at roster construction. After all, this is the same guy who carried four MIFs last year and insisted on using Randy stinking Flores in key situations just because he happens to be left-handed. He is more a creature of habit at this stage of his career than some sort of genius.

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

by giveml on Dec 11, 2008 11:11 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   1 recs

and the guy

who rolled out Izzystein over and over again before pulling the plug, costing us wins… and the guy who played Adam freakin Kennedy in the outfield over playing outfielders in the OF. just sayin’

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 4:15 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not to mention

playing Duncan and Ankiel hurt when they obviously couldn’t perform.

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

by giveml on Dec 11, 2008 5:22 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

oh yeah

forgot that brilliant move

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 5:46 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

well...

he has managed for teams that have a lot of $$$ to spend on good teams, maybe that has something to do with his win total… maybe, just maybe

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 4:14 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm for it...

As long as there is not a no-trade clause. But the lost draft pick hurts.

There is plenty of time and potential opportunity to see what Perez and Motte can do. Besides, they will contribute a great deal of value as set-up men. Think of it this way, if you could add a guy who actually pitches the way we like to think Perez might be able to pitch for $10 million a year (and also have Perez pitching too), would you do it? If you could double your Perezes except that one of them would have a proven track record of success and it would be more affordable than it has been in years, wouldn’t you make that move?

But, again, that lost draft pick sure hurts.

by abothecardinal on Dec 11, 2008 1:02 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

if you spend the $10M on a reliever

then you lose the opportunity to spend that on a starter. so essentially you are bringing in a guy with less upside then perez and leaving a huge hole in the rotation. i’d put that money on a starter.

Mo hasnt made any WTF moves in my opinion but i’ve read plenty of those type rumors (like the fuentes rumor) and it scares the crap out of me…i just dont see anyway a “new era” GM makes the fuentes move…

by UNCDubya on Dec 11, 2008 9:49 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

the attractive part of Perez....

…isn’t his performance.

It’s his performance for a guy making $400,000 a year next season

If we had to pay Chris Perez 10 mil for next season, I doubt anyone would be happy about that.

by mtalken on Dec 11, 2008 11:07 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

unless he's lights out

too early to tell

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 4:40 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

really?

3.46 ERA, 9 K/9, 1.34 WHIP 1.9/1 K/BB in MLB last year
3.20 ERA, 13.6/1 K/9, 1.18 WHIP, 3.2K/BB in AAA

Fuentes was:

2.73 ERA, 11.7K/9, 1.101 WHIP, 3.72K/BB

Yes Fuentes was better, but I doubt the only attractive thing about Perez is his price tag

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

by StLHugo on Dec 11, 2008 4:52 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And after that, theres still Motte.

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Dec 11, 2008 4:54 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Or someone like Mitchell Boggs

Good closers are made more often than bought.

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 11, 2008 4:55 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Motte's small sample size

Yes it was small sample size for MLB but here are motte’s numbers:
0.82 ERA, 13 k/9, 0.73 WHIP, 5.3 K/BB (11IP)

3.24 ERA, 15 k/9, 1.35 WHIP, 4.2 K/BB in AAA (66.2IP)

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

by StLHugo on Dec 11, 2008 5:00 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

In other news...

…while grading and perusing the internet simultaneously, I discovered this little nugget. Interesting…you have a set-up guy who doesn’t want to set-up and a closer who doesn’t want to set-up going in different directions. Putz is a really good pitcher with some serious health concerns…however if he’s healthy, I think he’s better than K-Rod by quite a bit. I wonder if he and his agent will pressure the Mets to sling him off for someone else so he can close…hmmm…

Also, I’d be terribly interested to see some team start Aaron Heilman. That would be an utter catastrophe. A one and a half pitch guy with a lethal changeup and questionable fastball command, coupled with an unorthodox delivery…Sound familiar, anyone?

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

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 11, 2008 1:04 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ok...maybe not quite a bit...

…But all things being equal I’d take Putz.

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

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 11, 2008 1:06 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

he's a met now

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

by sportsman on Dec 11, 2008 11:54 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Umm...yeah...

That’s what the link I posted said.

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

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 11, 2008 4:57 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The worst part is that while Ben Sheets is meeting with the Brewers

and other big name pitchers are drinking and eating with other GMs, ours and our manager are focusing their efforts on overpaying for a closer while we have two fireballers waiting in the wings.

Strange times.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 11, 2008 1:17 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Why are TLR and Duncan charting our FA course?

Why is our manager commenting on our targets and priorities in terms of personnel moves?

"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 11, 2008 1:26 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

exactly

butt out and just do your job, Tony

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 4:42 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Let's have our cake and eat it too...

Sign both Sheets and Fuentes. I mean, exactly when does that stadium we’ve subsidized pay off in terms of payroll like DeWitt and co promised?

Anyway, chuck, we’re tilting at windmills on Sheets. The Cards seem ideologically committed to dumpster diving on SP year-in and year-out. Jon Garland, here we come. D.GOOCH

-- GOOCH

by GOOCH24 on Dec 11, 2008 1:29 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

problem with Garland

is that last year he was dumpster dive performance (outside of durability) at premium cost.

And someone’s going to pay him $10M or more a year most likely.

by mtalken on Dec 11, 2008 11:10 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

please don't do this Mo

this is just a bad move for all the reasons chuck pointed out. i would much much rather pony up an extra 5-6 mil a year for sheets. having that much money tied up in a closer is bad enough, losing the draft pick is just insult to injury.

i would much rather we have a chance to have another wallace in the system instead of an overpaid closer and another shane robinson.

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

by FutureMan on Dec 11, 2008 1:59 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Stupid Stupid Stupid

So let me get this straight. The Mets get K-Rod for the same years and 2+ million more annually and also get Putz for a pile of poo and we are going to sign Fuentes for 30 million? His lefthandedness only makes sense as a specialist or 7th/8th inning guy in which case why in the hell would we pay him 30 million?!?!? On top of that we could have Sheets if we would offer a 3rd year. I mean just give him 3/40 million and call it an offseason for crying out loud. At first I was iffy on Sheets bc of the draft pick compensation but giving away a top 20 pick for Brian freaking Fuentes? Seriously? This is the same guy that lost his ‘closing’ job last season right? I mean this is just ridiculous. I’ve always been a TLR backer but !#$#$^. There is just nothing about this move that I understand or can support.

by rlgosnell on Dec 11, 2008 2:38 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i agree

if we are willing to drop that kind of coin, why not do it on a glaring need, ie, starting pitching…based on our offseason, the next rumor will be 10/250M for Texeira…

by UNCDubya on Dec 11, 2008 9:51 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Lets sabotage Milwaukee...

and sign Fuentes, forcing the Brewers to close with Hoffman.

by Czechguardsman on Dec 11, 2008 2:44 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How about

we let Milwaukee sign Fuentes and we take Hoffman. I would be ok with that. He could mentor Perez for a year and teach him how to be a closer and we have the all times saves leader for a year.

by JBagKY on Dec 11, 2008 8:02 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

+1

and “no” to Fuentes

by nmstar on Dec 11, 2008 8:51 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

no to fuentes

"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 11, 2008 12:50 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm with you

If LaRussa needs a closer so bad, let’s take one year of Hoffman as a stopgap between YP/Motte. It’ll be so much cheaper, and as the numbers go, the restructured pen would do just as well.

If Fuentes was a power bat that could hit behind Pujols, it would fill LaRussa’s two biggest needs! In that case we could just unload Rasmus and Perez (since we wouldn’t need him any more) AND Luddy and Ank (since we would have the power thing taken care of). Just a joke.

by WyoCardsFan on Dec 11, 2008 10:10 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So we sabotage Milwaukee

by sabotaging ourselves? Noooo!!!

I’d rather have Hoffman for 1 year, as opposed to Fuentes for 3.

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

by RunninRedbird on Dec 11, 2008 9:43 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If the Brewers sign Fuentes...

they have less money to add a starting pitcher, which is what they REALLY need.

Dude. This.

by Blicks on Dec 11, 2008 8:22 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nitpicky, I know,

but your left column adds up to 12 wins, and the right column adds up to 19 losses, which is a .387 winning percentage. Bring on Sheets!!!!!

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 11, 2008 3:50 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Technically

The numbers should add up to 12-17. Isringhausen & McClellan each had blown saves against Detroit on 6/25, plus McClellan & Perez tallied one each in the 12-11 disaster against Pittsburgh. That’s two losses for four blown saves.

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

by Solanus on Dec 11, 2008 9:47 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If we're throwing Fuentes $10M per anyway...

Why not just hire Randy Johnson to close? I can almost guarantee you that Johnson will be a better closer for very similar money and fewer years.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 3:58 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He has the experience too...

as the closer in the movie, little big league

by cbsnyder on Dec 11, 2008 8:21 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He's 5 away from that

I could see a closer picking up 5 wins over the course of a year.

by lightbulb on Dec 11, 2008 11:44 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

when a closer gets a win

its usually after blowing a save.

"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 11, 2008 2:05 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I shouldn't have said closer

Should have said that Johnson could be used in a Hoyt Wilhelm-esque way. A fireman who comes in the 7th or 8th mows down hitters.

by lightbulb on Dec 11, 2008 2:41 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No shortage of those in Birdland. . .

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

HL Mencken

by akaitori on Dec 12, 2008 3:03 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I was kind of being a bit sarcastic anyway

as it would be stupid to sign RJ and to put him in as a closer. But it’s also stupid to go and sign a closer rather than get a difference maker like him.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:51 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I wonder how much the stats above really tell us.

If chris perez is going to blow a few one run games, okay; that happens. we can’t do the izzy show, where we blow games that are all sewn up. Check out this account.

6/22 — perez gives up one run, tying the game. eventually, bosox win in the 13th.
7/12 — chalking this one to perez is deeply unfair. he gave up a single run in the tenth. but franklin had previously given up two runs, izzy THREE, and kmac two (Kmac also charged w/ a blown save)
9/3 — this one is legitimately perez’s fault. he gave up two runs. A Kmac who should have been resting by sept. 3 gave up two runs earlier, after Lohse pitched six innings of shutout ball.
9/5 — looper pitched a good game — shut-out for seven and a third. But the offense only scored one run. perez gave up one run to tie the game. Franklin got the loss after giving up 2 runs.

The take-home lesson here is that Perez did convert 7 of 11 save opportunities, and only gave up 2 runs one time in a save situation. He gave up two runs two other times in non-save situations early in his season. Otherwise, he could be counted on to give up no runs or one run. He made 41 appearances. By contrast, Izzy gave up 2 runs FIVE times, and gave up 3 runs FOUR times in 42 appearances.

His overall stats were decent, though he gives up far too many walks still. But I think to spend at closer when even his first season shows great promise makes no sense. Add Kinney and Motte to that mix, who together gave up one earned run over 19 innings, and you have a pretty decent season in the bullpen shaping up.

A better solution would be to have a staff that regularly gets deep into games and an offense with fewer dead spots — Hardcore had a good comment the other day about amassing home run-or-strikeout kings, who are typically prone to slumps. We lost a lot of close games because our offense just shut down. Ankiel and Glaus were particularly prone to the devastating droughts. This is a compelling reason to look more at Rasmus, Skip, and Barton in the outfield. And we lost some games because our bullpen was very taxed. And we lost some games because Izzy, Franklin, and Flores were not very good, and because Villone and KMac were overused.

I’d also note that in the event perez and motte and kinney all struggle, if we have an extra arm in the rotation, we will be freer to allow wellemeyer to slide into a closer role. it will be much harder to slide fuentes into the rotation if we pass on another starter, than to move wellemeyer or another competent arm to shore up a failing bullpen.

by tom s. on Dec 11, 2008 5:10 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

that whole array of stats

I uncovered, tells you nothing? and so for your evidence, you’re going to rely on 4 out of 162 ballgames? Interesting.

by chuckb on Dec 11, 2008 7:56 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i think he is just further justifying your point

he is showing that even some of the games perez got a BS for, he didn’t pitch badly, our set up men did

by VolsnCards5 on Dec 11, 2008 10:09 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i should have been clearer in referring to the table with saves and team losses, not every stat

you referred to.

i just mean that the stats say a save is a save, whether it’s one run or three, regardless of the circumstances

as a matter of fact I think a “loss” and a “blown save” don’t tell us that much: they don’t tell us whether we lost in part because other relievers gave up a number of runs, they don’t tell us how far the starter went in the game, they don’t tell us how much offense was produced, etc. the two stats of
loss and blown save just tell us that the pitcher gave up at least one run in a close game.

and I did note more than just the four games — I noted how many times perez and izzy gave up more than one run. I used the four games as a snapshot of perez’s pitching.

See: “Perez did convert 7 of 11 save opportunities, and only gave up 2 runs one time in a save situation. He gave up two runs two other times in non-save situations early in his season. Otherwise, he could be counted on to give up no runs or one run. He made 41 appearances. By contrast, Izzy gave up 2 runs FIVE times, and gave up 3 runs FOUR times in 42 appearances.”

I was really just trying to supplement the point you made with more information.

by tom s. on Dec 11, 2008 12:48 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

thing to consider though with these stats....

TLR has a longer leash with Izzy and Franklin than PErez. I’d be shocked if PErez had been given an opportunity to give up 3 runs unless they were in the form of a 3-R HR.

by mtalken on Dec 11, 2008 11:15 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think people are being unrealistic...

They have $10-15 million to play with. That’s not going to sign a good starting pitcher. $15 million would likely be the starting point for Sheets.

I doubt it would even sign Randy Johnson..

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to use the remaining money to get a pretty good closer (4 blown saves out of 34 isn’t bad by any means, and his overall numbers are excellent, except maybe his walk rate). It shores up the bullpen

I also don’t have much faith in Perez/Motte pitching effectively for long periods with Dave Duncan as the pitching coach.

Plus, in theory, yeah, it’s bad to lost the first round draft pick. But when was the last one picked by the Cardinals that actually made the major league team? Oh, that’s right, Adam Kennedy. Hate to miss out on a player like him.

Sure, overall 1st round draft picks can be a big help, but not the ones that Cardinals sign. They aren’t willing to pay the big bonuses for the really can’t miss prospects.

Maybe Wallace and Rasmus will change that. Maybe they won’t. Both could end up corner outfielders, losing much of their value.

Felipe Lopez - next year's Joel Pineiro

by DiscoJer on Dec 11, 2008 6:09 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Rasmus

is a great CF and is going to stay there. Even if his offense isn’t a great as everyone thinks it will be, his defense is spectacular. As for Wallace, if he can just be decent at the hot corner, his bat will put him in MLB, he is that good.

by JBagKY on Dec 11, 2008 7:59 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not entirely accurate

They have $10-15 million to play with. That’s not going to sign a good starting pitcher. $15 million would likely be the starting point for Sheets.

in average 15MM seems to be the mulp off point in all reported negotiations for sheets, but with back loaded money i could see the low end of that spectrum being paid in 08, and a significantly larger chunk being pushed into 09 when glaus could be gone. in short its not unrealistic to think you could have ben sheets on your 08 books for 10MM.

mo is really in a craptastic situation in that he is in a board room with two sides that seem to fall on polar oppostie ends of the spectrum in terms of how this team should be constructed. my gripe with the larussa side continues to be his proclivity to push only for the current year. i’m not a larussa fan, but i can understand why any manager would feel that way in a sports marketplace as result based as what we have. The flip side of that is he basically has carte blanche with dewitt & co, and clearly has more leeway than the average manager, so you’d like to see him ease off the veteran throttle that he seemingly rides so hard.

by trip mcneely2 on Dec 11, 2008 8:42 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I disagree.

The Yankee offer for Sheets is supposedly somewhere between 26 and 30 million dollars over two years. And the Yankees generally offer pretty much the top of the market for just about anybody. Could Sheets get a little more? Maybe. But I can’t see him getting much more than that if that’s were the Evil Empire is coming in.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 11, 2008 8:54 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

if they hadn't wasted the money on kyle lohse

they could have signed sheets AND derek lowe . . . . .

by lboros on Dec 11, 2008 9:11 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

no smiley

if anything, a frowny. they tied up so much money in a mediocrity that they have no $$$$ available to roll the dice on a guy who might be high impact.

by lboros on Dec 11, 2008 9:42 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

In fairness

I don’t think they could roll the dice on Sheets if there wasn’t a durable Lohse type to take up some innings. They’d be counting on a healthy Ben Sheets because if he’s not, then the 5th starter is a DFAer/not-ready prospect. I’m sorry I mean 4th starter, Pineiro is #5. But IMO it’s kind of a Catch 22.

Anyway I really hope they’re doing all this Fuentes business and ignoring the fact that Mitchell Boggs is currently our 5th starter because Carpenter’s test went like daises.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 11, 2008 9:54 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

can't they get a durable lohse type

without spending $10m a year for 4 years? gotta be a way, especially in this market.

by lboros on Dec 11, 2008 10:15 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Isn't that why Suppan got his contract?

wasn’t suppan a durability guy that Mil got? Marquis got it from Chi, etc. Maybe things have chagned but it seems lots of teams are paying for durability and consistency.

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

by StLHugo on Dec 11, 2008 10:38 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yup...

It was a terrible deal at the time, and will prove to be worse in a year or 2. Heck, I would much rather gamble on Sheets for 2 years 13-15 M/yr and use a rotation of Waino, Carp, Sheets, Welly, and Piniero with back up options of Boggs, Todd, Thompson etc…barring injuries that would probably be bound to happen at some point in the season.

by CrimsonBirdFan on Dec 11, 2008 10:47 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That should have been a no brainer....

the organization is cheap and worried about him accepting and limiting their chance to sign FA’s…thats the only explanation…

I personally would have not signed Lohse and offered both arbitration to see if one would accept. If not, then you could probably sign both reasonably in the open market…

by CrimsonBirdFan on Dec 11, 2008 10:53 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Maybe

but I have trouble reconciling the idea that ownership is “cheap” with the 4 year, $40 M contract given Lohse and the notion that it might spend another $33 M on Fuentes. Those aren’t signs of “cheapness.” They’re signs that the team is misallocating its resources.

by chuckb on Dec 11, 2008 11:00 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

In this scenario, they're getting Derek Lowe, too

Lowe’s pitched more than 1999 innings every year since 2004, when he pitched 181. And he’s done it at a much higher level than Lohse. There’s your durable pitcher to take up the innings and ensure you against Sheets.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:49 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Really?

Now that’s an innings eater!

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 11, 2008 1:15 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

heh. quite a falloff from 2004 to 2005, too.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 1:19 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah.

Must’ve been one hell of an injury, to have taken him out for more than 1800 innings worth of work.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 11, 2008 1:19 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

no, he just got signed to close four four different teams

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 1:20 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

and I just shouldn't be typing today

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 1:21 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hee hee.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 11, 2008 1:22 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Wouldn't a guy like that be

more or less an automatic MVP? Think of the bench strength you could carry without needing a full pitching staff!

by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 11, 2008 1:23 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

+1

yeah i meant that 15MM to be a JUMP OFF point as opposed to the ever well known MULP OFF point.

i think thats why everyone is so into sheets now, becasue the yankees typically are the high end of every negotiation, and even that high end can fit into our budget this time.

the lohse signing got done too early. another few weeks and the economy really starts to poop itself and prevents that deal from ever taking place and instead of 10-15MM of monopoly money, we have 17-22MM or whatever. thanks cyclical economics.

by trip mcneely2 on Dec 11, 2008 9:16 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Lohse would be lucky to get...

3 years 30 M in this market. Wouldn’t have surprised me to see him get 3 years 26 M…

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

ah yes.

The famous “mulp off” point for signing free agents.

If you’re not willing to mulp a little bit, you have no chance to get anyone good!

by mtalken on Dec 11, 2008 11:18 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

don't agree with this at all

1. Sheets, because of injury concerns, may not get $15m a year. He is also lights out when able to take the mound
2. Randy Johnson would have signed for the D-Backs for less than $10m but the D-Backs are cutting salary
3. I can see why someone may not think Perez is ready, but Motte? Does he need to strike out everyone?
4. The Cardinals fro the longest time were picking at the bottom of the first round. this year’s pick is #19. That is a big difference from #28-30.
5. Because Chris Lambert stunk doesn’t mean that next year’s pick will. Would you you prefer the Cardinals not participate because all 50 picks won’t be hall of famers? Get real.
6. The Cardinals ponied up the money for Brett Wallace. What pick did they avoid last year because of money. It has already been written that they had clearance from management to draft Posey or Crow and pay them $$$$.
7. And corner outfielders who can absolutely rake have little value. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

by nmstar on Dec 11, 2008 9:04 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just for you information...

Next years draft class is supposed to be pretty weak at the top end…Doesn’t mean that a good player couldn’t be found, but a lot of teams aren’t as worried as they’d normally be because of the lack of top end talent available…

by CrimsonBirdFan on Dec 11, 2008 10:51 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

They say that every draft class

Considering Strasburg is high 90s with a hammer curve and ridiculous stats, Green is and I quote BA “a cross of the best attributes of Evan Longoria and Troy Tulowitzki”, the 2nd best pitcher from last year’s draft Crow is in this years draft, etc, I severely doubt it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an “up” draft class before May.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 11, 2008 11:52 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

See, this annoys me

If we have to spend most of the value of the draft pick in order to get any value out of the draft pick, then the draft pick isn’t really that valuable, especially since it has a 50% chance of panning out at all, and about a 10-25 chance of producing a star player.

Let’s see how Wallace hacks in the high minors in a significant number of games before we decide that he’s the next Mike Schmidt. I realize he’s only 22 and that there’s a lot of reason to be excited, but…

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 12:57 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I wondered if I would sleep last night when I heard this

This irritates me to no end. How can they be so smart with the addition of Khalil and be so stupid with this one. I am just dumbfounded by this idea.

by JBagKY on Dec 11, 2008 7:57 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Fuentes isn't worth what we lose

We don’t need Fuentes for 3 years right now and the marginal (IMHO only around 1 win over Perez) benefit he might bring isn’t worth losing the flexibility of not having a closer signed that long and the first round pick. Why are we willing to sacrifice the farm again so soon?

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

by StLHugo on Dec 11, 2008 8:41 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

LaRussa MLB home plate interview

TLR was on XM radio last night and I’ve only caught one 10 second snippet. In the one piece I caught this morning, he said free agency for players is the way to go in order to keep the youngsters. I much prefer hearing the questions and answers than reading extracted quotes. Does anyone know if the entire interview is available online?

And for the record, imo, signing a closer for 3 yrs what this team needs. Don’t want to be accused of defending TLR just cause I want to hear the interview…

by ubeddie on Dec 11, 2008 8:42 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Is or isn't what this team needs?

I can’t tell if you mean you don’t want to be accused because you don’t agree with him, or you don’t want to be accused on false basis, ie the interview only.

It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.

by the red baron on Dec 11, 2008 8:51 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Isn't

I guess it helps to add key words to statements. Could’ve sworn the word was in there when I hit Post.

by ubeddie on Dec 11, 2008 11:23 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Cowfused....

….I’m just a dumb cow with opposable hooves, but:

“It’s important to remember that Fuentes is also a type-A free agent. Therefore, signing Fuentes costs the team next year’s first round draft pick as well. We know from Nate Silver’s research and inflation that a first round pick between picks 16-25 was worth about $10.36 M. This puts the value of the cost to the Cards at somewhere in the neighborhood of $43 M over 3 years.”

Why is a pick that valuable? Isn;t it only as valuable as what you actually pay for the guy, league minimum plus whatever bonus is paid out – and I don’t see any 16 – 25 pick getting a 10 mil signing bonus. So what’s up??

:=8/

by The MooCow on Dec 11, 2008 9:03 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

ummm

how about getting a cost controlled player for six years who should, by basis of draft order, have an excellent chance of making an impact in the major leagues.

by nmstar on Dec 11, 2008 9:06 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not Saying..

…its bad, just saying why is it worth 10.36 mil??

by The MooCow on Dec 11, 2008 9:08 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

what will Rasmus cost you in 2009, 2010

and what would a decent free agent centerfielder have cost you?

Mike Cameron is $10m in 2009. So, your savings would be $10m-$400k. For 1 year. And this is for someone we’ve already drafted, not someone we draft this year who will come up when salaries are even more inflated.

by sdrone on Dec 11, 2008 9:13 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm with you

The Silver artcile is sub. only, so I couldn’t glean anything from that. Maybe this is covered in the Silver article, but does that $10.36 take into account the odds against a draft pick making it to the bigs?

If your first round pick makes the bigs, I can see how it could provide that value. But, what if the pick doesn’t make it? Is the argument that the pick still somehow provides value? How much value have these guys given the Cardinals: Chance Caple, Shaun Boyd, Blake Williams, Justin Pope, Daric Barton, Chris Lambert, James Greene? Those are the first round picks from 1999-2005, excluding Rasmus, who, obviously, seems poised to deliver great value.

Well, Barton was flipped as part of the Mulder deal, so there’s some value. The others? Um, didn’t we trade Justin Pope to the Yankees for someone?

It seems to me (and again, I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise) that the $10.36 that is being sort of rolled into the “cost” of signing Fuentes is based on an assumption that the first round pick surrendered is going to make the bigs and contribute. Now, the validity of that assumption can be debated, of course, but it seems to be an assumption upon which a lot of reasoning is based and opinions formed. As such, it should be investigated.

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Dec 11, 2008 9:28 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yes it takes into account those odds

Guys, you’re looking at a tiny series of drafts without Rasmus having even done anything yet. If Rasmus turns into a .270/.350/.500 player with his plus CF defense, that’s a 20m a year player right there (Torii Hunter got 18m for less) who we’d pay 500k for 3 years, then something like 8-10-14 in arbitration. That’d be paying 82.5m less than what he’d get on the FA market, AKA 82.5m worth of value. 82.5m/the 8 players you listed = 10.3m—-I swear to god I just eyeballed it and came up with that. Rasmus by himself is capable of making up for 7 other bad drafts. Imagine the Giants, or Rays, or Tigers they could destroy their entire draft for the next 10 years and the averages would still be that high with Lincecum/Longoria/Verlander.

But that’s complicated. Here’s simple: these guys are getting ~2m signing bonuses when they can’t negotiate with anyone else and risk one of their prime years by not signing. If there was a bidding war on them, the pricetag would accurately reflect their value and “building through the draft” wouldn’t be nearly as cost effective.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 11, 2008 9:47 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   1 recs

Blech I cut myself off

The time that it actually did happen where there was a bidding war due to some contractual creativity that made him a free agent, Matt White got a 10.2m signing bonus, the largest ever…in 1996 12 years ago.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 11, 2008 9:58 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Perez

was a Sandwich pick in 06 who already made the big leagues and could have tremendous value as well. Even in a market flush with closers, the top tier of closers are going for 10M+. I know 06 was excluded from the analysis, but having two guys make it to the big leagues from the first/supplemental round make joker’s argument even stronger.

by Toddius on Dec 11, 2008 10:08 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah...And...

all this talk is really only including players who become superstars. There are a lot of guys who just become average. And being an average 3rd or 4th starter is worth about 8-10 M these days…

by CrimsonBirdFan on Dec 11, 2008 11:00 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Because...

Teams tell their first round picks to take their $1 million or whatever or go back to school, most guys would rather bank the million than risk injury for another year and come back to the draft next year (if they are a college player) with no leverage in negotiations.

by mikedallas45 on Dec 11, 2008 9:08 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Think of it like equity in a house.

1st round draft picks are (essentially) valuable slaves that you can sell at will. Analysis of past draft picks has produced the $10M figure you see above.

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 11, 2008 9:27 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

it's an average

some fail and some make it. As they make it they bring a ton of value to the team — $20M players earning $2 – 3 M, for example. That $10M figure is adjusted for 3 years of inflation since Silver authored his article. His number was $9M and change. It is the average value to the team minus the cost of paying them through their cost-controlled years. It does account for the Chance Caples but it also accounts for the Chase Utleys.

by chuckb on Dec 11, 2008 10:54 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And it does point out the madness of giving Rick Porcellos $7M signing bonuses

as the team is basically surrendering all of the value of the pick to the draftee.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 1:00 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not really

If you’re valuing a player as a top 2-3 talent, the value is much higher than 10m to start.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 11, 2008 4:18 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You can never accurately make that valuation

The closest you can come is if a guy had something like Mark Prior’s USC career.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 4:20 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Valatan, no shit you can't make that valuation accurately,

but you are given decades of data on the probability that these players will make it to the majors. Just because you think Porcello was a bad signing doesn’t mean the pick was any less valuable.

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Dec 11, 2008 5:14 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Of course

but the decades of valuation says that the pick is worth $10M. if you are coughing $7M of that back, then you are essentially giving the pick away.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 5:29 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

the pick is worth somewhere between 0 and 20ish

with a mean of 10M. If you pay 7, and think you are getting a 20, you come out way ahead.

they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums

by SleepyCA on Dec 11, 2008 5:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

and I can thnk that 5 - 9 -7 is really going to win the pick 3 tonight, too

Everyone thinks they are making good picks, or else they wouldn’t be making them. The mean value is about the only thing that you can bank on, perhaps with some hedging against extreme volatility.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 5:36 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

well, like anything

Everyone does their own risk/reward valuation. Some folks are better at talent evaluation and development than others, lowering the risk. Some teams value 7M more than others, as well.

A guy like porcello has the potential to have concentrated talent value you can’t buy at any price, so sometimes it’s worth it to buy the lottery ticket.

they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums

by SleepyCA on Dec 11, 2008 5:49 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The 10M valuation is an inflation adjustment of a Nate Silver article that studied six years of draft data from 1989-1994 with service assumptions. The formula was found to contain errors, and he revised it later that year. For “Tier 3” (11-25) picks the pre-inflation market value shot down from 8.95M to 2.12M – WAY below 10M.

As you know, the price (11.1M in total) wasn’t given to “average.” Rick Porcello in particular posted the price, and the Detroit Tigers in particular paid it. And they might get a good return on their investment.

Signing requirements can be included into average costs just like player performance can be included in average returns. They can also cause what would otherwise be the first pick of the entire draft to slide downward and into the hands of teams that are able and willing to pay, making things even more complex. Porcello was considered the best SP in the draft and got picked 27th.

Once a team knows its draft slot and the players in the pool it can do a lot better than historical averages, though – it can deduce the players that are most likely to be available around our pick, and attempt to project THEIR average value. So I don’t think the mean means what you mean :)

by astrostl on Dec 11, 2008 6:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

and also

$10M is hardly a make or break amount of money when we’re talking about difference making high-end players over 3-5 year deals, especially considering that you get the draft picks back when they resign.

Which is another thing about Ben Sheets. Since he only wants two or three years, he will almost certainly be a Type A at the end of his contract, which means that, although we give up a first rounder for him,, we would get back a first rounder and a sandwich when he resigns with his next team, as he will likely still be viable at the end of a two or three year deal

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 5:34 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

We have our slot and our pool for this year. If we sort from best to worst and factor for signing requirements, we can approximate which players we might get. And from there do projections based on their existing stats, comps against similar players, etc.

So if we sign Ben Sheets we might know with a modicum of accuracy the specific range of players we might be passing – not just a historical average.

He might be injured, though, or worse. It’s not a lock for Type A or even Type B. But even if we assume that it is Type A, the future is a lot less clear:

- We don’t know our slot.
- We don’t know the pool, or at least as well.
- To get the pick we need to offer arb, get declined, and have him picked in FA.
- If the team with the pick is 1-15 in the draft, we don’t get a first-rounder!

That’s the part where historical averages matter, because we can only estimate.

by astrostl on Dec 11, 2008 6:45 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

We're talking about an ace level MLB player

I’d understand if you were complaing about signing Juan Encarnación or something, and using the draft pick.

Yes, there is a chance that Sheets gets horribly injured and drops off of the face of the earth. He’s not a lock for a Type A. But you would have to say that it’s a pretty good bet to guess that he’ll be a Type A. Probably a better bet than a given draft pick making the majors. His season last season, however, would probably have him pretty damn close to being a lock for a Type B at the end of a two year deal.

And still, if he’s a type A, we get two high picks, either a first rounder and a sandwich, or a sandwich and a second rounder.

Not signing a player like Ben sheets for a deal as short as two years because we might lose a draft pick is crazy to me. Yes, it is a risk. But it’s about as small a risk as you will ever manage taking on the free agent market.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 7:22 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I’m not arguing against the signing of Ben Sheets – infact I’ve endorsed it at least twice in this thread. Just contrasting the difference between our draft pick this year versus the presumed one in the future, and the ways in which they might be individually evaluated – circling back to the value of historical data on draft picks, which I think is only of concern in unknown instances.

by astrostl on Dec 11, 2008 7:49 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

the draft

or signing 16 year old FAs is a crapshoot, BUT your best odds are in the first round. you shouldn’t give that up lightly

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

by sportsman on Dec 11, 2008 12:16 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree...

… and what does this signing do to the psyches of C. Perez and J. Motte? They’ve been grooming (and drafted) Chris Perez for this very moment… and he’s done nothing but answer the call. And now they’re going to pass him over and trash a first round draft pick?

I thought building the farm system was still number one priority? Can you do that by giving up number one picks?

This just seems like a silly use of resources. And surely we could have matched Detroit’s offer for E. Jackson, no? Schumaker and prospect?

by AndyB83 on Dec 11, 2008 9:16 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

if their psyches are that weak

they never would have made it as a closer anyway.

they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums

by SleepyCA on Dec 11, 2008 1:37 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   1 recs

Agreed

People are way too concerned with the psyches of major league players. If you were Chris Perez, would you freak out? I wouldn’t. I might be a little disappointed, but that’s about it.

by mojowo11 on Dec 11, 2008 4:26 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hey, it's their job and they just got passed over for a promotion.

It sucks, yeah. It has happened to most of us. You pout a bit and move on.

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

by Eckstreem on Dec 11, 2008 4:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah, you move on out to the

parking lot and drive home in a nicer car than I’ll ever have a chance of owning. I’ll take some of that disappointment any day.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 11, 2008 4:50 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Psyches...

I see what you’re saying. But Perez hasn’t really done anything to be passed over. And if I felt like I was being prepared for a position in my company but they brought in someone else when my moment had seemingly came, it would be more than a little disappointing.

My real problem, though, is that this doesn’t jive with the organization’s apparent change in philosophy to majorly emphasize player development. They are giving up a first round draft pick if they give up Fuentes… AND they are passing over a guy who appears very close to ready to contribute in this role for the league minimum. Seems incongruent.

And are they telling Chris Perez what he could have done differently last year in order for them to not feel like their hand is forced to pursue an already established closer? Comments by A. Reyes and Worrell would indicate otherwise.

by AndyB83 on Dec 11, 2008 6:54 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The rationale isn't that crazy

And I think Perez can probably see that. Fuentes is proven, Perez isn’t. So the company says, “Hey look, we have a chance to get a guy who can really close the crap out of games. You’re gonna have to play second fiddle so we can have that guy. You’re the next option if he goes down or becomes ineffective.” Kind of a bummer? Sure. But being a setup guy isn’t all bad, and if he proves himself, he’s the heir apparent when Fuentes either leaves or is traded. So it doesn’t kill his value.

I understand that the Cards are doing the youth thing, but they’re also doing the “win” thing. Now, I don’t necessarily believe that signing Fuentes is going to make a huge difference, but if they do, that’s probably why they’re willing to part with a pick to have him. You have to have a balance of youth and win now, and I think Fuentes is a move toward win now. On the other hand, they seem unwilling to trade the young pitchers or Rasmus, so they’re not selling out to win now. I think it’s a good balanced approach, even if Fuentes is a misguided piece of that approach.

by mojowo11 on Dec 12, 2008 12:55 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

replacing the draft pick

it hurts to lose a draft pick, but the draft is only one way to get amateur talent. if they choose not to spend more over slot money on guys that fall in the draft they can always throw more money at latin american prospects.

i’d do 3/24 for fuentes…probably 3/27….probably not 3/30. dont give him a NTC. trade him when perez/motte/kinney/mcclellan/whoever emerges as a legitimate closer. i dont want to bet the season on perez finding control or motte figuring out how to throw something other than a straight fastball. they are all talented guys with the ability to close. they have earned important roles in the pen. i just dont think they have earned the #1 role in the pen. as long as fuentes stays healthy the birds shouldnt have a problem dumping him when one of the young guns is ready.

by dmb60614 on Dec 11, 2008 9:34 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

TLR talks (whew, thank goodness)

On Rasmus:

For Rasmus, La Russa heaped on the praise.
“This guy has a chance to be an impact, everyday outfielder,” La Russa said. “He has a chance to be a very special package.”

This is true. It’s reassuring to hear TLR voice these thoughts.

That clouded ending quickly dispersed with La Russa’s sunny outlook on where the center fielder fits for 2009.
A year ago, La Russa played down Rasmus’ chances of making the major-league roster out of spring training. Now La Russa is open to having Rasmus in the majors even if he’s not a starter.
“You don’t want to do anything that takes away from him making his mark as soon as possible,” La Russa said.

I’m a bit more tepid about this. I don’t see the value in making Rasmus a bench player. He’s a CF so there’s not a RH platoon partner that’s obvious meaning you’d be swapping him out for a different LH fielder most likely. There’s really only two players (Ankiel, Ludwick) that I would say with full confidence are going to be better than Rasmus next year. Schumaker is of similar value, Duncan is a loss and Barton/Mather aren’t as advanced as Rasmus.

If he’s ready for the majors, make him a starter and leave him alone for a few months. If things don’t work out, option him back to AAA and he’ll know what he needs to work on.

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 11, 2008 9:36 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think TLR struck a deal

The factions in the club agreed on the following:

1. To appease the farm folks, TLR agreed to play Rasmus; and
2. To appease TLR, the farm folks agreed to go after a big name closer.

If the Cards sign Fuentes and trade Ankiel, I consider it the “cost” of getting Ramus into the lineup full time.

by JMedwick on Dec 11, 2008 9:42 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

As a point of clarification

I think signing a big name closer is a waste of money and a failure of the farm system. Every major league club should have someone within their ranks who can close. The question is whether the team is willing to engage in the search to find the person.

by JMedwick on Dec 11, 2008 9:46 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If they sign Fuentes...

Then it must mean that they think they can get either

a) a cost-controlled starter or
b) an upgrade at 2B

for Ankiel. If that is the case then I can live with this, even though I would rather have, say, Sheets + Putz than Fuentes + Edwin Jackson.

by mikedallas45 on Dec 11, 2008 9:46 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Or

a) they are convinced Carp will be back

by ArkansasTravs on Dec 11, 2008 4:16 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't think it works that way.

At all.

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 11, 2008 9:47 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I know some of you think TLR

just bosses management around, but I don’t think so. Mo seems to be on board with us needing a closer.

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 11, 2008 10:12 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hardly

I don’t TLR bossed management around. I think he was pragmatic and realistic, with Mo walking the fine line by bargaining between the two factions within the team (bring in the vets and bring up the kids). The hole TLR wanted to fill the most is at the closer position and was/ is willing to have Rasmus on the ML roster was a trade off.

by JMedwick on Dec 11, 2008 10:21 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I just don't see Mo and TLR sitting around.....

Essentially blackmailing each other. I just don’t.

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 11, 2008 10:57 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't see it as blackmail

I don’t agree that this is what happened but if it did I see it more as dinner conversation:

TLR: Hey Mo, any chance you could sign Fuentes?
MO: Well if I do that I will have to guarantee we use Rasmus in the OF instead of signing someone to make up the cost
TLR: Hmm, I guess Rasmus might be able to be my impact bat as long as Fuentes can protect close games
MO: Yeah that might work pretty well

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

by StLHugo on Dec 11, 2008 11:06 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Bingo

I doubt they are blackmailing one another. That said, each man likely has his own opinions on how best to build a team and based on LaRussa’s past comments, he was not sold on Rasmus and now seems more than willing to have him on the big club. This is a change and there must be some reason why.

by JMedwick on Dec 11, 2008 11:14 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

FYI

It’s well documented that infighting between management was part of the reason Jocketty got canned.

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 11, 2008 11:45 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Did anybody notice TLR's statement in the interview that

he felt “spry…like a teenager”? He will manage the Cardinals through 2012 at least.

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

by giveml on Dec 11, 2008 11:57 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Maybe he's visiting

one of those ant-aging clinics.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 12:58 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

do ant's age well?

Life is better when you have a Big Unit!

by nomar34 on Dec 11, 2008 1:36 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

They're

really strong, so probably.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 1:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

though, as a counterpart

Ant-Man looks kind of aged and out of date in comparison to his contemporary superheroes like Wolverine and the Hulk.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 1:40 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

counterpoint!

Ugh. I’m having some more coffee.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 1:40 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hulk

Hogan is looking really aged lately…

Life is better when you have a Big Unit!

by nomar34 on Dec 11, 2008 2:00 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think he meant Incredible Hulk,

but yeah he is looking old. Husband and I just watched Bigger Stronger Faster*. Hogan was the filmmaker’s childhood hero.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 2:42 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How was that film?

I watched about a 1/3rd of it but lost interest

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 11, 2008 2:43 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I liked it.

It fell off a bit in the middle, but it got more interesting toward the end. They start their own supplement company and use creative photography, lighting, and make-up to take before and after ads on the same day.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 9:12 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i was being facetious

sorry i didnt make it more apparent…

Life is better when you have a Big Unit!

by nomar34 on Dec 11, 2008 7:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think this is insane

You’ve essentially taken the fact that TLR is touting Rasmus and the fact that FO is pursuing a big-name closer and wrapped it up into your fantasy that TLR is interfering. There’s absolutely nothing here to suggest that.

by mojowo11 on Dec 11, 2008 4:29 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

"Barton/Mather aren’t as advanced as Rasmus"

Really? Both of them put up better numbers in MLB last year than Rasmus put up in AAA…

I think if Colby puts up Schumaker numbers, it will have been a wasted year that he should have spent at AAA, unless they think he has reached the point where he can’t learn anything else there- which is highly unlikely.

they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums

by SleepyCA on Dec 11, 2008 1:41 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

why would it be a wasted year?

If he puts up slightly above average numbers as a rookie, it will be wasted year that he should have spent in AAA? i dont get this… he is a lot better defenivley then Skip so he would have more overall value and he will have his rookie jitters out of the way… do you really expect him to come up and be Grady Sizemore circa 2008 right away? There were only 4 rookies in all of baseball that had a higher OPS+ than Skip had last year and none of them were top flight CF’s… you think that would be a wasted year if Rasmus did that?

Life is better when you have a Big Unit!

by nomar34 on Dec 11, 2008 1:56 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well, it's a matter of what he would otherwise do

if it’s a choice between him putting up something between slightly above and below average this year versus him being ready to be a standout star next year, then clearly the latter is the better choice, as you then get six years of star power out of Rasmus’s team-controlled time.

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

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2008 1:57 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

because we have skip to put up skip numbers

and we would be trading a year of colby’s prime for a year of skip-like numbers from colby. That’s not a good use of resources.

they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums

by SleepyCA on Dec 11, 2008 3:44 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No one hits lefties like Skippy!

(or doesn’t hit lefties)

In all seriousness though, if Colby is healthy he will put up better numbers than Schumaker, period. He is just that much more talented of a ballplayer.

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

by RunninRedbird on Dec 11, 2008 3:52 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You know that lefties only hit .599 OPS against lefties

All most all lefties suck at hitting lefties. It is a fact of life

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 11, 2008 3:59 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Is that an average of all lefties from last season?

Career averages totaled together? Just geniunely curious….

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

by RunninRedbird on Dec 11, 2008 4:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Of course,

Skip’s OPS vs. LHPs was .423.

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

by giveml on Dec 11, 2008 5:27 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'd argue that if Rasmus comes up and does well

these concerns about his arb or early free agency years are overblown. Players are handing away those years for pennies on the dollar all the time (Longoria, Pedroia, etc.)

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 11, 2008 4:21 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I still think Barton's really raw at the plate despite his numbers

Mather’s got a big swing but I really think that people are reading far too much into Rasmus ‘08. He has a much more refined approach at the plate and his overall skillset allows him to be far more valuable than other players. Advanced may have been a poor choice of words . . . (pause to recollect vocab) . . . Rasmus really is major league ready in that he’s a +2WAR player today. Barton and Mather may be in the majors but I don’t think they’re league average players yet. Position makes a big difference as does defense (which you know) and both of those factors are in Rasmus favor.

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Dec 11, 2008 4:20 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'll call this a draw

and say that Mather, Barton, and Rasmus are all really comparable

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 5:59 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Skip was a league average 2-win

player last year. League average isn’t good enough for a rookie? wow! High standards!

by chuckb on Dec 11, 2008 6:37 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'd be happy

with league average. With Rasmus, I’m going to be looking more at how he improves throughout the season. If his second half is better than the first, I’ll be happy. (Unless his first half is MONSTER. Then I’ll still be happy.)

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 6:42 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

We already have a league average guy to plug in there for 400K

and the assumption is that Colby will be much, much better than league average in his age-28 season. if we replace skip with colby this year and colby’s performance isn’t better than what skip’s would be, we’ve effectively traded Colby’s age-28 season for a season of league-average performance that we could have gotten from skip schumaker. That doesn’t make sense.

If you think that all colby will produce in his age-28 season is league-average performance, then we should trade him for Peavy or someone similar. No one thinks that, though.

In terms of player development, yes, a league-average season from colby next year would be fine. In terms of maximizing the team’s limited resources and winning the most games over the next 10 years or so, it would be a very expensive decision, unless we get something of high value in exchange for skip.

they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums

by SleepyCA on Dec 11, 2008 6:48 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   3 recs

Doesn't this logic compel you

to keep all players on the farm until they are at risk of being Rule 5ed?

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

by giveml on Dec 12, 2008 12:07 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

not sure how you read what I wrote

and came away from it with that logic.

if the players in the majors are better, right now, why would you want to bring up an inferior player, right now, just because he’ll be better 2 or 3 years from now? All that does is cause him to become expensive right about the time he is ready to really contribute.

The goal is to win baseball games at the major league level, now, AND next year. You do that by having the best players on the field, and by bringing up players who are ready to play to their potential. You do not do it by having people play before they are ready.

IF colby shows that he can be expected to outperform skip, then it makes sense to bring him up. IF colby has learned everything there is to learn from AAA, then he should be brought up. But he shouldn’t be brought up because it upsets his fragile psyche to be forced to slum with the miserable people at AAA, and he shouldn’t be brought up to platoon in LF and finish his development in the major leagues. That’s a great way to cause a player to never reach his potential.

they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums

by SleepyCA on Dec 12, 2008 12:17 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   2 recs

Maybe it's the Glenfiddich talking

but in spite of whatever scouting and projecting you do, you really don’t have any firm idea what a player is going to do until you play him. IF he is a bona fide star caliber player then he will probably be better in his 28 year-old season, and his 29 year-old season, and his 30 year-old season. So, if you are overly focused on what will happen six years from now, you would never want to bring a player up.

It has a lot more to do with what return you would get from the asset that was moved and whether the entire team would be better. Raz doesn’t have to outperform Skip for it to make sense to move Skip. Raz + return for Skip has to be better than Skip plus whoever the return for Skip replaces. Now if all you can get for Skip is the functional equivalent of Randy stinking Flores then it is a different matter.

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

by giveml on Dec 12, 2008 2:42 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Whoa whoa whoa

Rasmus needs to be getting regular ABs. If not at the MLB level, then at AAA.

 There’s no reason to both deprive him of regular PT AND start his service clock by calling him up as a bench player.

Dude. This.

by Blicks on Dec 11, 2008 8:26 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Are Perez and Motte ready??

Jason Motte is in no way shape or form ready to close on the major league level. Right now he’s a 1 pitch pitcher, he will get hammered on the major league level. He needs more time to develop his slider and splitter. Chris Perez is in a better position than Motte to close. But do we really want to trust Perez , 22 years old, with his pedestrian slider to be the guy to close for us in 09? I’m not saying Fuentes is the answer to all of our prayers, but I think it’s a wise move to bring in a veteran closer.

by bigmotors on Dec 11, 2008 9:43 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't think Motte is.....

And I’m not sure about Perez.

What I do know is that we return a team, plus Greene and hopefully Carp, that aside from closing out games, was as good as anybody not named the Cubs, and possibly as good as them. Why in the WORLD would you go into the upcoming season with another question mark at closer, and risk that keeping us out of the playoffs again?

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

by SoonerfanTU on Dec 11, 2008 9:49 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Or the Brewers, or the Reds, or the Mets

Or the ’07 Red Sox, or the 06 Cardinals, or the ’05 White Sox, or the ’04 Red Sox, or the ’03 Marlins, or the ’02 Angels, or the ’01 Diamondbacks, or the late 90s Yankees, or the ’97 Marlins, the ’95 Braves. Oh, nevermind.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 11, 2008 10:09 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Lets look at some of those teams:

07 Red Soxs: Closer was Papelbon (a farm system product) for $425,500
06 Cardinals: Closer was Wainwright (once Izzy broke down) for $327,000
05 White Soxs: Closer was Jenks (after half a season of casting around for someone) for $300,000
04 Red Soxs: Keith Foulke for $3.5 million
03 Marlins: Looper for $1.6 million and Urbina for $4.5 million (with a chunck of that paid by the Rangers)
02 Angles: Troy Percival for $5.25 million

What do we see? Other than the 02 Angles and the 04 Soxs, most of these teams had young cheap closers.

by JMedwick on Dec 11, 2008 10:18 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i believer jokeer24 was being sarcastic

he was pointing out you don’t need a big time closer

by VolsnCards5 on Dec 11, 2008 10:23 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The Phillies

spent only $6.35 million last season on Lidge. It remains to be seen whether the 3 year contract they gave him will be worth the money.

by JMedwick on Dec 11, 2008 10:10 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Let's be fair, it has already been worth the money

Problem is he’s one of………one basically to get a big time closer contract and win the WS.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 11, 2008 10:11 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No it hasn't...

He signed an extension last offseason. He has done nothing to prove the worth of his most current deal. Although I would say he’s probably going to prove his worth for most of that contract, that doesn’t mean he’ll get another WS for the Phils, which was Medwicks point…

by CrimsonBirdFan on Dec 11, 2008 10:41 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Signing a good starter...

…Will help the bullpen a lot more. I will go to my grave thinking that the Cards bullpen guys wore down badly last year having to go 4-5 innings damn near every single game. Also, aren’t 180 innings more valuable than 70? Why not get a guy who can do the first and spend a hair more cash to do it?

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

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 11, 2008 9:58 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No it won't.....

b/c it isn’t like our starters SUCK. If they did, I might agree. Our SP was good enough last year, and has a chance to be even better this year. If we keep blowing saves though, that won’t happen.

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

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

Mitchell Boggs currently SUCKS, Joel Pineiro sucks

And this isn’t accounting for injuries.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 11, 2008 10:14 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

are you kidding me?

assuming carp is not healthy(won’t believe it till i see it) our #4 and #5 spots suck…SUCK

and i’m more bullish on boggs than most

by VolsnCards5 on Dec 11, 2008 10:24 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

our starters were

among the bottom 5 or 6 starting staffs in baseball last year. Sorry — 7th worst.

by chuckb on Dec 11, 2008 11:03 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Huh?

Pitching 4-5 innings and giving up 3-5 runs every single night is “sucking.” I’m looking at you Mr. Pinata.

Even if you pitch well for about 5 innings, you are still causing huge issues by putting added pressure on the bullpen. I’m looking at you, Mr. Wellemeyer.

Boggs isn’t ready, Thompson isn’t a starter, Garcia and Parisi are gone with injuries, so the nebulous 6th starter is an enormous question mark.

Can you really trust Carpenter to be a horse at this point? Carpenter is like that $20 bill you find in your pocket. It’s great when you find it, but you can’t build your grocery plans around magically finding a $20 bill in your pocket. That is what the Cardinals are doing by counting on Carpenter right now.

If you have starters who go pitch deeply into games in an effective manner, you get to turn to your bullpen out of choice, not because you are forced to use them. When you are forced to use pitchers, they wear down. That is what happened to McClellan, it may have played a role in Franklin’s failures, and I think it played a role in Perez’s struggles as well.

This team needs to target a starter, preferably a durable one. That will take a TON of pressure off of the bullpen b/c, once again, TLR will be able to use them because he wants to, and not because the situation makes it necessary.

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

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 11, 2008 4:32 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If you are worried about

starters going deep into games then you should be looking at Wellemeyer, Lohse, and Looper as they were all pretty much the same in that regard.

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

by giveml on Dec 11, 2008 5:29 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

wellemeyer had a great innings per game ratio, well over 6 IP/g.

Not fair to knock him for that. For that matter, he was quite effective when he did pitch.

Welly, lohse, and looper all finished in the top 50 for IP for pitchers. Welly trailed the other two slightly in total IP, but then he missed about 3 games on injury. Throw in Adam who usually went 7 innings (though he spent substantial time on the dl), and you’d be hard-pressed to put together four pitchers who averaged more innings per game.

Knock Piniero all you like, knock boggs or parisi. Making up stats on Wellemeyer is not fair. if you want to look up his ratios, then do so.

There is almost no one who averages 7 innings per game any more.

by tom s. on Dec 11, 2008 6:41 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not sure what data you are using

but b-r says:

Lohse 33 games, 200 IP, which means 6.06 IP/G
Looper 33 games, 199 IP, whch means 6.03 IP/G
Welly, 32 games, 191.7 IP, which means 5.99 IP/G

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

by giveml on Dec 12, 2008 12:11 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

sorry, I misread him as having started thirty, not thirty-two games

still, 5.99 is a lot closer to 6 than 5.

and lohse was tied for 32 in total IP, Looper at 34, and welly at 46 out of the whole of MLB.

briefly eyeballing the stats, I only see that the angels, philly, the chicago white sox, and the mets had 3 starters in the top 50 starters for total IP. we did pretty well in getting innings out of our rotation. piniero lagged behind significantly.

by tom s. on Dec 12, 2008 1:25 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My only point

was that if rbn8206 was going to single out Welly for not going deep enough in games he should include Lohse and Looper as well. I don’t know the distribution of IPs for the league, but it seems that having three in the top 50 in a 16 league is no great feat.

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

by giveml on Dec 12, 2008 2:44 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You mean a 30 team league
lohse was tied for 32 in total IP, Looper at 34, and welly at 46 out of the whole of MLB

When only 5 out of 30 teams do it, that’s a pretty good feat. It’s not 2004 or 2005 good, but those type of staffs rarely happen anymore.

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

by fourstick on Dec 12, 2008 9:03 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My bad

too much whiskey.

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

by giveml on Dec 12, 2008 9:07 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Why?

Joel Zumaya and Grant Balfour are one pitch guys. Balfour was nearly unhittable this season, and Motte throws harder than he does. When Zumaya was good back in ‘06, he was really a one pitch guy who could flip a nasty slider once in awhile. He is basically the same guy as Motte. Perez is also much closer than you think. His slider is inconsistent, not pedestrian. On days he’s throwing it well it’s a truly vicious pitch.

I say these guys have been cultivated to be late inning guys, and neither have anything more to prove in the minors. Signing Fuentes blocks one of them from closing and moves the other earlier in the game for three years. Maybe Perez or Motte isn’t completely ready to close right now…but I’m willing to be one will be in the next three years.

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

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 11, 2008 9:53 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Add in the fact

that we have two young guns with closer stuff. If one flames out (always a possibility) we have a ready made backup plan there to pickup the load. If Fuentes is signed for $30 million+, I’ll puke. Just stupid to tie up that much money at a position (closer) that we actually have cheap talent to cover. The Cardinals are a mid-market team. They have to maximize the use of their cheap assets. There is no other way over the long haul to be successful.

by jjray on Dec 11, 2008 12:32 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Zumaya isn't a one-pitch guy

He has a ridiculous power curveball. His percent of fastballs thrown is significantly lower.

Balfour is a better comparison.

by mojowo11 on Dec 11, 2008 4:35 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

One pitch pitcher struck out 16 in 11 innings

Which is exactly what he’d been doing at AAA. He commands that one pitch very well and however mediocre a 90 mph slider can be, it’s still hard to hit when you’re geared for 101.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 11, 2008 9:56 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

did you see

what our veteran closer did last year? he was garbage.

and its not as if you can just say, i want a vet closer. i mean, i think we would all like the top closer in the game closing for us, the problem is, we have limited resources and unlimited wants. allocating our limited resources to a starter seems to make more sense.

by UNCDubya on Dec 11, 2008 9:59 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The one that was injured?

Yea, we saw.

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

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

And if a 36-year old Fuentes...

Is injured in 2011, you can bet that Tony will keep running him out there to lose games long after it is obvious to the rest of us that something isn’t right. Sometimes you have to save Tony from himself.

by mikedallas45 on Dec 11, 2008 10:23 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You assume Tony will be here in 2010.

If you think it is more likely he will be gone after 2009 (retiring, seeking a different challenge, whatever), then I see no reason to sign a close for more than 1 season.

by JMedwick on Dec 11, 2008 11:16 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I would be you one hundred internet dollars

that TLR will still be around in 2010. I don’t know where this sentiment comes from, but I don’t think it has ever been expressed by TLR.

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

by giveml on Dec 11, 2008 12:04 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

+100

i know it must be tough on mom to sit in meetings while your hall of fame manger insists on this or that, but that what he needs to do. hopefuly he has the strength to o it.

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

by sportsman on Dec 11, 2008 12:09 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

pedestrian slider - Perez?

Really?

Maybe you haven’t seen it, but there’s nothing pedestrian about it.

Locating it however..

One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.

by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 11, 2008 8:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i think he meant

it is liable to hit and kill a pedestrian.

by UNCDubya on Dec 12, 2008 10:45 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Lopez signed w/ DBacks 1yr/3.5M

One less land mine to dodge out there now. Not a bad contract for him at all, but he is redundant with AK IMO.

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

by StLHugo on Dec 11, 2008 9:59 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

not a bad deal for Arizona

FeLo will like that ballpark, methinks.

Hyperventilating prospect geek Future Redbirds

by erik on Dec 11, 2008 11:12 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

basicaly the same player as AK for the same price

Last year AK and Lopez were almost exactly the same overall, career wise they are almost the same (offensively only in both respects) and now they will be making about the same in 09. Az was smart to get only a 1 yr deal though, if Lopez tanks they aren’t stuck with him.

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

by StLHugo on Dec 11, 2008 11:21 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yahoo

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

by sportsman on Dec 11, 2008 12:51 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just throwing this out there.

I heard in on 96.3 this morning. So I don’t know how fact checked it was. But the U man said the Cardinals were looking for a 2 year deal for Fuentes and the Fuentes camp was looking for a 3 year deal. So there is a chance we might not go the whole 3 years.

by Evilfrog on Dec 11, 2008 10:15 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The most disheartening thing I have heard all day

Is this quote by Strauss:

“La Russa said Duncan has identified several contingencies should the club fail to sign Fuentes. None is within the organization, La Russa said”

and then that then about Hoffman, “I mean, I love and respect Trevor Hoffman. But I don’t know that that’s the guy we’ve talked about a lot,” La Russa said.

Ugh.

by JBagKY on Dec 11, 2008 10:24 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

heh

or maybe he’s just the smoke and mirrors guy

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 11, 2008 6:15 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

umm what am i missing

if they don’t get fuentes who other than hoffman is a contigency…izzy?

i really think we can have a legit closer by committee with perez, motte, and kinney

by VolsnCards5 on Dec 11, 2008 10:28 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Way to drive up the price, Tony

At least say some crap about “keeping our options open” or somesuch so that every closer on the market isn’t 100% sure that they have us over a barrel.

by mikedallas45 on Dec 11, 2008 10:30 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Most encouraging thing I've heard.
Q. Would you want him to be in a situation like Skip Schumaker was in a couple years ago where he would come up and play if you needed somebody, but if he wasn’t playing all the time you would ship him back to Memphis, that he would be more of a transitional player?

TONY LA RUSSA: I mean, I would hope — this guy, because he has a chance to be a very special package, you would try to avoid that. You’d avoid disrupting a guy, either send him to Triple-A, send him to the big leagues and not do that to him if you can help it.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/commishs-hot-stove/winter-meetings-updates/2008/12/the-tony-la-russa-q-a-on-paper-were-better/

Not bouncing Rasmus around seems like a good thing.

by Evilfrog on Dec 11, 2008 10:36 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Of course, you can also read that to say

he is going to be AAA because they don’t have enough PT for him.

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

by giveml on Dec 11, 2008 12:05 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

or that tlr doesn't want to go on the record promising a starter's role to anyone

which could be read as saying that he anticipates skip or ankiel getting traded. could make next year’s season very long if tlr guarantees a spot to rasmus, then rasmus gets injured in spring training and one of the starters whose spot he was promising to razza knows he was the second choice.

really, all tlr can say right now is “he’s a very talented young man and i think he has a spot in the majors.” getting into who is going to start and who comes off the bench, etc., can only cause problems.

by tom s. on Dec 11, 2008 1:00 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

why

are tlr and dunc “identifying contingencies” that aren’t in the organization. that has nothing to do with their job description.

by spencegrif on Dec 11, 2008 11:20 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How do you know?

Perhaps the organization values their opinions on these matters. I wish they didn’t, though.

by spants on Dec 11, 2008 1:04 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

While all the arguments AGAINST signing Corpas

make sense, I’d like to play “Devil’s Advocate” here…

For the sake of the argument, let’s agree that neither Perez nor Motte have the sample size to predict their MLB performance in 2009. From the “eyeball test”, it’s my opinion that Perez needs to develop his slider and Motte needs to come up with ANY second pitch to maximize their success at the Major League level.

Whether it’s statistically relevant or not, it’s psychologically “easier” to use “developing” pitches in (allegedly) “lower-leverage” situations; that is, other than the ninth inning. (Yes, I know the highest-leverage situations often occur before the ninth, but bear with me…) So with Corpas shouldering the closer role, Perez and Motte get the chance to “develop” as set-up men this season.

The rest of the team can also be allowed to think, “Okay! We got the ninth nailed down!” That should lead to more confidence, and better play. These are human beings in the uniforms, not Strat-O-Matic cards (pardon the pun)…

While signing Corpas might not be the best thing down the road, it provides the most immediate improvement at the most glaring weakness on the club. Just sayin’…

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

by The Ol Goaler on Dec 11, 2008 10:49 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ah, Strat

If only they actually were just like their cards…think of the glut of statistical data we could add to the glut we already see 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 11, 2008 11:02 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Fuentes is a big mistake

 Hey, I know the guy had a big year in 2008. But ,as it’s been pointed out, Fuentes is 33 years old. TLR has this thing about stopper ever since Eck put him him in the big time. He has to have somebody to insure that all his fancy brainwork doesn’t blow up in the nineth; and this thing is all Tony.
  I’ve supported TLR, despite a lot of crap that he’s thrown out there over the years, because in the end I thought he gave the Birds the best chance to win. This may be the end. I can not, for the life of me, understand why , given all the other problems the Cardinals need to address , they are looking to give a 33 year closer, coming of his career year, 30 million bucks, when they have the likes of Perez and Mollte in the wings. It effectively short circuits the possibility of adding a starting pitcher or another impact bat – both of which we need more than this guy.
 It wasn’t enough to see Walt go, the tail still wags the dog in Saint Louis.

by deweydell on Dec 11, 2008 11:07 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

c'mon Angels

blow us out of the water! I have to imagine Angel fans will be mocking the front office, if they sign Fuentes for nearly the same deal the Mets gave K-Rod.

I agree with chuckb. It’s not just the $ and the other needs, it’s also losing a draft pick. While the Cards whiffed on Lambert and probably Ottavino, you also have Colby and the Walrus.

And for my own selfish reasons, liveblogging the draft will be exceedingly lame waiting for the Cardinals to pick 84th, or whatever.

Hyperventilating prospect geek Future Redbirds

by erik on Dec 11, 2008 11:24 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And others that remain to be seen

Greene and Kozma may still turn out to be good too. I just don’t like wasting a pick for what won’t be that large of a gain over Perez.

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

by StLHugo on Dec 11, 2008 11:27 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Many Angels fans

Were not really that interested in re-signing KRod. Despite the gaudy save numbers, many educated fans felt like he was not really a lockdown closer last year. However, to another segment of the fans he was a “fan favorite” based largely on past exploits.

by OCCardsFan on Dec 11, 2008 11:31 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

absolutely true

also, i suppose most have read the transcript of tlr’s conversation with goold and strauss yesterday, so just wondering if anyone else got the idea that tlr’s continual referral to fuentes as a perfect fit smacked of his admiration of him as a professional. he never once referred to his performance on the field. i’m not a fuentes fan, but if they must have him, i suggest taking the risk and waiting until his arb is over and trade for him. 33M and a number one choice is way over valuing his services (e.g., 33m and wallace for fuentes? ridiculous!). i’d much rather spend the money and pick on sheets for a couple years. this fuentes at 33 for 3 just seems so contrary to what mo has stated all along i find it hard to actually comprehend he would do this.

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

by sportsman on Dec 11, 2008 12:03 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

latin america

cards would lose a first round draft pick, but would free up $1 mil or so to spend on latin american prospects…or at least i hope they would spend it there. they could also gamble on guys with high demands that fall. KC popped melville at 115.

by dmb60614 on Dec 11, 2008 12:55 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs