Monday Notes
I'd like to kick off this week, underwhelmingly enough, with some words about Joe Thurston. Normally those words would be: can't get on base, kind of fast, probably won't make the big club.
But that makes it two years in a row the Cardinals have signed a minor leaguer who is inextricably linked with the first Baseball Prospectus (2003) I ever bought, so once again I find myself thinking about my sabermetrics apprenticeship.
Last year it was Josh Phelps, the last of the cursed Prospectus coverboys. When the book came out he'd just hit 39 home runs between AAA and the majors. Their comment, at the time: "His time as an imposing big league hitter has just begun." Obviously that didn't work out, and his Cardinals tenure was a little too brief for me to wallow in sabermetric-education nostalgia.
But Joe Thurston... this was just as I was getting serious about baseball, and internet baseball culture, and Joe Thurston was a big deal. Baseball America was in love with him; he could run, he could field his position, he'd hit .334 with 13 triples across an increasingly rare full season at AAA.
A complete minor league neophyte at the time, I thought: well, alright. Sounds pretty good.
But BP did its whole Challenge-to-Baal thing on him that year, and suddenly the publications I had started reading were in open competition. Excerpt:
The Dodgers love Thurston. Scouts love him, his coaches love him, even the ice-cream vendor slips him a cone from time to time... Thurston's talented enough to fare well in the minors by hacking at the first good pitch he sees. But 25 walks in 631 plate appearances won't cut it once he leaves generous Cashman Field for stingy Dodger Stadium... He'll get his chance with Grudzielanek now a Cub. Expect a rough ride...
And then it happened, exactly like that, and he's barely been heard from since. I was awestruck, at the time. I had no idea how PECOTA worked, I kept flipping back to the front of the book to see what VORP was, et cetera. But they'd knocked Thurston right out of the sky, and after that I thought there had to be something to all of it. They might as well have rained down lightning upon the poor guy.
Six years later he's basically the same player he was then, doomed to wander the earth until he hits .300 with a really cool-looking triple or two during some lucky big league April. He's probably of more concern to Jarrett Hoffpauir than he is to Tony La Russa. But it was weird to see him come up again, so long after I would have killed to have him.
#
At Future Redbirds they've begun counting down the top Cardinals prospects, starting with the honorable mentions, and their list has me thinking about how many right-handed relievers the Cardinals have bubbling up.
Mark Worrell is gone (and with him, presumably, one more of the pitchers discussed today), but that still leaves Francisco Samuel, Adam Reifer, and Fernando Salas in the opening sections of their list alone. And then there's Luke Gregerson, well-regarded last year and competent in AA this year; Mark McCormick and Blake King, who could emerge as interesting relievers if they ever manage to strike out more batters than they walk; Josh Kinney and Kyle McClellan, in limbo for various reasons. And then Jason Motte and Chris Perez, atop the pile.
Obviously most of these pitchers will not turn out. Not only are they pitching prospects, they're relief pitching prospects—they fail as often as your favorite topical economic reference. But inasmuch as cheap right-handed relief pitching exists as a predictable commodity, it's safe to say that Mozeliak and the Cardinals were faced with a glut of it headed into this off-season.
So on this uneventful day, with the evidence of their handiwork staring at us from the top of a prospect list, a tip of the cap to the Cardinals. However Khalil Greene plays, they managed to do something often clamored for but rarely executed: they traded from a strength while it was still a strength.
#
Odd news on the Japanese starters front over the weekend. Rosenthal: Kawakami might want >$36 million over three years. Meanwhile, on Scout.com: the Rangers offered Koji Uehara $10 million over three years.
Something's got to be wrong with this picture; Kawakami's probably more desirable, at this point, since he doesn't have the year in the bullpen to explain, but no one could look at these pitchers' stats, or even watch their YouTube reels, and imagine a $25 million difference between them.
Even assuming that one of these rumored salaries is completely wrong—probably Uehara's—I think they serve as convenient markers for the Cardinals' involvement. At the bottom, $3 to $5 million a year, the Cardinals would be crazy not to be involed; by $12 million a year the risks start to price the Cardinals out of the market for these two.
In that wide middle, where both pitchers will probably sign, you have a team that suddenly seems less likely to have a pricey reliever on its roster than it did a week ago. I'm not ready just yet to pull out my Baseball Prospectus certainty language and declare it sure-as-Joe-Thurston-won't-hit-in-the-majors, but if this is the range of salary expectations for Uehara and Kawakami, it seems increasingly likely that the Cardinals will be involved.
0 recs |
108 comments
Comments
I would like $36M over 3 years as well
but I’m a teacher and, alas, won’t get it. Kawakami won’t either. Uehara probably will do better than 3/10 but Japanese players tend to be discounted b/c there is the uncertainty about valuations between leagues. That’s why Kawakami’s living in dreamland. The Cards ought to be involved in discussions w/ both players if, for no other reason, than to open up the market to the Cards down the road. Still, I’d rather take a chance on either of these guys than bringing back Looper or, God forbid, tossing big bucks Jon Garland’s way.
by chuckb on Dec 22, 2008 9:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
If I'm not mistaken,
Uehara would make more than that if he stayed in Japan.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Dec 22, 2008 9:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Is it Kawakami that throws a slow curve?
Do either throw a shuuto? Or the mythical Gyroball, which will come from the East and signal the end of days, as fortold by prophets and sybils?
Cards getting more into international talent markets = exciting. I hope to see more. Who were those 17/18 year old phenoms that were recently mentioned? I think they were Latin American…
Finally, I would like to see another Japanese player on the team for purely selfish reasons. While I totally understand he wasn’t a great player, I loved So Taguchi. Partly this is because I am a geek; I watched old Godzilla movies and Voltron from when I was about five years old, and have always enjoyed Japanese pop culture (though it seems difficult not to for people my age, at least to some small degree. Nintendo anyone?). I actually really like the film “Mr. Baseball” and think it’s underrated as a baseball movie. Finally, I want to see more hilarious and heartwarming moments like this one: http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0eXy4SugmP3tF/610x.jpg
by mattybobo on Dec 22, 2008 10:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
de la cruz
was the latin american phenom. He plays third base and got a pretty big signing bonus.
by hghallstar on Dec 22, 2008 10:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kawakami
You want a truly nerdy reference to Kawakami? Check this out. More shameless self-promotion, of course, but check out the pic about two-thirds of the way down.
It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.
by the red baron on Dec 22, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure to laugh or cry
Just a little observation I have made while reading some comments on various message boards over the past couple of days. Seems like with the discussions of Mark Teixeria going to Boston or New York it has sparked some of their fans to say to wait because they can sign Pujols instead when he becomes a free agent in a couple of years.
When I read these my initial feeling is to laugh because the die-hard Cardinals fan in me believes there is no way the Cards won’t re-sign the greatest Cardinal since Musial. But I can’t help but get a little worried as well because I’m not sure ownership will be willing to give Albert a blank check.
Anyone else getting these feelings? It sure would be nice and good for my heart if ownership gets down to buisness with Albert maybe at the end of the season before he can reach the market and end all of this “fan talk” from fans of the terrible twosome (Yankees/Red Sox) that is for now is mostly laughable….
Sorry not much on topic with the post…just wanted to share my thoughts on a matter that will be a much bigger story this time next year.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
by KYCards on Dec 22, 2008 12:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That is scary
Hopefully we can resign him.
by Toddius on Dec 22, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is
You know the 1994 strike didn’t make me want to quit watching baseball as it did for a lot of people but if Albert goes to the Yankees in 2011 or whenever because they are only one of 2-3 teams that can pay for his contract…and the Cards let their best player in over 30 years walk….then I am really going to question how much passion and time I am going to give to baseball….at least MLB.
So far seeing what’s happening this off season with the “star” free agents (mostly going to one team with limit less budget) it’s really leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I brought up the word “salary cap” around here a week ago and got blasted for it, and maybe for good reason…but if things don’t change soon where mid market teams can’t afford some of the best players in the game and they all go to only the 4-5 big market teams (mostly NY/Boston) then it’s really going to take a lot of my love and passion away from this sport sadly. I know it’s a business…but the way things are going it’s bad business for fans like me and really it’s bad business for baseball if you really think about it.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
by KYCards on Dec 22, 2008 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they let Pujols walk
I’ll probably quit buying season tickets. That would be a slap in the face to every single Cardinal fan, even the casual ones who just watch a game every once in a while. We aren’t the Marlins, we like to keep our franchise players. I don’t think they will let him walk, that would just be idiotic. Imagine how attendance would drop if they got rid of Albert…
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Dec 22, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No worries.
Rasmus will be ready to take the reins by then.
by azruavatar on Dec 22, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha
I love optimism ;)
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Dec 22, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't give a CRAP how good Rasmus is.
He is not, nor will he ever be as good as Pujols. Stamp that, put it in stone, make a law out of it. Not. gonna. happen.
Pujols is the best hitter ever to wear Cardinal red. Bar none. At his pace, he will be the second best hitter of all time (Williams will be hard to pass). There is no way that Rasmus, for all his talent will learn how to hit .350 with 35 HR and 40 2b every stinking year.
I know you are joking, AZ, but I DO get fed up of all the Razzle hype that gets ahead of itself.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Dec 22, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think
anyone thinks Rasmus will be as good as Pujols. But he might be the best position prospect to come through the Cards system since, well, Pujols.
by Toddius on Dec 22, 2008 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It would be totally ridiculous
to expect a CF to put up Pujols-like numbers. I would be happy with a high OBP, great defense, and some pop in the bat.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Dec 22, 2008 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I’m pushing 40 now, and the only pro sport (including the semi-pro organization that is the NCAA) that I still follow or even watch is MLB. Barring injury, Pujols will stand a chance at the biggest contract in MLB history at the end of this term. If the Cards don’t try to sign him with a legit offer and negotiation process, I will be there with you – I guess I’ll go back to watching high school sports.
I don’t know if a salary cap is the answer (seems to me a necessity if you want a competitive league), but there’s no way me or other fans like me will sit around and watch a bunch of pseudo-baseball (i.e. AL) teams gather the best talent and watch StL wallow in mediocrity. The way It stands right now, if the Yankees want a player, and that player does not despise New York, he’ll be paid enough to lure him away from whatever team he prefers.
Johnny Damon heading to NY from Boston really bugged me.
In a related note, does Albert have a no-trade clause in his contract? I’ll bet Mo could get a nice pitching staff for him.
Baseball Fever.... Catch it!
by skcabrozar on Dec 22, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Very well said
“there’s no way me or other fans like me will sit around and watch a bunch of pseudo-baseball (i.e. AL) teams gather the best talent and watch StL wallow in mediocrity. The way It stands right now, if the Yankees want a player, and that player does not despise New York, he’ll be paid enough to lure him away from whatever team he prefers.”
I agree with this 100%.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
by KYCards on Dec 22, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but
since the new CBA was enacted, how many World Series have the Yanks won?
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Dec 22, 2008 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
very small sample
Baseball Fever.... Catch it!
by skcabrozar on Dec 22, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops... was meant to read:
very small sample, and the “short series” cliche applies here. But when was the last time neither NY nor Boston made the playoffs? Strike of 94 – or since before the wildcard (lol… didn’t like that either :) )
New York has been in every year since 94 except 08
Baseball Fever.... Catch it!
by skcabrozar on Dec 22, 2008 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
getting blasted for advocating for a Cap
I must’ve missed that discussion, but man, I really don’t understand how you could be AGAINST something approaching a salary cap in MLB. It is the same exercise every-effin’-offseason where there will be a few high profile FAs or FA-to-be guys who are on the trading block. Inevitably, it’s the same 3-4 teams who are rumored to be involved in every potential acquisition and it’s generally those same 3-4 teams who end up getting the guys in the end.
I had this huge rant about this time last year and long story short, it went something like, “Man, my team (STL) could surely use a guy like Johan Santana. Wouldn’t it be nice to even be in the conversation for him?” Same applies this year…tell me how cool it would’ve been to at least have a shot at Sabathia?
But no, we’re NEVER in the conversation. And STL spends more than a lot of clubs do, so I imagine that if I’m this frustrated, fans of smaller payroll teams are foaming at the mouth.
I believe in player development and it sickens me what these guys make, but man, if that’s the game, it would be nice to have a level playing field. The playing field in today’s MLB is decidedly un-level.
by goodymobb on Dec 22, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm cool with a cap...
but I don’t want one like the NFL or NBA, where MOST teams struggle to stay UNDER the cap. I would rather have a higher cap (like $140 or $150 mil right now) that simply keeps teams from significantly outspending other teams.
Sometimes I wonder,
"Why is that frisbee getting bigger?"
...and then it hits me!!
by cardzfanbub on Dec 22, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
140 mil
with a 45 mil basement, make teams use the profit sharing to at least to try and keep some talent.
"When the boogie man goes to sleep he checks his closet for Chuck Norris"
by elirock83 on Dec 22, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds good to me.
The only team I’m positive this would effect right now is the Yankees who would have to reduce payroll by $70 million or more. Boston, the Mets and both LA and Chicago teams are close. I’m not sure where the Marlins will fall after all of their arb players are re-upped.
Sometimes I wonder,
"Why is that frisbee getting bigger?"
...and then it hits me!!
by cardzfanbub on Dec 22, 2008 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe the Rays
had a payroll that was actually less than their share of the luxury tax that the Yankees were paying.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Dec 22, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
that you could get creative with it, but the spirit of the cap is to do exactly what you said….to keep teams from “significantly outspending other teams.” What’s going on in MLB right now is ridiculous.
I like a fairly high ceiling, plus a basement (as elirock says) that keeps teams from skimping. If you’re gonna enter this exclusive club (of MLB ownership), then you should be expected to play by a certain set of rules.
I also like the NBA’s “Larry Bird Rule” that allows for a team to offer a pending Free Agent more $ than any other team in the league. I think the spirit of this rule is good because it puts a mechanism into place that encourages players to stick around in one place for a while.
by goodymobb on Dec 22, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
i too missed that discussion. but i am a fan of the salary cap. There is a reason why the nfl is the #1 sport in this country, well many actually, but parody is one of them. Look at the number of different playoff teams this year. Not letting everyone go to the coast’s is a good thing. Yes i think all systems are flawed but its better than having a team paying 2-4 players more than a third of the league’s whole team payroll.
"When the boogie man goes to sleep he checks his closet for Chuck Norris"
by elirock83 on Dec 22, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As far as the NFL goes,
I actually dislike the parody that the cap kind of “imposes” on the league.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Dec 22, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL often
is a parody, but OTOH I’m grateful for parity. Otherwise my Rams’ might never be able to dig themselves out of this abyss.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 22, 2008 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't dislike the parity,
but I don’t like the fact that the cap is so low. The owners are making WAY too much money, and the players not enough when compared with the MLB and NBA. Nearly every team operates just under the cap, and every year teams are having to let go of significant players due to “salary cap restrictions”.
Sometimes I wonder,
"Why is that frisbee getting bigger?"
...and then it hits me!!
by cardzfanbub on Dec 22, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
'Doh!!! Parity!!!
But, I suppose it might have been a bit of a Freudian slip.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Dec 22, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My idea for the salary cap
is to simply make it what the highest teams payroll is right now (the Yanks), so no team has to cut payroll this year, and then don’t index it for inflation until a certain percentage of the teams hit the cap limit (say 60% or so).
by Toddius on Dec 22, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then you have the same problem the NFL has
where the cap is TOO restrictive. I think if 25% of the teams are at the cap, then it needs to be raised. I agree it would be difficult to put a cap in right now below the highest teams payroll, but the Yankees payroll is 50% higher than ANY other team right now. It would take ten years for a $220 million cap to have any real effect.
Sometimes I wonder,
"Why is that frisbee getting bigger?"
...and then it hits me!!
by cardzfanbub on Dec 22, 2008 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see why this offseason
should leave any worse a taste than most others. I don’t see anything all that unusual about it so far, apart from the quality of FAs being a little higher this time around.
But, with the severity of this recession—or whatever it turns out to be—as bad as it is, we should not be expecting bidness as usual in MLB this year. I suspect that the free agent market going forward—between now and ST, will be dramatically different than most.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 22, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that's my point
It’s ALWAYS like this…..and everyone sans the NY clubs, BOS, LAD, LAA, and CHC usually just stand by sort of helpless-like.
So to me, it always leaves a bad taste. Every year we go through the 162 (and more, if we’re lucky)-game season bitching and moaning about how we need X, Y, or Z. Well, one way to get that is to target a position of need via Free Agency, yet that door is pretty much closed for like 25+ teams in the league because of the exorbitant money the Yankees (mostly) and the others can throw at a player.
by goodymobb on Dec 22, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the Brewers
forget for a moment that they are in our division. They were willing to pretty much offer everything they could to CC but it was still way under what the Yankees threw to him. Sorry but that’s just not fair. Baseball is heading down a road where there will only be a large fanbase for only 5-7 of the big market teams in the next 5-10 years if something doesn’t happen. Selig may go on about how right now is the “Golden Age of baseball” but that gold will turn into rust pretty quick if fans of small and mid market teams give up on the sport and they will if they can’t fall in love with their players because they will be on the next flight to NY or Boston when they hit free agency.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
by KYCards on Dec 22, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
people have been making the same arguments
for years and it hasn’t happened yet. Sure, the Red Sox have won a couple of championships but the Yanks haven’t won in several years and the Phils, Cards, and Marlins have all won championships in recent years. A lot of this is overblown. Remember who the AL’s best team was this past year. It was also the league’s least expensive team. If you build the team the right way, you can win w/o a $150M payroll.
BTW, w/ regard to Johan Santana — the Mets didn’t even make the playoffs this year. Also, for all the hand-wringing there is about the Yanks and Sabathia don’t forget that the Yankees will probably be better next season AND have a LOWER payroll than last year.
by chuckb on Dec 22, 2008 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
2000
Does it feel like 8 seasons since the last NYY World Series title?
It will be very interesting to see how the currect economic climate affects middle class ballclubs like the Cardinals. That Lohse contract is looking worse by the day.
"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 22, 2008 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You have some good points Chuckb
but not much is going to change my mind on how bad I think the current system in baseball is.
The Rays were the exception and it was so great to see it happen, but I think it would also be great to see the Royals and yes even the Brewes and Pirates be able to have a good chance to compete with the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox for a star player so their fans have something to look forward to and so their teams can sell some tickets.
I mean we are worrying about being able to re-sign Pujols while the Yanks have just thrown money at the two best pitchers that were free agents and are looking to throw some more (Manny?) Sure it may not make the Yankees win the World Series but it makes them have a much better chance than the Royals do or the Pirates, Twins, Padres, Nationals, Indians, and so on. It’s just an unfair advantage in my opinion. Just seems like the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. It’s a cliche I know.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
by KYCards on Dec 22, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"it hasn't happened yet"...
What hasn’t happened? The salary cap or fans getting pissed about the current structure?
If you’re talking about the cap, sure it hasn’t happened because small-to-mid market owners have been content to roll around in the pile o’ cash from revenue sharing. I don’t like that attitude, but I guess I can try to change it when I’m a multi-millionaire and own my own MLB team. Until I get a seat at the table, I’m relegated to bitching about it on blogs and in bars.
I don’t know where to find the data, but I would guess that teams like the Rays, Marlins et al. would constitute outliers and that there is a significant, positive correlation between payroll and wins, particularly over time.
Although I don’t disagree with you (i.e., “if you build a team the right way…”), my argument for the salary cap is independent of that, really. Instituting a salary cap allows teams to be flexible and adopt the model that is most appropriate given their resources, personnel, roster needs, and even current context. A salary cap of $180 million doesn’t mean that teams HAVE to spend that…just that they can’t spend more than that.
And honestly, do you believe that the Mets choking away the division (again) had absolutely the slightest bit to do with Johan Santana? My point of using him was that it would be great to spend one hot stove season thinking about the possibility of some big-ticket player who fills a huge position of need actually landing here.
by goodymobb on Dec 22, 2008 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It hasn't happened yet
was referring to the idea that baseball was about to go through a great decline phase where 5-6 teams will dominate year in and year out and the other 25 teams would become also-rans. The notion that baseball would become a dichotomous system w/ a few haves and many have-nots has been foretold for years and “it hasn’t happened yet.” It’s a chicken-little sort of argument. There are definitely problems w/ the system but a lot of it is overblown by people assuming that the sky is falling.
by chuckb on Dec 22, 2008 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
truthfully the habitually bad teams have mostly bad management to blame. Granted the Yankees have bought their way around bad management, and an argument could be made that with that kind of money Pittsburgh, KC and others could do the same, but it’s not really a lack of money that have kept these teams down.
Sometimes I wonder,
"Why is that frisbee getting bigger?"
...and then it hits me!!
by cardzfanbub on Dec 22, 2008 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not so fast
Granted the Yankees have bought their way around bad management
They’ve bought their way into the playoffs quite a bit, but they certainly haven’t bought their way out of bad management. The contracts they’ve given out to players like Pavano, Jaret Wright, Posada, Giambi, and Jeter have really hamstrung them over the last 6-8 years and a couple will continue to hamstring them. By signing Wright and Pavano, they effectively decimated their pitching staff for 5 years by having to pay two guys a ridiculous amount of money to not pitch for them. For all the spending this decade they have no championships to show for it, and a team that has spent less this decade than the Yanks spent in 2007 and 2008 has a title — and beat the Yankees in the World Series to earn it.
You can buy every good player, but you can’t buy your way out of bad management. Seattle spent $95M last year on a horrible ballclub, paying players like Richie Sexson millions to do nothing for them and starting the great Jose Vidro as their DH for half the year.
"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 22, 2008 10:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the Mets choked away the division
despite Santana. That’s the point. One $150+M guy can’t push a team all the way to the championship if your bullpen can’t get anybody out. That’s exactly the point.
by chuckb on Dec 22, 2008 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It'll be interesting...
at least for me to see if they come in lower than last year or not. According to my chicken scratches they have $152.65 million commited, and don’t have a DH, 1B, 3-5 SP’s, and only Mo and Marte in the bulllpen anda a catcher on their bench. Some of these spots will be filled by pre-arb players like Joba maybe Hughes and Cabrera. My guess is they sign two more hitters (1B/DH and CFer) one more starter (Pettitte?) and a couple of bullpen arms. That’s probably another $30 million or so.
On second thought it won’t be that interesting, because I don’t see them spending what they did last year no matter who else they sign (save Tex).
Sometimes I wonder,
"Why is that frisbee getting bigger?"
...and then it hits me!!
by cardzfanbub on Dec 22, 2008 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
another truth
if managements of equal talents compete with different budgets, the bigger budgets will undoubtedly yield better records on average
the reason some teams are habitually mismanaged is to some degree a reflection of available budget, both to pay management as well as those teams not being a place an aspiring manager can make a name for themselves and further their career
is a salary cap the way to go? as frustrating as things are right now for the cards, the rays and marlins have shown that in aggregate the below average budget teams as a whole can produce competitive teams, albeit not as often as bigger budget teams on a team by team basis. the “evening out” of baseball is the draft and no trading of picks and the arb-FA time frame, which allows teams to grow their own for much less money than buying a FA team (which is the only way that draft picks are moved form one team to another). the bigger problem to me is a salary floor, which would guarantee that teams would make a good faith effort to put a competitive team on the field rather than pocket the money.
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
by sportsman on Dec 22, 2008 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Very scary...
what’s scarier perhaps is the offers he might receive should he be healthy for the next three seasons. He’ll be 31 after the 2011 season. Will it take 8/$240mil to sign him? I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the type of offers he gets from the big market teams you talk about. Maybe the Cards should try to extend him with a 10yr/$200mil deal that supercedes the last two years and the option year of his current deal.
Sometimes I wonder,
"Why is that frisbee getting bigger?"
...and then it hits me!!
by cardzfanbub on Dec 22, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe a healthy chunk of
ownership in the Cardinals would be a way to pay Albert? Conspiracy-minded types at the PD are always sure that DeWitt is going to sell the team any minute now … why not sell it to the first baseman?
by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 22, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It would be a great idea
but it is against MLB’s rules.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Dec 22, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Damn.
AP as MLB’s first player/owner would be just irresistible. He could wear a 3-piece suit and smoke a cigar in the dugout on his scheduled day off. Albert would make that look good.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 22, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If he has the same effect on the organization as he does on the team...
then the Cards will be rolling in revenue over his tenure.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Dec 22, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That sounds like a lowball offer to me...
So how much are we talking about here that Mo has to “throw around” this off season? After the Greene and Miller Signings it seems that people have been saying that there is around $10 Million to put toward a “proven closer” or a starter – what, 3 or 4 hole?
Well, if that money is actually available, I say give it to Albert now. 10/200 isn’t much of a raise for a guy who’s already making $16M. Make it a 9+ mil per year raise and call it 10 year 250 million and work with that. Nothing of the sort will probably happen though.
Baseball Fever.... Catch it!
by skcabrozar on Dec 22, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be fine with 10yr/$250mil...
but if I’m Mo and Dewitt I start with 10/$200mil. It’s in the same neighborhood with what Tex is being offered right now ($20-22 mil/season). With the uncertainty in the economy I think it’s a reasonable offer.
Sometimes I wonder,
"Why is that frisbee getting bigger?"
...and then it hits me!!
by cardzfanbub on Dec 22, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would be OK
with extending him this offseason for a front-loaded 10/200M deal. he’s making what, $13M or so this year? They probably won’t spend the money on anybody useful this offseason anyway, might as well use the money left and extend El Hombre. And I say Front-load it, so that way it leaves more payroll to pay for FA or improved inner talent in the future. Not sure if this rambling comment makes sense or not, but I gave it a shot…
by STLRegalia on Dec 22, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's making $16mil
this year and next and has a $16mil option for 2011.
Sometimes I wonder,
"Why is that frisbee getting bigger?"
...and then it hits me!!
by cardzfanbub on Dec 22, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i was way off
but just means it would be even easier to front load his contract
by STLRegalia on Dec 22, 2008 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm as big an AP fan as they come, but...
Keep in mind that Brett Wallace demolished minor-league pitching his first year out of the draft in a completely Pujolsian way, and has almost exactly AP’s skill set in terms of positions played, with perhaps less flexibility. I can see possible situations a couple of years out where management is forced to choose between the two and they’re of roughly equal level of performance — unlikely, because nobody’s performance equals AP’s, but if it does happen, letting Pujols walk may be the thing that’s best for the team.
Man, does it ever hurt to say that. I really hope another solution can be found, in the happy event that Wallace does turn out to be that good. But teams sometimes have to bite that kind of bullet. Does anyone else remember the outrage when Boston let go of the popular and highly talented Carney Lansford to make room for some minor leaguer named Boggs?…
by StanTheManFan on Dec 22, 2008 11:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I put a .1% chance Wallace approaches Pujols production
Not afraid to nitpick
by joker24 on Dec 22, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure it's even that high, BUT
if it does happen, a painful decision will have to be made.
by StanTheManFan on Dec 22, 2008 11:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
probably not in 2012
but in 2018? Pujols will be 31 in 2011. Wallace will be 24.
How much do we want to pay for Albert’s age 32+ seasons? Can we afford 30M+ per year for the decline phase?
they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums
by SleepyCA on Dec 23, 2008 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wallace does provide protection
in the event that Pujols can’t be extended. No question.
by chuckb on Dec 22, 2008 11:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i have good news
I don’t think albert is a greed player. I personally believes he likes it here, people are fairly centered, have good values, he doesn’t need an armed gang to go to and get the mall, most people will just leave him be. He already has a good standing in the comunnity. He also already has a ring, that will keep him from the desperate ring chasing some older players bounce around to find. This team wants to win and is not just happy to make money. This team competes every year, sometimes not very well, but i don’t think this management group is going to have a 90-100 loss season. Well i should say as long as there isn’t rash of injuries and the team looks more a like memphis than st louis. Finally, He brings in more money than he makes. This is still a business, and if a product, even an expenisve one, brings excellent returns your going to keep making it/ using it till it does not
"When the boogie man goes to sleep he checks his closet for Chuck Norris"
by elirock83 on Dec 22, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
i don’t think albert will chase the payday. money doesn’t seem to fuel his ego. its being the best player in the league that fuels his ego.
How depressing is it being you? Is it closer to being a lifelong cubs fan or being born without lips? - Janitor
by themanthemyth on Dec 22, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Although I agree w/ this,
if you were clearly the best at something you did, you probably wouldn’t want to be paid less than the Travis Haffner-equivalent.
Just sayin’……
by goodymobb on Dec 22, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
good point
all i’m saying is i don’t think it will take 30 million/year to sign him. and he might take the jordan approach and sign for less money so the team around him will be better. maybe im just really hoping this will happen and deluding myself…
How depressing is it being you? Is it closer to being a lifelong cubs fan or being born without lips? - Janitor
by themanthemyth on Dec 22, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Truthfully I don't think it'll take $30mil/season...
either, but If that’s what the major market teams are offering I think it’ll take $25-27 mil from us…maybe more. There’s no reason he should sign for a lower annual average in 2011 than A-Rod signed for in 2007 ($27mil – unless we’re still in a recession).
Sometimes I wonder,
"Why is that frisbee getting bigger?"
...and then it hits me!!
by cardzfanbub on Dec 22, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wishful thinking?
I too would be surprised to see Albert walk after this contract runs it term. I might be looking at this through the eyes I had when the Cards deceitfully traded Tommy Herr, but I honestly think Pujols will eventually stay in StL for much less he could get on the open market.
To further up the naivete meter- I suspect a deal will be in effect comfortably before his free agency becomes an issue and I would only be mildly surprised to hear that Pujols negotiated the basic terms of his next contract himself.
I can feel my heart breaking already.
by Scarecrow7775 on Dec 23, 2008 4:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
10 years 200 million
should do it as a base salary. He will have a lot of other incentives in the contract for beating various records and winning awards. I dont see him leaving unless the yankees or red sox give him ownership rights.
by hghallstar on Dec 22, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Give me Kawakami or give me, um,
Well, I mean, not death, obviously, but something. Maybe cake. Hmm. Give me Kawakami or give me cake? No, that doesn’t have quite the impact I’m looking for. Any better ideas, anyone?
It was half my fault, and half the atmosphere.
by the red baron on Dec 22, 2008 1:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
rum cake?
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 22, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yum rum
"When the boogie man goes to sleep he checks his closet for Chuck Norris"
by elirock83 on Dec 22, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bronswaggart?
It would certainly be punishment to have to eat that crap.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Dec 22, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How about
Give me Kawakami or give me a lifetime as a Cubs fan.
No wait, that doesn’t work either. Death may be preferable.
"Do what you want to the women and children but leave me alone"- George Carlin
by That's a Winner on Dec 22, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
true dat
death always wins out over pulling for those wee little bears
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Dec 22, 2008 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
to an earlier point
if we let pujols hit free agency…he is long gone…this is another reason i think trading ankiel right now is a good idea…we cannot re-sign him after the season if we have cost controlled options because any money we pay him is money that we can’t pay pujols after next year
i hope that talks are already starting about an albert extension
by VolsnCards5 on Dec 22, 2008 5:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
this is a good point
and why I made the connection to the J.D. Drew trade a few days ago. We traded Drew for a number of reasons — none of which related to him “not achieving his potential” — whatever that means. We traded him to get a young pitcher and b/c we knew, w/ our payroll, we couldn’t afford to resign him at the end of the season. If he played well, we couldn’t afford it. If he didn’t, we wouldn’t want to. Now we’re in a similar situation w/ Rick. Might we have to choose between resigning Rick and extending Albert? It’s possible b/c that $10-12M might be the difference in extending Albert or not. By trading Ankiel now, we get a young pitcher, we open up a spot for Rasmus, and we get the flexibility to extend Albert after the ’09 season.
by chuckb on Dec 22, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if (God forbid) Albert Pujols reaches free agency
$20-$30Million a season will not be enough to sign him. he’s salary will literally break the bank. i’m talking $40+ Million per season people. it will happen. hear me now, believe me later.
all the big market clubs can & will throw every last penny they have at him. the Cards can’t let this happen. they just can’t. they must do whatever it takes to prevent other clubs from even thinking of getting their hands on him. he is not only the face of the club, but he is the heart & soul of the franchise. you cannot live without your heart & soul, and the Cardinals cannot go on without Albert.
if it takes trading away Babe 2.0 to keep him & also be able to afford to field a competitive team, i am all for that. you can’t lose Albert Pujols. you just can’t.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Dec 22, 2008 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh.....
and the Cardinals cannot go on without Albert.
Yes we could.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
by SoonerfanTU on Dec 22, 2008 6:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not with me as a fan
if we don’t make a legitamite effort to extend him…then i will no longer be a fan…now if we make a real effort and still can’t get it done, then thats business
by VolsnCards5 on Dec 22, 2008 6:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lol how exactly do you determine whether or not a real attempt was made?
do you have Mo’s and Alberts agent on speed dial? Do you believe every report made by Strauss and on MLBTR represents what actually takes place?
by FunkeeC on Dec 22, 2008 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i have a sixth sense
my albert extensions sense…or AES
by VolsnCards5 on Dec 22, 2008 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd bet several hundred
internet dollars that if the Cards don’t try to keep Albert – really try – he’ll say something publicly.
by spants on Dec 22, 2008 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
are you joking?
you’d give up being a fan of the Cards if they don’t resign Pujols? My fandom is team first, player second. If he’s going to get $30M a year or more, it may not make sense to spend 1/4 of the team’s payroll on 1 player. It may, under those circumstances, make more sense to (gasp!) trade Albert after the ‘09 season (if he were to say, for example, that he has no intention of extending the contract and that he was definitely going to free agency). If that’s the case, so be it. I’ll pull for Pujols as long as he’s not playing the Cards but I’ll be a Cards fan til the day I die — Pujols or no Pujols.
by chuckb on Dec 22, 2008 8:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
I hope Albert never plays in another jersey. But if money is first to him, he probably will. I think/hope he isn’t like that. And I know he is smart enough to know that STL can’t offer him the things that NYY and Boston and a few others can.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
by SoonerfanTU on Dec 22, 2008 8:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no i said if they don't give it a real try to extend him
then i will not be a fan anymore…he is that important to us and to me as a fan…i started really paying attention to baseball about the time pujols started…so to me, he is the st. louis cardinals, and the team would have a huge hole in it for me if he was gone
by VolsnCards5 on Dec 22, 2008 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, well - me too. But ...
if he were to walk without a good faith effort by FO, I’d be seriously disillusioned – even if he said he doesn’t want to be here (can’t see that happening). It’s just that with as much negative crap going on in sports, it would be real easy for me to back off for a while if I felt that management wasn’t attempting to put the best possible team it could afford on the field.
If that was the case, I imagine it would be very easy to choose to not listen to the ball game after work till 2 am like I do every summer night now. If I listened to a game, it’d be the Cardinals. But I’d have much less drive to listen.
That said, it’s a bit early to be getting upset about all this.
Baseball Fever.... Catch it!
by skcabrozar on Dec 23, 2008 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe.
but it’s not THAT early; he can walk away after 2011. That means his peak value would be between now and next off-season; if he isn’t going to re-sign, this time next year would be the likely time to trade him…
they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums
by SleepyCA on Dec 23, 2008 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can they really?
While I’m not saying that Pujols is the only thing that kept the Cardinals from being the Pirates since he’s on the team, I do think he is almost solely responsible for much of the success of the team.
I’m too lazy to figure it out, but what if you did subtract the number of wins provided by Albert vs the average 1B? I bet the Cardinals would likely be also rans in most years, mediocre at best.
Felipe Lopez - next year's Joel Pineiro
by DiscoJer on Dec 23, 2008 1:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it would be minus 6-8 wins
going from albert to an “average” 1B. Would have been 8 this year, using the sky kalkman “best 1B of 2008” numbers.
they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums
by SleepyCA on Dec 23, 2008 2:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but if he costs $30M/year
you can buy a lot of wins with that in other positions, if you have someone like Wallace (or mather) might become, to fill in at 1B/3B/etc.
they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums
by SleepyCA on Dec 23, 2008 2:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
here is an article that addresses the "lets move [insert generic OF name here] to 2nd base how hard can it be" idea
by FunkeeC on Dec 22, 2008 7:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
k, I'm sold
skip schumaker was a +22 LF in 2008, so he’d be a +12 2B, using that article’s findings.
they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums
by SleepyCA on Dec 22, 2008 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand the theory behind positional adjustments
but then I ask myself questions like that and it makes me somewhat skeptical.
by azruavatar on Dec 22, 2008 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i.e. there's a very non-intuitive element to the specific application of adjustments
by azruavatar on Dec 22, 2008 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
true
I don’t think it works quite the way that guy described. If so, there’s a very good chance Matt Holliday would be a better 2B than Kelly Johnson.
OTOH, Skip Schumaker LOOKS like a second baseman. He’s short, gritty, throws right handed, etc. To me it’s quite non-intuitive that they ever put him in the OF to begin with.
they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums
by SleepyCA on Dec 22, 2008 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which means...
that there must have been a pretty good reason to move him to the outfield with a bat that plays well at second base….
That reason: He probably really, REALLY sucks at playing second base.
"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 22, 2008 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe
or maybe he had a very good player blocking him at SS at UCSB.
Bannon led the college team in HR’s and slugging in 1999 and 2000, so he was going to get to pick where he played over the transfer student who got injured and had to redshirt his freshman year (2000). Skip moved to CF because he failed as a pitcher and he wanted to play pro ball, and only power-hitting corners or SS/CF’s get drafted (IE, 2B wasn’t an option).
they can't play baseball, they don't wear sweaters, they're not good dancers, they don't play drums
by SleepyCA on Dec 22, 2008 11:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My darling dear
goes to UCSB. Maybe I can convince her convert some of her fellow students to Cardinal fans.
by lunchboxbomb on Dec 23, 2008 2:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ideally
I think that if we keep Skip, we should make him the new Secret Weapon… infield, outfield, pitching, etc
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 22, 2008 11:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On the topic of albert and the salary cap
Examples of the marlins, rays, etc., winning the championship are great stories. But the subject I haven’t seen addressed is the inability of small market teams to keep their starts once free agency comes into play. Chances are, the cards will not have the bucks to retain Albert. That may be something we need to get used to. I agree that we should try to negotiate a lifetime type contract for albert this year. We are not going to get the free agent we want, so let’s use that surplus to make albert a really good offer. It may be the only way he stays in St. Louis. If unsuccessful, we still have time to cash in on his higher trade value. An example of this is Ankiel. Not worth so much this year as last. It’s no wonder small market teams won’t trade for players in their contract years, just look at the brewers. It is very unfair without some kind of salary cap.
victim of the sixties
by victim of the sixties on Dec 23, 2008 12:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 


















