Dry Powder
by jjray on Dec 24, 2008 5:31 PM EST
33 comments
The thing that jumps out at me from today's Derrick Goold article (love the work DG is doing for the Post BTW)--
"Cardinals' definition of their approach has evolved from 'aggressive' to 'creative' and then later to 'opportunistic.' To further illustrate their current tack Cardinals officials unpacked a familiar catchphrase: 'dry powder.'"
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/3357B8DB59222555862575290011339E?OpenDocument
My problem with how this has all unfolded is not the "opportunistic" approach per se. Rather, it is that the club has been all over the board on its approach. One example: they jumped the gun in extending Joel Pineiro after limited viewing of his wares (and to make matters worse, gave him a 2 year deal). Then this year they decline to offer arbitration to Looper who was a Type B FA even though we have need of a starter. Last year, the sandwich pick we got for Percival turned into starting pitcher Lance Lynn (a prototypical Duncan sinker baller). I predict Lance runs up the Cards minor league system in 2009 barring injury. The logical conclusion is that the Cards are hoarding money to make at least one FA play. They tell the media they are going to be "aggressive". Aggressive turned out to be Mark "I shot myself in the foot" Worrell for Khalil Greene.
In business, you thoughtfully settle on a strategy, implement the strategy, then alter your course to changing market conditions. But you don't give up on the strategy until you have fully given it a chance to either succeed or fail. There is value in knowing that first strategy does not fit the market before going on to the second strategy.
The best move JMo made last year was 1 year deal for Loshe during spring training. It now appears that is the new strategy ... wait until after the big dollars are foolishly spent and then move in late to bargain shop. Great strategy in this economy (given that the team has to be nervous about revenue going forward). BUT JUST PICK ONE STRATEGY AND STICK WITH IT. Current strategy--The Cards are bargain shoppers on the FA market who also look to trade from areas of surplus talent to fill holes. See, not so hard.
0 recs |
33 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I think they've been pretty consistent, actually
If we step back for a moment and consider the bigger picture, I think the Cardinals have actually been pretty steady in terms of strategy. Based on my limited understanding of the front office, the following are a few key DeWitt / Mozeliak tenets:
-Draft College Players, not High Schoolers
-Value Substance above “Flash”
-Limit long-term contract exposure
-Avoid “no trade” clauses wherever possible
-Surrender the high priced FAs to the richer clubs, seek out bargains
-Develop balance throughout the lineup and rotation
-Do NOT sell the farm for short-term success
Also throw in the fact that St. Louis payroll is in the top third of baseball. They are putting their profits back into the team.
Oh, and while I’m thinking about it, I think the Rolen for Glaus trade last year was more important than Lohse. Both moves were valuable, but removing Rolen sucked a lot of poison out of the clubhouse. You cannot underestimate the importance of that.
by JWO on Dec 24, 2008 6:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
not to get into a big argument
but was Rolen really a clubhouse poison? I hear it all the time now, but I never heard it before the Rolen-TLR tiff. Is there anything to back this up? Was I just too much of a Rolen fan to even notice those things?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Dec 24, 2008 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, maybe its open to interpretation
But nobody can deny that Glaus was a ROCK throughout the season. He put up offensive numbers very comparable to a healthy Rolen, and should have won the GG for 3B. Not too shabby.
by JWO on Dec 24, 2008 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He was poison in combination with TLR
And since either TLR or Rolen had to go, and then Glaus was healthy and productive all year, I’d call the trade a success.
by mojowo11 on Dec 24, 2008 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not gonna argue that
it was something that had to happen, I just can’t buy into Rolen being a poison in the clubhouse just because Scott and Tony couldn’t get along.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Dec 24, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don't think anyone actually thinks Scott is a pain in the ass
It’s just that he clashed with the heavily entrenched manager, and was thus a “poison” to the Cards clubhouse.
Whatever. Point is, I’m glad Glaus is here. How nice was it to have a healthy 3B for an entire year?
by mojowo11 on Dec 24, 2008 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He had the
clubhouse cancer rep in Philly. Unless you’re in there, who knows. I do think he’s stubborn as a mule and dragged the team down with him and his shoulder. Cancer? Poison? Those words make it sound like he’s hostile or something, so I avoid those labels.
by spants on Dec 25, 2008 12:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it would be more correct
to say he had the can’t get along with Larry Bowa rep. I am not aware of any reports ever that he clashed with actual teammates.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Dec 26, 2008 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said,
he had the rep. But that doesn’t mean I buy the label.
by spants on Dec 26, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rolen was booted from Philly for similar reasons.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Dec 25, 2008 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Avoid lon-term contract exposure
- Mark Mulder
- Chris Carptener
- Adam Wainwright
- Yadi Molina
- Kyle Lohse
by Evilfrog on Dec 24, 2008 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You, like the author of this post,
are conflating Mo with Jock. Also, more than half of those contracts could be argued to be good, and one of them is over. Honestly, even the Carp signing wasn’t that bad compared to, say, Pineiro, who you didn’t even mention. But as I said, most of that was Jocketty.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Dec 25, 2008 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Im talking about avioding long term contracts
As a direct the Originazation is heading. And pointing out that they are infact not avioding signing long term contracts. As they just signed Wainwright, Molina, and Lohse to long term contracts this year. I did not mention that any of those contracts are bad contracts. Because good and bad doesn’t matter when you are only talking about length. Likewise; while I do consider the Jo-EL contract bad; 2 years is not a long term contract. So it would not be an example of a long term contract
Only Mulder and Carpenter were Jocketty. So I would say most of those were Mo contracts. But it doesn’t matter really who signed it. Snice we are looking at an Organizational direction. The Cardinals were willing to sign long ones in the past. The were willing to sign them this year. And Im sure in the future they will be willing to sign more.
I used 4 years is what I consider “long term” others might disagree though.
by Evilfrog on Dec 25, 2008 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What's your point?
They signed some people to long term contracts; it’s not that they made a campaign promise to avoid such contracts, especially if they make as much sense as the Waino and Molina contracts. Also, you neglected to mention the Albert Pujols contract. Long term contracts are sometimes useful, sometimes not. Even the Marlins signed Hanley Ramirez.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Dec 25, 2008 10:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Marlins
were so smart to lock in Hanley. They can flip him later for a haul of prospects, and the team getting him won’t have to pay that much for him in comparison to getting him as a free agent. Would love it if the Cards were trade partners in that deal, though Ramirez’s defense doesn’t exactly scream “Cardinal shortstop.”
by spants on Dec 26, 2008 12:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
JWO stated that
the following are a few key DeWitt / Mozeliak tenets:
-Limit long-term contract exposure
My point was this doesn’t appear to be the case. They’ve handed out three just this year.
I happen to think that the Yadi and Wagonmaker contracts are very good contracts. Though some would argue that we should have waited another year.
by Evilfrog on Dec 26, 2008 10:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Limited" long-term contracts doesn't mean "None"
Just to clarify a bit, I never suggested that Mozeliak was avoiding ALL long-term contracts. I don’t think there are any organizations that take it that far. But I believe it has been the policy of the front office to limit exposure to bad long-term contracts as much as possible.
- That’s why they don’t want to get locked into a long-term deal with another starter.
- Most of the position players have 1-3 years left on their contracts
- Lohse puzzles me, but I can only assume its because he impressed TLR
I also realized I left out one of Tony and company’s key catch-phrases: develop a “core” of players to build out from. Clearly, Adam, Yadi and Albert all fit that grouping.
by JWO on Dec 26, 2008 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
conflagrate?
Don’t think so Hazel. JMo has been inconsistent in his statement to the press in direction he wished to take. Has nothing to do with Jock.
by jjray on Dec 26, 2008 5:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mulder and Carp were Jock contracts.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Dec 26, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Carp
My understanding is that the Carp contract was to a large degree the work of Duncan.
He loved Carp’s aggressive attitude and hoped that he would provide leadership among the staff and mentor the younger guys.
It’s not a bad rationale, but it ignores the mechanics issue.
by thepainguy on Dec 27, 2008 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
serious question
if you know so much about bad mechanics, why doesn’t the Cardinals, or for that matter every other team out there know as much as you? everyone here knew the Carp extension could be a bad deal if he got hurt. but the Cards seam so shocked. in your profession opinion, why is teams don’t look into bad mechanics more seriously before they sign a pitcher?
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Dec 27, 2008 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mechanics
Some thoughts…
Mechanical analysis is gradually catching on, but still slowly.
There are guys out there doing this for teams, but they don’t have that much power because they haven’t been doing this long enough.
Most major league pitching coaches (e.g. Duncan) are approach guys, not mechanics guys because there simply isn’t that much you can do to a guy’s mechanics after drafting him (e.g. due to muscle memory). That is why that I think it’s a good sign that the Cardinals seem to be more focused on signing mechanically clean guys.
People haven’t picked up on these injury risk patterns sooner because, rather than comparing healthy pitchers to trainwrecks, they have been comparing pitchers to themselves. Until recently, the assumption has been that pitchers get hurt when their mechanics change. The truth is that pitchers get hurt when their mechanics stay the same (and were problematic to begin with).
by thepainguy on Dec 28, 2008 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot that
it remains a very subjective field with little quantitative proof that certain trends increase the odds of injury.
by azruavatar on Dec 28, 2008 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
to be fair
all but Mulder, all of those deals were quite reasonable if not solid when signed, you win some you lose some.
Carp even in a very limited role showed he had it still this year, all we need is health – something we played risk on.
Adam and Yadi are below market rate at least, Lohse depends. On.. what other pitchers outside of the top two end up going for, and what Lohse’s last couple of years cost compared to what’s avail then.
but again, Mulder was just stupid, so, so stupid.
One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.
by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 25, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"actually"
>>I think they’ve been pretty consistent, actually<<
Perception is reality, “actually”. Perception is shaped by what the GM tells the press. There is no argument that JMo’s comments upon the team’s approach to player acquisition in this offseason have significantly shifted. I’m not the one who made this point, Goold did. Title of the artile, “The Cardinals shift to a ‘patient’ approach” (12-24, STL Post-Dispatch). It was the whole point of the article, actually. Oh how I loath the smart @ss use of “actually” in message boards.
by jjray on Dec 26, 2008 5:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rhetoric now matches actions
The Cardinals have been consistent in strategy. Its their language that has evolved. The Cardinals management has held a very conservative posture. All we are seeing now is their language shifting to reflect that position.
Aggressive, indeed. I think the Cards have been pretty smart with their signings, but I would never describe their moves as “aggressive”.
Please, help me out. Give me one recent example of an “aggressive” move. All I’ve got recently are signing Greene for one year, Lohse for four years, a LOOGY for one year, and a couple of Japanese imports. Am I missing something?
by JWO on Dec 26, 2008 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say their real strategy has been...
to rely on Pujols. Lucking into Pujols is the difference between the Cardinals spending the last several years being contenders and always being the 4th place team.
Felipe Lopez - next year's Joel Pineiro (on another team, thank you Mo!)
by DiscoJer on Dec 27, 2008 4:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lohse puzzle
wouldn’t lohse still be sitting around this year like he was last year, waiting for the better pitchers to sign (lowe, perez, sheets, etc)? if this (lohse) is the caliber they are looking for, then waiting out the market makes sense. this is kind of like tex and boston. why isn’t he a red sox? from what i read, the sox have some formula they use to assign dollar values to players and once the yanks exceeded that value, they let it go. i think the cards are the same, but in the end multiply a players intrinsic value by a lower dollar value than the sox. hence, no bidding for el fountain. will they end up with a starting pitcher better than loop, don’t know, but they are clearly making that gamble.
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
by sportsman on Dec 25, 2008 10:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't know about you
but the market has sure surprised me. It’s slow, methodical. Teams you wouldn’t think of shedding payroll are, the Yankees aren’t just spending, but on a bingefest. The SP market has barely moved, at all.
I’m glad they’ve changed pace and seem to be constantly reevaluating.
I’m quite pleased with Mo, I’m content that we’re not in need of two SP, so I can handle Lohse on a long term since he’s durable and seems to fit in here ok.
When I’ll get pissed is if the power is still dry come opening day and we still have issues to fix. If you have the money and a need, you need to fix it.
Personally I think that they’re waiting it out to see if some teams get scared off by revenue outlook and want to shed a salary or two. If we can score a player or two by a team that feels they can’t afford and thus have trade leverage, I’m happy.
One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.
by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 25, 2008 10:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Yankees still have not spent all of the money they have coming off the books,
among Pettite, Mussina, Giambi and the others.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Dec 25, 2008 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i'm not a spend, spend guy
for the sake of spending (which is why I don’t want Fuentes), but it seems like we hear this almost every year. We wanted his free agent, this free agent wanted x, hey, we tried, payroll flexibility, yadda yadda.
I can’t really complain, they do have the 11th highest payroll and a flag flying from a couple seasons ago, so it’s not like I don’t believe they have their fan’s interest at heart to a much greater extent then say the Royals. We’ll see what happens, there probably are some bargains to be had in this glacial free agency period. But I’m sorta getting sick of excuses. Just come right out and say what you wanna say without dressing it up this sort of way.
Hyperventilating prospect geek
Future Redbirds
by erik on Dec 26, 2008 11:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Where this approach might work
is in making trades. There are already teams trying to shed salary. The rangers want to move Millwood or Padilla. They know they will have to eat some salary. Millwood is signed for two years at around 11 million. Cards might get him for a prospect and get the rangers to eat five million. And this is just an example. Other teams with other pitching very well may follow suit. Who knows who might come available. There is talk of Halladay being a possibility.
victim of the sixties
by victim of the sixties on Dec 26, 2008 11:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
