weekend discussion: trade wainwright?

by lboros on Feb 9, 2008 9:18 AM EST in St. Louis Cardinals News

to any member of the VEB community who was touched by the shooting rampage in kirkwood, deepest sympathies. what a terrible waste.

the play-in phase of the tournament is over; the field of 16 is set. here's a bracket with the seedings and matchups from here on out:

if you want to see the entire bracket, including the play-in phase, click right here. and there's still time to get in on Cardinal70's bracket challenge, if you haven't already e-mailed your picks to him. we're taking a couple days off from the tourney to get organized, so you have a little time to send in your picks for this phase.

here's today's weekend-discussion topic: by my count, erik bedard is the 5th prominent pre-free-agent pitcher to get traded this off-season (the other 4 being dan haren, johan santana, dontrelle willis, and matt garza). all were traded for prospects or very young major-leaguers. several other pre-free-agent pitchers have appeared on the rumor circuit, including joe blanton, tim lincecum, ervin santana, ian snell, and even scott kazmir. so the question is: what type of offer would the cards have to get to consider dealing away adam wainwright?

i'm not suggesting that wainwright is in the same class as all those other pitchers; he's obviously less accomplished than bedard, haren, or johan. but he's also cheaper than all of those guys and under team control for more years, so his overall market value might not be as far below theirs as we think. we know what price the market set on the 5 pitchers who've already moved, and we have some idea of what's being asked for guys not yet traded. one recent report says the a's want two blue-chip prospects plus a third player for blanton; the pirates reportedly want one blue-chipper in exchange for snell.

suppose the braves asked for wainwright in a straight-up deal for brent lillibridge --- an outstanding prospect at a premium position where the cardinals need help, and a guy who'd be under club control for 6 years (vs adam's 4). would you do it? i wouldn't, because garza (a less accomplished pitcher than adam) fetched a better player (delmon young). if garza's worth that, then wainwright's got to be worth more. so let's say the braves made lillibridge the centerpiece but also threw in gorkys hernandez, the speed-burning outfielder they just picked up from detroit, and a so-so pitching prospect. this'd be along the lines of the package that arizona gave up for dan haren --- not as bulky a package, to be sure, since wainwright's not quite the pitcher that haren is. would you do it then?

this is only one example, and it's as speculative as can be --- purely a conversation starter. i'm not seriously arguing that the cards can, or should, consider trading wainwright to the braves for some prospects. in fact, i'm sure it's out of the question --- since the cards don't see themselves as being in even a mild rebuilding mode they likely would never consider trading wainwright for prospects unless a team bowled them over with a spectacular offer, and that ain't gonna happen. so just consider the question in the abstract; it's a theoretical exercise. if you were the gm, and you saw the prices (in talent) that established, pre-free-agent pitchers were going for --- would you dangle wainwright out there to see what kind of offers came back? and what type of offer would you have to get before you pulled the trigger?

Tweet Comment 46 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Since we are in rebuilding

mode, I would maybe look for a deal with a "win now" team. Could Wainwright fetch two good pitching prospects say in AA/A ball? I guess I could give him up if, in the future, we would have two wainwrights in the rotation. I want a rotation that is stable and not pieced together with reclamations and stitches.

Here I Am, Rock You Like a Hurricane

by OKCardsfan on Feb 9, 2008 9:28 AM EST reply actions

No Way!

There is no way I deal Wainwright for prospects at this point. He has tremendous upside, and he is financially a bargain for the next couple years. And most importantly, you know what you have in him. There are too many questions surrounding prospects. Too many of them fizzle out and your left holding the bag.

by MarTeezy on Feb 9, 2008 9:51 AM EST reply actions

atlanta got hernandez

from detroit in the renteria deal, not from atlanta.

the only way i would trade wainright now is if it were for multiple starting pitching prospects, or one starter and a four star ss or 2b. we need young pitching way more than anything else and starting pitching more so than relief, we have plenty of that coming up.

by DAC on Feb 9, 2008 9:51 AM EST reply actions

If that kind of trade

was offered right now I'd have to take it. At this point we don't have the shortstop we need for the future and our farm system, as revitalized as it is, is short of impact players. At this point in the off season, though, I don't think that any teams will be initiating this kind of trade. If Wagonmaker has a good year, Carp comes back and a couple of other guys show that they're solid I think we should initiate this kind of deal next off season.
We could throw in some of our decent middle infield prospects for premium players at those positions. Obviously, if Kozma or Tyler Greene streak into the top prospect category then this wouldn't be necessary but I don't see that happening.

by easy on Feb 9, 2008 10:00 AM EST reply actions

Ain't gonna happen...

as lboros admits in the article.

Having said that, I'd think (were I the Cardinals) I'd want a young MLB player with the potential to become a better than league-average guy, the top prospect from t'other team, and a MLB starting pitcher to plug into the rotation.

The Cardinals have too many "ifs" in the rotation as it stands; Wainer is the "ace" almost by default! While I'm fairly optimistic about Looper and Piñeiro, the rest of the rotation is either unproven or coming off serious injury.

The Birds are trying to walk the fine line between a total rebuild (blow everything up and start over, a la the Cleveland Indians a few years ago) and trying to "win now". Actually, they're trying to stay in contention for the NL Central title; even if you don't win the division, being in a pennant race keeps the turnstiles spinning. Even with last year's disappointment, fans kept coming out until the middle of September. It's a tough assignment, but I agree with the concept. You don't "blow up" the roster when you've got the best hitter in the game; while Stan Musial carried the Cardinals (fan-wise) through the sorry 1950s, free agency tends to mitigate against a star player staying with a losing club... not when he has a chance to move to a winner! I want to see Albert Pujols emulate "The Man" by playing his entire career in the Birds On The Bat!

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

by The Ol Goaler on Feb 9, 2008 10:08 AM EST reply actions

I have to agree that it is tempting,

but the thing to realize is that by and large I think we all believe in his potential. Last year was his first year starting in the bigs and I think that a lot of us not really seeing the big picture. I believe there is no way he has even come close to what he'll be in two years. He turned 26 years old last summer and went 14-12 with a 4.39 ERA in 202.0 innings. In Haren's 25 year old season he went 14-13 with a 4.12 ERA in 223.0 innings. I believe the difference between the two isn't as far as what people think. Haren may have more K's but he's more prone to the long ball. You also need to look at the defense we had last year, it was utterly atrocious. I think Wainer was trying to pick up to much of the slack and carry the load by himself instead of just going out and pitching. Let's see what he does in the next year or two before we even consider this. The haul we could make then assuming he doesn't run into any austere circumstances could be much more substantial.

by DJ4508 on Feb 9, 2008 10:50 AM EST reply actions

Interesting question

I'd have a hard time turning down Lillbridge, Hernandez, and a pitcher for Adam. I think that Wainwright might be a bit overrated by most because of his postseason performance and the fact that he plays in a run suppressing park. PECOTA isn't exactly bullish on him, but it is interesting that 2 of his comps are Lackey and Harang, who also both have improved to be top 10 starters in their respective leagues.
That said, I think you'd have a hard time selling this one. Wagonmaker is definitely a fan favorite, and, while he may not be a top-shelf starter, he is a good pitcher with some possible upside who makes the league minimum. This move would definitely push the Cards season into "full rebuild", and I think Tony's head would explode and D.Dunc's face would melt, Raiders of the Lost Ark-style.

by sdangler on Feb 9, 2008 11:09 AM EST reply actions

Wainwright

I don't think I would trade Wainwright. The reality is there are not a lot of above average pitching prospects in our system, and trading Wainwright would either put us in full re-building mode or make us resort back to shoring up the staff through free agency. Neither are options I think are necessary, especially since the Cards already have a few key components already in place to make a push at being competitive in '09. Wainwright is one of those key components, and will be for a long time.

by rockin the red on Feb 9, 2008 11:24 AM EST reply actions

Wouldn't Wainwright have more trade value

next year? Granted, he'd be a year closer to free agency but it would still be 3 years away but he'd have another year under his belt as a proven starter. It might also give management the opportunity to better evaluate how competitive this team will be in '09.

I'm of the opinion that this team can compete in '09 or, at least, 2010 and trading Wainwright might keep that from happening.

by chuckb on Feb 9, 2008 11:32 AM EST reply actions

Agreed

Fun post and something to turn over on a Saturday with not much else going on.

How about Cory Rasmus as the throw in pitcher?!

Seriously though, from my perspective, I love to root for the players that you spend a few years rooting for in the majors and guys who had a moment like wainer did closing out the Mets and Tigers. There are few people I wouldnt even discuss with another team and they would be:

Pujols
Wainright

Both stories could change if (A) Pujols indicates he wants out or he wants to "test the free agent waters" (B) Wainer said the same thing. In my mind, as long as they both want to be Cardinals they would be the faces of the Franchise. If Carp or Mulder drove up there value in the next year I would be fine with a trade. If it was Rasmus straight up for Johan or Bedard I might do it but I just can't live with trading Wainer and Pujols...

by Lawless on Feb 9, 2008 11:40 AM EST up reply actions

Or

If Pujols begins having chronic elbow problems.

by Ray Lankford on Feb 9, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions

If he put up

another year like last year he would. I'm a big Wainwright fan, but that's always a risk.

Continuing with the ATL theme, if they offered, say, Lillibridge and Jurrjens (4.27 ZIPS ERA), then I'd have to really consider it. Those guys are both ready to help right away, and especially in 2009.

by plh903 on Feb 9, 2008 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

The "years of control" factor is HUGE

As long as the team has WW under a cheap contract, he is an enormous asset, in the form of a known above-average commodity (if not an ace) who also allows the team to spend the big bucks on other things. One does not leverage such an asset by trading it (him), but rather by taking advantage of the opportunities the asset offers. Trading him while he's still cheap, no matter what you get for him, doesn't do that. There is no prospect, or group of prospects, out there that would make this trade a win at this time -- so don't make the trade.

However, next off season may be a time to look seriously at a deal, particularly if he's roughly as good this year as last. One year of that financial flexibility will be in the past, and the prospects of losing him via relatively unhelpful free agency will be one year closer to realization. The team will also be that much closer to knowing what it's got in the low minors and therefore exactly what it must do to re-establish itself as dominant. I still think it'll be premature to make a move then, but not as premature, and as Branch Rickey always said, better to make a deal one year too early than one year too late. The Lillibridge package (with a useful throw-in or two, I still wouldn't make the deal straight up) may make sense at that point. But don't do it now.

by StanTheManFan on Feb 9, 2008 11:50 AM EST reply actions

i agree w/ you stantheman

re the years of control factor. but if you could leverage one player under control for 4 years into 2 players under control for 6 years each . . . . wouldn't that increase the team's leverage?

the a's and twins have both been perennial contenders in their division for as long as the cards have; and, like the cards, both had down years in 2007. both those clubs dealt away talented young pitchers (ie leverage) to stockpile even more leverage. those are not poorly run teams; if they think this is a good time to trade their young pitchers, maybe the cards ought to consider it too.

the only real argument for categorically rejecting this idea is that it would basically remove the cards from contention in 2008. i concede that. but this is not a terrible loss if (like me) you think the cards don't have much chance of winning anything meaningful in 2008 anyway. a trade might increase their inventory of cost-controlled talent for 2009, when their chances of winning might be much better and the leverage can actually be applied toward a meaningful objective. i don't agree that it necessarily makes sense to wait a year before putting out feelers on adam. waiting entails risk; wainwright might get hurt in 2008, or he might have a worse year, and no matter what his value is diminished by one season --- the acquiring team only gets him for 3 years rather than 4. there might also be better pitchers available in the free-agent class, which would depress the trade market for all pitchers, not just adam.

we know his value is high right now, and there's a chance it will never be higher. it might be that the cards don't get an offer that makes sense to them. but if i'm the gm and somebody offers me two good prospects for wainwright right now, i'd be hard pressed to turn it down.

by lboros on Feb 9, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions

Well, three things:

First, there's a difference between a prospect and a sure thing. Pretty well by definition, fewer than half of all prospects go on to become above-average major leaguers, since after all, the above-average guys stick around longer than the average-to-replacement-level guys do. I don't think 4 years of a cost-controlled, above-average starting pitcher is something you want to trade for 12 years of controlling even good prospects. Trade an average-to-above starting left fielder, maybe; even throw in a possibly-average starting pitcher. (You know who I have in mind, right?) But with WW clearly above average, no.

Second, the comparison to Minnesota and Oakland isn't entirely appropriate, because the Cardinals are a very different franchise from those two. We are much better at generating revenue than they are; we are much worse at scouting than they are. I am convinced that the Luhnow/Mozeliak partnership eventually will make inroads on the scouting deficiency (it has started to already), but until it does, the confidence that we would somehow manage to reload after a WW trade cannot be based on anything in the farm system, even after laying in a couple of possibilities. Once you're sure that the farm will produce a sustainable core, then yeah, think about such a trade -- which is one reason why I say consider it next year, as by then the success of the L/M strategy will be easier to evaluate. But until then, our strategy can't be based on reliance on the farm, the way the Twins and A's are, and two uncertain prospects obtained in a WW trade aren't enough to change that. Fortunately, it doesn't have to be, because our financial base is better. But moving WW doesn't leverage that strength.

Finally and most importantly, I am not ready to write off the 2008 season yet, and I hope the team isn't either. The most likely finish for this team is about 4th place. However, I see about a 25% chance that enough things go right -- pick some out of {Clement is effective, Carp comes back on time and is effective, Glaus stays healthy, Barton is major-league ready, TLR gets over his veteran-mediocrity hangup and plays Hoffpauir and Ryan, Ankiel avoids spraining his brain, Rasmus has a huge camp and sticks, etc.} -- that the team will seriously contend. To be sure, there is roughly an equal chance that everything will go wrong and we'll be fighting to stay out of last, but a 25% chance of being in the hunt is enough that blow-it-up options are to be avoided.

So all told, I continue to oppose any deal that moves WW at this time. If you can package Duncan and Reyes for Lillibridge and Hernandez, go for it like a shot; that's the difference between cost-controlled guys and a good cost-controlled guy.

by StanTheManFan on Feb 9, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions

they might have a 25 percent chance

to win the nl central; i think their chances are less than that, but i'll concede the point. if they were to eke out the nl central with 86 wins --- so what? it still wouldn't be a good baseball team, and i want them to build a good team, not a so-so team that might be the best of a bad lot.

is trading wainwright the way to get there? maybe so, maybe not. but i think that should be the objective, as opposed to building teams that have a 1 in 4 chance to win a lousy division.

re the last paragraph, obviously nobody's going to give up those type of prospects for duncan and reyes. your delineation is correct --- there's cost-controlled guys, and then there are good cost-controlled guys. and it takes the latter to get top-notch prospects; to acquire value, you have to be prepared to give value up. you have to be prepared to take risks.

by lboros on Feb 9, 2008 9:24 PM EST up reply actions

Just curious

what teams do you think might have interest and what do you think his value might be?

I couldn't imagine trading him w/o getting a legitimate 1 or 2 starter in return (prospect). Lillibridge, Hernandez and a potential #1 or 2 -- do the Braves have one? It's not unthinkable.

by chuckb on Feb 9, 2008 4:37 PM EST up reply actions

trading away young talent from the ML roster

I know the question put to the board was about Wainwright but I think this is a non-starter. The Cards would never go into all out fire sale mode and do something like this. But what about a less drastic rebuilding mode? Trade away young players on the roster with talent but ones with less years before FA or more expensive contracts.

Let's say Yadi continues to improve his hitting as the 2008 season progresses. Let's say Duncan has a surge in HRs this season. Let's also postulate that the Cards are out of it before the trading deadline. These two could bring back alot of young talent if dealt. The organization would have a much better chance of replacing Duncan and Yadi than Wainwright.

by jjray on Feb 9, 2008 11:56 AM EST reply actions

Don't like the comparison..

I don't like the comparison of Wainwright to Garza. The Rays didn't just trade Garza for Delmon Young.. They also got a good starting major league SS in Jason Bartlett & Eduardo Morlan, who's like a younger, less wild version of our own Chris Perez, while the Twins got back a utility infielder (Harris) & a AAAA-type OF (Pridie)... I'd say the Rays made out OK on their end...

I'm also starting to think that all of this "prospecting" talk has gotten a little out of hand on the internets. While it is certainly fun to wishcast upon young players with ZERO MLB experience, teams that win tend to have players on the active roster who can.. you know... play.

While teams like the Rockies & D-Backs made the playoffs last year mostly with homegrown young talent, they also had to be absolutely terrible for about 5 years before they could get to that point. Who has the best young minor league talent in the game right now? Tampa Bay, right? How many years have they even finished above .500?

To the original point, I wouldn't trade Adam Wainwright for any minor league player(s) at this point.

Boomer.

by glamboomer on Feb 9, 2008 12:15 PM EST reply actions

+1

Internet fad, indeed. Although this topic did make me roffle my waffle until I saw a few folks thought it was a good idea. Wainy is too young, too cheap, and too good for a bundle of question marks.

Rasmus or bust.

by Zoop on Feb 9, 2008 4:29 PM EST up reply actions

so if the dbacks offered you the same 6 prospects

for wainwright that they offered the athletics for haren ---- would you turn them down?

are you saying there's no conceivable offer that could persuade you to part with adam? in your opinion, he's more untouchable than haren? more untouchable than erik bedard?

by lboros on Feb 9, 2008 10:01 PM EST up reply actions

There are conceivable offers

that could persuade me to part with Pujols. Not "likely" -- say, A-Rod, Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain, plus a pile of cash -- but "conceivable." And if you check that "conceivable" deal out carefully, you may get a hint of why I'm negative on a WW-for-prospects deal.

I accept that we differ on how much optimism is justified for the 2008 season, although I still think I'm right. (BTW, I'm not claiming a 25% chance of winning the division; I'm claiming a 25% chance of being close to winning it, with some lower but still non-trivial chance of actually winning, say 15% or so.) Given that difference in starting position, I can see why you're more willing to make a move. But from my starting position, any trade of guys who are real assets (as WW certainly is, while Reyes and Duncan are not-so-obviously) must aim at improving the team both in the future and now. A trade that gets nothing back except prospects for the future doesn't do that.

As I said earlier, I'd be more willing to look at a WW trade if I was more convinced the farm system was going to help reload in the short term, other than with the guys obtained in the trade (and of course CR). That's the enviable position Oakland and Minnesota have been in, although both of those wells are showing signs of running dry. Since we are not in that position, we can't afford to act as though we are, unless there is absolutely no other route to success -- and for us, unlike them, other routes do exist.

by StanTheManFan on Feb 10, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions

no difference of opinion then

if you're only claiming they have a 25 percent chance of coming close in the nl central; i would say they have at least that good a chance to come close. but "coming close" in this division means playing .500 ball. if they have a 1 in 4 chance of playing .500, then they're a rebuilding team no matter how you slice it. in my mind, a rebuilding team should have fewer untouchables than a team that's built to win now.

i also agree w/ your assessment of the cards' farm system --- while vastly improved, it still has plenty of room for improvement. but that explains why i'd contemplate trading a player as valuable as wainwright.

it'll be interesting to see how the haren and bedard trades work out. i think they'll be win-wins --- the dbacks and mariners are ready to win now (or think they are) and got the short-term help they required. but the orioles and a's each can expect to end up with 2 to 4 good cost-controlled players out of the deal --- a big chunk of leverage for building prosperous futures.

by lboros on Feb 10, 2008 6:47 AM EST up reply actions

You've missed my point.

Adding two random prospects does not improve the "farm system." It merely means that there are two more guys in the farm system who have a chance to reach the Show. But the system itself, that is, the capability to develop players from within, is not improved. Suppose you're a Third World country and one of the superpowers, in exchange for some juicy commodity (seaport, place to run espionage operations out of, etc.), gives you a squadron of highly advanced aircraft. Well, it's nice to have them, but as soon as they're shot down or crash or get old or are put out of commission, you're still a Third World country.

If a trade or personnel move does not produce fundamental change in the farm system -- and few do, although that Haren trade may come close, simply because of the sheer magnitude of the thing -- then it must accomplish more than a transient re-stocking of a few prospects. What that "more" is will depend on the needs of the team making the move. Some need payroll flexibility -- but we don't particularly (my second point), and moving WW doesn't confer it anyway. Some resolve logjams with talent piled up at a position behind a superstar, and that certainly isn't a Cardinals problem with starting pitching... And so on. Larry, what problem does a WW deal -- any deal -- solve other than "improving the farm system," which I argue it does not really do, unless literally about a quarter of the Atlanta system and their minor league coaches/instructors come over in the deal?

I agree that the Haren and Bedard deals will be interesting to follow, and I think there is a non-trivial chance that they will both look like they're lose-lose after a year or two. Although I cursed Jocketty for trading so much (i.e., Haren) to get Mulder, I'm not convinced Haren's 2007 wasn't a fluke, and he may disappoint on arrival at Phoenix, yet what they traded to get him doesn't strike me as advancing the A's beyond mediocrity. Fortunately for them, they're good enough at player development that useful stuff will likely follow from deep within their system, but that's not a justification for the trade. As for Bedard/Jones, that has a better chance of working out well (for now) for Seattle, but the O's are so screwed up that I fully believe they'll find a way for Jones not to work out -- don't ask me how. If he doesn't, then they didn't really get that much for a pitcher better than WW. The O's situation isn't comparable to ours anyway, but that's a subject for another time.

This has been a very interesting off season, as a number of teams make paradigm shifts. As often in such times, coming up with a realistic view of how much prospects are worth will be delayed until teams stop oscillating between extremes and settle on what's "right."

by StanTheManFan on Feb 10, 2008 10:11 AM EST up reply actions

Experience is key with me.

Yes. I would turn that down. I know it's difficult to say for sure, but I really don't like not getting a player with some MLB experience in return.

Let's look at Haren for a minute and the trade that sent him away from St. Louis again (for the millionth time... sorry) as this will kind-of speak to what I'm getting at.

Apart from Kiko, the two guys, I'm sure the 2 key guys from Oakland's standpoint were Barton & Haren & they both represent something different: Haren having been a major leaguer & Barton being a "top prospect"..

Haren had thrown over 180 MLB innings for the Cards prior to the trade and he wasn't a disaster (4.85 ERA; 5.7 K/9) but more importantly to me, he showed that he could hang with MLB players. He knew what the clubhouse was like. He knew how to prepare better for a season. He (I'm assuming) felt more confident, felt like he belonged. I remember during the awful WS in '04 that I felt I wanted to see Haren out there more than anyone else, since he seemed like the only pitcher who could reliably get guys out (he did throw 4 2/3 scoreless IP in the WS!)... That sort of mental experience and the confidence that goes with it is something that can't be quantified easily, but I think it's very important, especially for young players.

Barton is just now showing what he can do in MLB, but he still has only 72 MLB AB's.. It's still a toss-up whether he'll be Jeremy Hermida, Carlos May, Carlos Pena or Mark Kotsay (his top 4 PECOTA comps).. How will he adjust when pitchers have adjusted to him? Haren had already been through that looking glass & came out better for it.. Will Barton? I don't know. Maybe. I think that's really important. Some guys never adjust and just peter out. That may happen to Barton. I don't know. That's the same guessing game we as fans would play if Carlos Gonzalez & Aaron Cunningham & Chris Carter & Brett Anderson were coming our way for Adam Wainwright.

This is too long, I'm sorry.
I honestly think that unless a player with some MLB experience was coming along as well as prospects, I wouldn't trade Adam Wainwright.

Boomer.

by glamboomer on Feb 10, 2008 1:11 AM EST up reply actions

1888 vs. 1968

In the first round, what the hell lboros.
Did azruavatar put you up to that as revenge for '04.
Is it just me or is the left side of that bracket alot tougher than the other side.

Oh well, I can't jump from the 1888 bandwagon, I think I helped start it and I'm getting addicted to drinking this moxie. I guess one of the El Birdos teams goes down early, damm shame. On the bright side Gibby vs. The Silver King will be a hell of a 1-0 game.

As for trading Wainright, Isn't he the type of pitcher everyone has been wanting us to trade FOR this off-season. Seems like a one step forward two steps back sort of a thing. Bet we can get J D Drew for him.

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

by That's a Winner on Feb 9, 2008 1:10 PM EST reply actions

Interesting Idea

Trading Wainwright.

The obvious team would be someone like Dodgers, Rangers, or Arizona.

I am most interested in seeing how Glaus plays this season. If he can put up a 25 to 30 hr season, I think the Cards should move him for prospects.

by JMedwick on Feb 9, 2008 1:34 PM EST reply actions

Kirkwood Tragedy

I worked at a bank in Kirkwood for eight years. Officer Ballman brought in the city's deposits on a regular basis. I don't recall chatting with him that much while I ran the deposits, but I remembered him because of his USMC appearance. What a shame.

by BeanedByGibson on Feb 9, 2008 2:44 PM EST reply actions

No, no, no, and

no. No.

Rasmus or bust.

by Zoop on Feb 9, 2008 4:27 PM EST reply actions

NO WAY IN HELL WOULD I TRADE WAINWRIGHT

He can start. He can close. He can hit...AND HE DOES THEM ALL WELL!!! Let me reitterate. NO FUCKING WAY!!!

mattnj

by mattnj on Feb 9, 2008 5:16 PM EST reply actions

this reaction is interesting

the a's were willing to part with haren, a better pitcher than wainwright who's nearly as cheap; and the o's were willing to part with erik bedard, one of the best pitchers in baseball. but there are absolutely no circumstances under which yuo would contemplate trading wainwright --- not even for the package of players the dbacks gave up for haren, nor for the package the m's gave up for bedard??

do you think wainwright is more valuable than either of those pitchers?

by lboros on Feb 9, 2008 9:57 PM EST up reply actions

In a vaccum

I can see how trading Wainwright for prospects might make sense. However, Mattnj's (over)reaction is the way most if not all of the Cardinal LLC's customers would react. Trading the best pitcher on the team, one who is young, cheap, and also a World Series hero would be a terrible move on the pr front. Especially as the Cardinals move in a direction where their goal is supposedly -- as untold to the general public -- player development, ie developing the Adam Wainwrights of the world.

Fame was like a drug, but what was even more like a drug were the drugs

by Alxfritz on Feb 9, 2008 10:09 PM EST up reply actions

you're right of course

but am i the only one who's struck by the huge talent hauls these other pitchers are fetching? if the cards had any chance to reap a comparable haul and they dismissed it out of hand --- wouldn't even consider it --- i think that would be foolish. maybe after due consideration they would decide they're better off standing pat ---- wainwright's a very valuable chip, and they'd have to be sure they're getting a lot of value back.

the new front office is obviously willing to take PR risks --- they dealt edmonds, they let eckstein walk. it'd be a tough sell, but if the right trade came along and it was too good to pass up, i think they'd go for it. it's MR --- managerial relations --- that'd be the tougher sell. tony la russa would not be pleased to lose wainwright.

by lboros on Feb 9, 2008 10:57 PM EST up reply actions

i for one agree,

and as a quasi rational Cards fan i'd be for a trade involving Wagonmaker if, and only if he brought in a huge hall of cant miss, sure fire future stars. MO would not be a very good GM if a team called him up & offered him a package similar to what the rays or the dbacks offers & he told them thanks but no thanks.

honestly, i could see this happening. Wagonmaker has the potential to be a Carp like pitcher. if he'd bring us a ton of talent that will help the Cards win pennants & rings in the future, i'd tell MO to pull the trigger.

I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Feb 10, 2008 2:24 AM EST up reply actions

More out of emotion than logical deliberation...

I'm probably more like one of those Joe "Edmond's Jersey fans". I love Wainwright...and he could be another Steve Carlton for all we know (yes, I know he's right handed :) ) I don't know that he is more valuable (or better) than Bedard or Haren...but we have him...it seems over analyzed to me....but makes for a provacative topic.

mattnj

by mattnj on Feb 10, 2008 1:03 AM EST up reply actions

A question slightly off the subject...

Why is Skip Schumaker considered a frontrunner to Ludwick in R. field?

mattnj

by mattnj on Feb 9, 2008 5:24 PM EST reply actions

probably

because he can hit leadoff and get on base doing it and that is a bigger need than a righthanded rbi-type guy. If Skip puts up an OBP anywhere around 350, he should be the leadoff option unless

Colby comes and takes his spot or
TLR wants to platoon him with Barton in which case Barton or (gulp) Izturis should leadoff

At least he's better than Esteban Yan

by jacksonian on Feb 9, 2008 8:50 PM EST up reply actions

this doesn't make sense

What makes skip a better choice for leadoff than Ludwick? Ludwick is almost as fast, sees a lot of pitches (3.87/PA), and should put up a decent OBP; he was awful for his first 3 weeks in the big leagues last year (.224/.255/.265 in his first 50 PA's!), but after that he put up a perfectly respectable .356 OBP with an .880 OPS- and .383/.908 after July 1st. I'd be very surprised to see his '08 OBP under .360.

Schu isn't going maintain a .368 BABIP, so he won't hit anywhere near .333 next season, and he doesn't take walks (4.3% BB/PA), so his OBP is likely to be in the low .300's. He also sees far fewer pitches/PA than Ludwick (3.38/PA).

In fact, the only thing that makes Schumaker a "better leadoff hitter" than Ludwick is the fact that he doesn't hit for power, which seems like an odd reason to prefer one guy over another who plays the same position. If you had a choice between a 2B and an RF, both with .360 OBP's, and the RF slugged 100 points higher, then of course you'd put the light hitting guy leadoff and the slugger lower. But if you're deciding who to play at a given position, the person who has the most power should get the call.

The only way Skip should ever start over ludwick is if ludwick is hurt or if Ankiel can't handle CF.

by SleepyCA on Feb 9, 2008 9:35 PM EST up reply actions

ok

i agree that lud and skip have negligible differences in their defense and skip's lack of attempted stolen bases makes his speed (at least when he does get on base and in the majors) less enough of an advantage that the speed of the player shouldn't have a huge impact on who gets the nod.

But if your outfield consists of ludwick, ankiel, and duncan, who's your leadoff hitter? Ludwick? Izturis? Kennedy? Miles? Is there one of those guys (or someone else) that you would rather see in the leadoff spot over Skip? If you are willing to put Lud in the leadoff spot or someone with similar obp skills to either what skip put up last year or lud's last year numbers, then i agree, lud, or whoever has the best ability to get on and around the bases, should bat infront of Pujols, Glaus, Ankiel, Duncan and so forth. Both of these guys are not exactly proven major leaguers and are subject to wild unpredictability (much like the rest of the cardinal team). But, because this is such a slim possibiltiy with Tony at the helm, it seems that only the prototypical leadoff hitter, either a middle IF or light hitting OF, will get the opportunity. I'm not saying that that is how it should be, just how it's most likely to be.

ps- thanks for making me think about whether i really believed that Skip was the best option at leadoff or if i was just going on what is traditionally seen in a leadoff hitter.

At least he's better than Esteban Yan

by jacksonian on Feb 9, 2008 11:56 PM EST up reply actions

Considering the leadoff man only leadoffs once...

maybe its time to forgo the traditional leadoff man concept and just go with whomever (non-Pujols) has the best OBP after spring training and mixing and matching every week or so.

(That idea seems right up TLR's alley, actually. Somebody get a "baseball man" to give Tony a call and suggest it.)

Fame was like a drug, but what was even more like a drug were the drugs

by Alxfritz on Feb 10, 2008 12:11 AM EST up reply actions

I actually heard

a TLR interview where he said basically as much. Other than the power guys, he would put the best OBP in the leadoff hole. That may be lip service, and there are sabermetric arguments for putting one of your best hitters there regardless, but that seems close enough for me to not worry about it too much. I'm not really that concerned about the batting order anyway.

by plh903 on Feb 10, 2008 2:24 AM EST up reply actions

2 projected lineups for opening day '08

Probable lineup:

Ludwick/Barton CF
Ankiel RF
Pujols 1B
Glaus 3B
Duncan LF
Molina C
Kennedy 2B
Izturis SS
Pitcher

Hopeful Lineup:

Rasmus CF
Ludwick RF
Pujols 1B
Glaus 3B
Duncan/Ankiel LF
Molina
Hoffpauir/Kennedy 2B
Izturis SS
Pitcher

If Rasmus makes the club out of Spring Training, I'd love to see the team look at dealing Duncan before camp breaks -- I think his value will be high at that point and might bring some decent prospects back in return. I also think it's needed since the club would have an outfield logjam at that point. Ludwick and Ankiel have to stay with the club and so does Barton or we send him back to the Indians. Trading Duncan makes the most since at that point, and Ankiel may be just as good with the bat, better with the glove, but won't fetch as much on the trade market.

I also think that batting Ludwick in the 2 hole makes the most since, especially if Rasmus is leading off. Seeing as he sees a lot of pitches, takes walks, and has good bat control, he would be the prototypical LaRussa hitter in the spot.

"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 Feb 11, 2008 10:18 AM EST up reply actions

Trading a pitcher

If Carpenter comes back and pitches like he did in 2005-2006 (a span in which he pitched over 500 innings total), I'd be more interested in seeing what he could fetch after the season or at the trade deadline in 2009. If healthy he is a dominant starter but for how much longer? When will the next injury happen? And he is signed through 2011 with an option for 2012 for a reasonable dollar amount (if healthy, of course.....not so much if his arm is in a sling and he is watching from the bench or from home). He could potentially propel a team to a WS title (the Yankees sure could have used someone like him last year in the playoffs) and the Cards could fill some of their needs with young talent and free up money. I would hate to see a repeat of last year with him and think the Cards would be wise to get as much for him as they can if he comes back and pitches well. How he pitches when he returns this year and how likely the Cards think they are to contend in 2009 will be critical variables in the decision making process.

by CURVEBALL on Feb 9, 2008 9:02 PM EST reply actions

I agree with Curveball

If any starting pitchers were to be traded I would definately be interested in seeing what a "healthy" Carp or a "healthy" Mulder could fetch at the deadline. I mean, if we are rebuilding let's continue with the discarding of injury prone vets (Edmonds,Rolen)...I wouldn't mind one bit freeing up that cash and re-investing in say a C.C. Sabathia. I can't say in good consious that I ever expect to see a Cy Young caliber Carpenter or Mulder again. Let's move on to a Cy candidate (and winner) in Sabathia. Not to mention the fact that would could pull in some good prospects in the deals. How about an '09 rotation of Sabathia, Wainwright, Pinero, Jaime Garcia, and either another F.A. or maybe even Walters, Pomeranz, Herron, Ottavino, Mortenson (yea, I know that last part is a bit of wishful thinking)

"Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead!" - Wayne Hagin after the cardinals snapped a losing streak

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Feb 9, 2008 10:39 PM EST reply actions

carp and mulder wouldn't fetch as much as adam

because they're not cost-controlled. they are high-salaried players with injury histories ---- teams aren't giving up huge bundles of good cheap talent for players like that. they're giving up huge bundles of talent for cost-controlled players.

by lboros on Feb 9, 2008 10:59 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed that it wouldn't be a haren or bedard

package, but I think that teams in the hunt and in need would still part with a prized prospect or two if either Carp or Mulder were pitching at a respectable 2nd or 3rd starter level. Not that they would trade Carp, but I think it's a little more plausible than trading Adam (also won't happen).

"Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead!" - Wayne Hagin after the cardinals snapped a losing streak

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Feb 9, 2008 11:11 PM EST reply actions