Rasmus, Mather, Parisi, Johnson, and Motte sent to AAA
So the P-D reports. Nearly every one of these moves was forecasted in Leach's stlcardinals.com piece on the roster.
This list is not at all a surprise. Everyone assumed that Rasmus would start the season in Memphis.
Here is what Leach prognosticated:
Colby Rasmus has played extremely well, but Rasmus' playing time has dwindled recently. Additionally, the Cardinals have a well-established unofficial rule that players with options -- or, in Rasmus' case, who are not even on the 40-man roster -- lose all ties.
Leach also predicted that Mather would head down to Memphis in favor of Ryan.
In something of a surprise, the last battle shaped up to be between Ryan and Joe Mather, who emerged as one of the best stories in camp. Mather has opened plenty of eyes and played well, but his furious pace at the plate has slowed lately. With the team preferring four middle infielders rather than three, Mather will probably head to Triple-A Memphis to start the year.
This establishes that Ryan will make the Big Club and be wearing Cardinals-On-Bats come April (rather than mere Redbirds-On-Bats). Since TLR went out of his way to point out that Ryan would not be handed a roster spot, it seems that Ryan earned it. Which he certainly did offensively, posting a .278 BA / .366 OBP / .389 SLG / .765 OPS. It makes one wonder if TLR is comfortable with his OF options, satisfied with Ryan as a substitute 3B, and more worried about Izturis than he lets on in the media.
As for Mather, he put together an impressive Spring with his .289 BA / .386 OBP / .526 SLG / .912 OPS, a line that is reminiscent of Speez's '06 line. He has made "a 'big' impression" and we may yet see him up in St. Louis this season if need dictates.
MEANWHILE, ON THE IZTURIS FRONT...
The Cardinals' Opening Day starting SS went 0-for-2 with another error, giving him two more fielding errors than he has hits this spring and dropping his Spring Training BA to .139 and his OPS to .434. This line is scarily similar to another washed-up, would-be fix 'er up middle infielder that washed out in Spring Training, Junior Spivey.
'06 Spivey: Age 31 / 68 AB / .147 BA / .247 OBP / .176 SLG / .423 OPS
'08 Izturis: Age 28 / 36 AB / .139 BA / .184 OBP / .250 SLG / .434 OPS
The offensive statistics lines are scary and make one wonder why on earth TLR was quick to accept that Spivey was washed up yet in no way appears ready to cut bait on Izturis.
At least Ryan will be in St. Louis on Opening Day.
0 recs |
91
comments
Comments
no real suprises
Nothing surprises me with those moves. It seems like they are setting up their spring roster to more accurately reflect the projected big league roster so they can get more time for the regulars without hurting the prospects.
by StLHugo on Mar 17, 2008 6:16 PM EDT 0 recs
Ryan
I'd guess Izturis' spot is safe for now b/c Tony doesn't like his other options. Ryan is definitely a better fit for the org by any accounting, but Tony doesn't trust the guy to start every day. Miles, well, he's a back-up. I can't imagine Izturis will get more than a month-long grace period to improve on this type of performance, though. Something will have to give.
by apierce on Mar 17, 2008 6:19 PM EDT 0 recs
if TLR
is not more worried about Izturis than he lets the media know, then I am worried about TLR.
There's got to be a part of him that sees that sub.200 avg. and multiple errors as a sign of bad things to come. If not, something is seriously wrong. But this is okay, we'll give him another month or so to prove himself, and if he still can't get it above the mendoza line, then Ryan is right there waiting for his turn!
On with the (good) youth movement!
by aet15 on Mar 17, 2008 6:32 PM EDT 0 recs
I can honestly say I feel good about these choices...
No need to rush these guys they will be up soon enough. Also this gives us nice depth and protection against injuries. Not to mention this could set us up for a mid to late season trade if we are in the mix or if we are out of the mix.
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Mar 17, 2008 6:35 PM EDT 0 recs
mixed reaction
one out of three, for me, I guess. Happy to see that Ryan will make the club. But I was hoping against the odds that we'd do something impressive and radical and go ahead and install Rasmus in CF.
I was against the Izturis signing a month ago...even more frustrated by it now.
by the Tewk on Mar 17, 2008 6:36 PM EDT 0 recs
My hope for radical and impressive
...was DFAing either Miles or Izturis. There is no need for both.
I'm not surprised and am okay with sending Rasmus to AAA for part of the season, especially with Ankiel, Ludwick, and Barton looking good. If Dunc the Younger gets healthy, we'll be okay for the OF this season.
by bgh on
Mar 18, 2008 10:04 AM EDT
up
0 recs
izturis
my buddy whose a cubs fan sent me a mocking text message when he found out we picked up izturis. at the time, i thought it was a shrewd move by the org to shore up the ss position, but if he continues on this pace, i think my buddy may prove right with his mocking tone. And yes, thats what i get for having a friend who is a cubs fan.
"You cannot fully understand the relations of choice and time until you are beyond both."
-cs lewis
by Crentist on Mar 17, 2008 6:45 PM EDT 0 recs
Fair enough
but the Cubs will still be paying Marquis a lot more for a year longer. You can remind your friend about his own glass house.
by bkwelker on
Mar 17, 2008 8:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Ah, yes
I was overjoyed when they signed Marquis and my Cubbie fan friends have responded in kind with joyous emails about our taking on the black hole that is Izturis.
by bgh on
Mar 18, 2008 10:05 AM EDT
up
0 recs
ha
my cubs fan friend said "ha the cardinals pick up another ex-cub... embarrassing." to which i responded, "Lou Brock." game over
by bigmcq16 on
Mar 19, 2008 2:48 AM EDT
up
0 recs
as predicted
I'm glad Ryan makes the club. I too don't understand the longer leash with Izturis vs Spivey. Hopefully Ryan will get the job sometime after the first month or so.
The last bullpen job is still up in the air. Not sure who I like for it, but I'm thinking McClellan, while Perez closes for Memphis.
by mikeonthecards on Mar 17, 2008 6:48 PM EDT 0 recs
I expect there will be
a slow gradual move from Izturis to Ryan probably completed about the 1st week in May.
by ridgesee on
Mar 17, 2008 10:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
the only thing i could think of ......
.. is the age difference. The right and wrong side of 30?
"Textbooks are Soviet propaganda" - Rev. Jerry Falwell
by elirock83 on
Mar 18, 2008 9:28 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Congradulations to Brendan Ryan for making the club ...
I'm really turning into a fan for this kid ... he's hungry, he's a scrapper, and he makes things happen ... he's truly fun to watch ... I think he just needs a little experience to settle down a bit, which could be said of any young player ... it's just too bad the 'competition' wasn't with ICKturis where it belongs ... (sigh) ... but that's the financial realities of baseball ... I just can't wait til ICKz is gone, and I hope it's sooner rather than later ...
Culture of Winning: 10 World Championships, 17 Pennants, 6 Division Championships ...
by Cardinals4Ever on
Mar 18, 2008 11:18 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Mather
He's not a defensive standout but he's a servicable fielder at the corner positions (3B being the weakest option). Perhaps the most desirable quality he possesses at this point is power from the right hand side. There is no bench player that offers significant right-handed power and can play the infield outside of Mather.
We find that Brendan Ryan, Cesar Izturis, Aaron Miles and Adam Kennedy all remain. Apparently, four light-hitting middle infielders are going to be critical to our success this season. Let's set aside Kennedy who still has two contract years -- I can understand the Cardinals wanting to recoup something from that investment even if he wasn't the best option (although his bat seems to have come back from the dead to the semi-living). It's apparent that the team thinks Aaron Miles can play shortstop -- even though that's a fallacy -- so my question is why the team feels the necessity of having not one but two SS backups on the team? Not one of the three players are an attractive backup at third given the lack of power.
From Birdland linked above:
"You can tell by the number of at-bats they got the kind of impression they made," manager Tony La Russa said of Rasmus and Mather [...] "You don’t get at-bats like that if you’re not impressing someone."
So after impressing and playing better than his competition, Mather is shipped off. Actions speak louder than words and Mather's reassignment says to me that TLR still isn't ready to take the best players regardless of age/experience.
If there's an argument to be made against Mather, it's his line from Memphis last season. In 288 ABs he hit .241/.329/.443. While his peripherals are in line, meaning he wasn't particularly lucky or unlucky, he maintained a nice ISO of .202 by hitting 13 HRs during Memphis. Looking over the last 3 years of his statistics, only in Springfield was he truly above average as an offensive player. I'd contend that he's an equally good offensive projection, however, as Ryan, Izturis and/or Miles while having a different offensive skillset -- one that isn't well represented on the team. Despite that, he's cut before other players who are, at best, stop-gaps. So much for the spring "competition".
by azruavatar on Mar 17, 2008 7:00 PM EDT 0 recs
very well reasoned
I console myself in believing that the fearsome foursome in the middle infield (AK, Itz, Ryan, and the much maligned Aaron Miles) will NOT be in tact come June 1, or so.
And I sincerely hope that it's the first two who are gone.
by the Tewk on
Mar 17, 2008 7:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I see it perhaps slightly differently
Ryan can do something Mather can't -- play in place of Izturis, who pretty clearly is going to be the weakest link of the so-called regulars. So if the choice is Ryan vs. Mather, I think I'll take Ryan. If the choice is Mather vs. Miles or Izturis, that's a very different question, but (alas) that wasn't really on the table.
by DCGreg on
Mar 17, 2008 8:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
And that's the problem
the Cardinals create these artificial contests. Why is the choice between Ryan and Mather? Let's assume that Glaus, Pujols and Kennedy have all locked up starting positions. That leaves 1 staring position (SS) and two infield bench spots one of which has to be a backup SS. Those three positions are available for the best of Izturis, Miles, Ryan and Mather.
But instead of that we are subjected to these false competitions where the best players are sent back to the minors. It's a farce.
by azruavatar on
Mar 17, 2008 10:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree
if there was a competition, it should have been between Ryan and Miles. Ryan's not going to play OF or take an AB w/ 2 outs and 1 on, down 2 in the 9th. It's absurd to have 4 middle infielders on a team carrying 12 pitchers.
by houstoncardinal on
Mar 17, 2008 10:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Just another reason
That TLR is not the right manager for this team anymore.
I knew when he was brought back I would experience frustration this season. He's delivering as expected.
by arch support on
Mar 18, 2008 10:08 AM EDT
up
0 recs
azruavatar
One problem is the Cardinals quite possibly have the worst middle infield in baseball. My god all the guys have zero pop in their bat. I guess we have the all "hustle, intangible, grinder" middle infield which is a nice way of saying they suck.
I think Tony will put up with Izturis for a few weeks to start the season to see if he can do anything when it counts. I don't count on him contributing, and I think TLR may have to play him based on front office pressure. They will give him the first shot since he is making more $$$, that's just how it goes.
Mather would get a shot if STL had any faith in Izturis and Kennedy getting the job done. See Tony wants Miles to back up Kennedy, because you know Tony thinks he may be done. If he has been hitting like I saw him hit Sunday he aint any better. He rolled over on a pitch and got lucky it made it through the infield. There was zero mustard on that hit. By some peoples account who have been at ST, Kennedy may be heating up but it's all LUCK! He is not driving the ball by any means. Also TLR probably knows Izturis will not be good either, so he needs Ryan to play SS. I think Tony has an idea but he seems to be kind of crazy lately and should not really talk to the media because he says odd stuff. I can't believe he really believes in Izturis.
So if the Cardinals has a good starting MI then Mather would make the team, but they don't so he is the odd man out.
by ICbirdfan on
Mar 17, 2008 9:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Ryan over Mather would
be a no brainer even if Izturis wasn't decompensating in the Florida heat. If we are in need of anything right now it is someone who can play shortstop at least at a major league average level. It was determined long ago that Mather cannot therefore he is not competing against Ryan he is competing against Barton and Schumaker. Since he has options, has a brief sample of offensive success, and needs at bats this is not a difficult decision. It's also the best decision for him. If he belongs in the majors he will prove it at Memphis.
by easy on
Mar 18, 2008 8:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Okay
now the biggest question mark is who leads off? Any ideas? Shumaker against righties? (blank) against lefties?
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
by OKCardsfan on Mar 17, 2008 7:00 PM EDT 0 recs
Barton
would be my guess.
/me knocks on wood that he makes the team
by FunkeeC on
Mar 17, 2008 7:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
oh, please be right!
A walk is a waste of three pitches-Bob Gibson
by orlando card on
Mar 17, 2008 7:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I vote
Skip. He's been in the leadoff spot against lefties and righties this spring, and has the most experience in that role.
by mikeonthecards on
Mar 18, 2008 12:38 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I also vote for Skip ...
He has far more experience batting lead-off, and he's pretty damn good at too ... plus, I like the 2B pop Barton has in his bat to move Skip around the bases ... and, both have speed ... they're a good 1-2 lead-off combo ... I'm looking forward to watching it.
Culture of Winning: 10 World Championships, 17 Pennants, 6 Division Championships ...
by Cardinals4Ever on
Mar 18, 2008 11:00 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I'd buy an extra ticket this year
To see Barton play
I''m a Jenius!
by gibbons on
Mar 17, 2008 8:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'd like to see one of these in the one hole
Ludwick, Barton, Skippy
They are the only real choices who provide any level of OBP skills. The blend of middle infielders is a completely useless crew in terms of offensive ability, and yet I'd bet someone from that group will get a significant number of AB's in the leadoff spot.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Mar 18, 2008 12:56 AM EDT
up
0 recs
leadoff
I would say Skip leads off based upon his more recent hold on the slot this spring. Barton and Duncan platoon in LF and the 2 hole. Although I prefer Hobbs hitting 2nd, TLR found some stat indicating Glaus is a better hitter from the 5 hole than 4. Thus, Ankiel will go to the 4 I think.
Skip
Duncan / Barton
Pujols
Ankiel
Glaus
Molina
** We desperately need Molina to step up his hitting this year to give Glaus some sort of protection. Does this lineup ever scream out for one more bat!
by jjray on Mar 17, 2008 7:33 PM EDT 0 recs
might as well finish it
remember that the last three are:
izturis
p
kennedy
i hate to be so glum so early, but this team has a chance to be really, really bad. i'm hoping for, like, "mediocre and fun to watch" - i think that's the best-case scenario - but man, any hopes of that require a lot of optimism about those 2, 4, and 5 spots.
e'rebuilding mang
by nycbirdo on
Mar 19, 2008 2:26 AM EDT
up
0 recs
this stinks
Will he get a midseason call-up? This ruins my fantasy draft picks!
Redbirds Fun
2006 WS for JB and DK57 RIP: Josh Hancock
by cardsfan84 on Mar 17, 2008 7:40 PM EDT 0 recs
Izturis vs Spivey...
Spivey was "only" signed to a 1.2 million contract. Izturis was signed to a $2.85 million (plus incentives) deal.
That's why it was possible to cut ties with Spivey. Izutris is a little harder to write off.
(I like Mo for the most part, but giving that much money to Izturis was just downright bizzare, given how unproductive he has been the last two years and that no one else wanted him)
by DiscoJer on Mar 17, 2008 8:16 PM EDT 0 recs
I never understood
Why they gave up on Eckstein and preferred to take a gamble with Izturis for about the same money. Same with Belliard and Kennedy.
I''m a Jenius!
by gibbons on
Mar 17, 2008 8:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
only partly agree
I am with you that Eck and Belly would be better than what we have NOW. But there were good reasons to try to improve on both. We just didn't.
by the Tewk on
Mar 17, 2008 8:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I understand where you are coming from
But I think the point is: why give up on Eck or Belliard if you don't have a decent back-up plan (especially when both Eck and Belliard could have been had for cheap). I know when the Cards signed Izturis Eck's demands were still high, but there was absolutely no need to rush to sign Izturis at that point, especially when you had Brendan Ryan waiting in the wings.
by pete0713 on
Mar 17, 2008 10:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'd still rather over pay for Eckstein
and get some sort of production than over pay for Izturis and get nothing. I still think the best option was Brendan Ryan, but it doesn't look like Tony is going to let that happen. and with 2.85 million invested in him, it's hard to keep him on your bench...
I''m a Jenius!
by gibbons on
Mar 17, 2008 10:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
He actually had no demands
Apparently talks never even went down in general. Eck was open to hearing any sort of offer and we never gave him one.
On with the (good) youth movement!
by aet15 on
Mar 17, 2008 10:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
disappointing to hear
that we didn't even give our World Series MVP a call and decided to invest in a declining one year wonder.
I''m a Jenius!
by gibbons on
Mar 17, 2008 10:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
no kidding
extremely disappointing. He would've been a world better than Izturis. Not to mention a good mentor for Ryan.
On with the (good) youth movement!
by aet15 on
Mar 17, 2008 10:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Letting Eckstein go was a good Idea
he sucks, plain and simple. His defense is appaling and if he is at the tip top of his game he's only going to OPS .730. It's likely he won't hit .300 again, if his average dips into the .280s-.270s you're talking about a sub .700 OPS guy, who is terrible defensively, and is injury prone.
Eckstein is not a good everyday SS, and his defensive woes are going to be amplified playing on the turf in Toronto.
It was a good idea to bring in a good glove to play SS.
It was a ***horrible*** idea to choose Izturis as that player.
"You know, as that was coming out of my mouth, I knew that it was wrong."
by JI on
Mar 18, 2008 10:45 PM EDT
up
0 recs
as far as Eckstein "sucking"
I'd agree on most aspects of his game, but I still struggle to find any facet of the game that Izturis is better at though.
I''m a Jenius!
by gibbons on
Mar 19, 2008 1:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
defense (allegedly)
The point isn't that this is an Ecksten v. Izturis thing, it's not-- there were more than two possible choices.
The point is that Eckstein is much much worse than people generally believe he is and it was the right move to let him go. At the same time, replacing him with Izturis was a horrible idea: there were other free agents who could have gotten the job done (Everett) at a less cost with much more production, or there were in house options (Ryan) that, at worst, could have sucked just as badly for the league minimum.
"You know, as that was coming out of my mouth, I knew that it was wrong."
by JI on
Mar 19, 2008 6:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
completely agreed
I think Ryan was the best option and still is. I just don't see how they can let all 2.85 million of Izturis sit on the bench, especially with Tony calling the shots.
I''m a Jenius!
by gibbons on
Mar 20, 2008 5:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Supposedly
Based on interviews I saw on KSDK w/ both Mo and Eck it seemed like some sort of sick version of that old telephone game. Somewhere, someone dropped the ball. Mo claimed he made an offer to Eck's agent to sit down, and yet said sit down never occured. Plus, Eck was offered a reasonable cash heap by WJ, but turned it down. It was kind of a sad end for a guy who was a serviceable player here. I would have rather seen him back in the BOB for a small overpay then watch Izturis flounder and cross my fingers that Ryan/Miles could get it done.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Mar 18, 2008 12:59 AM EDT
up
0 recs
my further thought(s)
I am with you in renouncing the Iztturis move. I feel like Barack. I was against it in the first place and I am still against it now.
But I believe the situation with Davey was -- high demands or not; the debate about offering him arbitration, etc -- were all moot. The decision was based on the final conviction that Eck's arm and lack of range at SS just wasn't good enough anymore. I say that as someone VERY fond of David Eckstein, and as someone who defended him until even I had to admit that his defense WAS a key liability.
Moreover (tho it doesn't please me to say it) I predict that Toronto will discover the same thing and DE will not log the most innings at SS for the Blue Jays this year.
I hear you loud and clear re the "don't quit a job until you have another one to go to" logic... and I do think that Mo, or whoever, panicked unnecessarily when they signed Izt. I cannot defend the second part, but I do think, heavy-heartedly, that the decision to let Eck go was the right one.
by the Tewk on
Mar 17, 2008 10:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think we agree in most respects
The only difference is that in your view Eck needed to go (which was a good decision), but Izturis shouldn't have been signed (a separate, bad decision). I was looking at the situation going into the offseason and the situation we are in heading into next year and lamenting the fact that Eck shouldn't have been let go without a suitable replacement (looking at both transactions together).
Either way, I think we both can agree it's unfortunate that Mo wasn't able to come up with a better plan than Izturis to replace Eck. I agree with you about Eck being done defensively but so far it looks like Izturis could potentially be as bad or worse with the glove and definitely is a huge step back with the bat.
Free Brendan Ryan!
by pete0713 on
Mar 17, 2008 11:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree with pete0713
However much Eckstein might have been a defensive liability, Izturis is that ten fold so far. If you insist on acquiring a bad defensive SS, get Eckstein so you atleast have a proven lead-off man.
I''m a Jenius!
by gibbons on
Mar 18, 2008 11:28 AM EDT
up
0 recs
who cares if he's a "proven" leadoff man
if his future performance doesn't project well. Kennedy was a proven everyday starter until he fell apart -- track records are only as useful as the projection they make. Eckstein's skillset was/is deteriorating and it wasn't a rosy projection going forward.
The Cardinals were justified in cutting ties (even though it wouldn't have been my choice) and I think everyone is glorifying Eck's contributions a bit.
by azruavatar on
Mar 18, 2008 11:32 AM EDT
up
0 recs
it's not so much what eckstein gave
It's what Eckstein offers as opposed to Izturis' performance. I feel Eckstein's positives outweigh his negatives while Izturis' only positive seems to be that he's younger.
I''m a Jenius!
by gibbons on
Mar 18, 2008 11:36 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I have no problem with them not signing Eckstein.
I just didn't care much for the way they did it. Would it have killed Mr. Mozeliak to pick up the phone and thank Eck for his service, but tell him we are going in a different direction? He was a fan favorite and he was a valuable member of the team. I just think his leaving could have been handled better by the management. I think David deserved better.......
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on
Mar 19, 2008 8:21 AM EDT
up
2 recs
the belly..
I think at the time you would have had a hard time finding alot of people who thought belly was better than ak, at the time of the signing
"Textbooks are Soviet propaganda" - Rev. Jerry Falwell
by elirock83 on
Mar 18, 2008 9:37 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I did. I don't think I posted about it because I wasn't posting over here.
It's been common knowledge for anyone who has followed baseball that AK could not hit lefthanders. Add to that the Angels do not let a player go that has something left. They have a full assortment of players they won't let go through their entire system. It's almost as bad to be an Angel farmhand as it is to be a non pitching Yankee farmhand. They are blocked up and down the system.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on
Mar 18, 2008 2:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Belliard Better Than AK
When you compare Belliard and Kennedy, I think the unavoidable conclusion is that ditching Belliard for Kennedy was a bad transaction. Here are the relevant numbers:
Peak Years
......................................AVG OBP SLG OPS
The Belly Peak (05) .284 .325 .450 .775
Kennedy Peak (02) .312 .345 .449 .794
2006’s
....................AVG OBP SLG OPS
The Belly .272 .322 .403 .725
Kennedy .273 .334 .384 .718
2007
....................AVG OBP SLG OPA
The Belly .290 .332 .427 .759
Kennedy .219 .282 .290 .572
When looking at these, it is not so much that Belliard is the clearly superior player. Until 2007, the two were pretty closely matched, although between them, Belliard has a smidge more pop.
But here's where I think the Cardinals erred in their analysis. Although the two are comparable, Belliard had been better more recently than Kennedy. This is not an intuitive conclusion, however, because Belliard is a year older. Between the two of them, I think the ultimate conclusion will be that they are comparable players, but that Belliard will have a longer period of productivity than Kennedy.
Also, there's the matter of defense. I don't have defensive statistics for you, but I was watching the 2006 NLCS recently, and I was struck once again at how many dynamite plays Belliard made. Despite his girth, the dude is athletic and has a plus arm.
Lastly, when you compare the money, you have to wonder what the Cardinals were thinking:
Belly $3.5M/2yr
Kennedy $10M/3 yr.
So, while I hope Kennedy proves me wrong, I'd definitely take the bet on Belliard outperforming Kennedy this year, and I don't think it will be close.
Here's their performance so far:
2008 Spring
.................. AVG OBP SLG OPS
The Belly .471 .514 .735 1.249
Kennedy .351 .368 .405 .773
by Titus Pullo on
Mar 18, 2008 10:28 AM EDT
up
1 recs
Extortion
I think the Extortion case in East St Louis played at least some part in not bringing Belliard back.
by StLHugo on
Mar 18, 2008 11:32 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Unlikely
Since the Cards signed Kennedy in November 2006, and the extortion didn't occur until January 2007.
by Titus Pullo on
Mar 18, 2008 4:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Belly just hit a homerun against Detroit......
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on
Mar 18, 2008 2:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
you're right about the difference in the contracts
But, it is a nice comparison, nonetheless. Very apt.
by houstoncardinal on
Mar 17, 2008 11:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
stuck again in the same web
It's way too bad for me that Adam (cough) Kennedy is my star witness, because it makes my opinion illogical.
That attackable illogic being that just as it was the right move to part ways with Eck after '07, it was the right move to seek better than Bellyache after '06.
My personal choice was Orlando Hudson (yeah, keep dreamin') or even bring back the Grudz. The thing that irritated me about Belly was he was undisciplined at the plate. On defense (to my old school eyes) he was too flashy, tho' I definitely concede that he turned in some very nice defensive plays.
Clearly the pro-Belly arguments above win the day: he would have been and would be now better than we had in '07 or have at the ready in '08. Especially given the organization's recent cheap cheap cheap attitude about second basemen.
As it stands now I wish we would either a) open the purse and go get a Hudson or a Phillips, or b) give it to a promising rookie and let him work out the kinks
by the Tewk on
Mar 18, 2008 11:40 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Belliard too flashy?
Well now we can't have that. It might actually induce a smile on the field........
Actually, I think some of Belliard's trouble at the plate was the normal adjustment to a new league. He bounced back nicely with the bat with the Nationals.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on
Mar 19, 2008 7:37 AM EDT
up
0 recs
In the next few days
we will be able to have this same conversation about Kelvin Jimenez when he beats out better pitchers like Castellanos and McClellan. Apparently we didn't learn our lesson during the 42 innings he pitched last season.
by azruavatar on Mar 17, 2008 10:57 PM EDT 0 recs
It does seem, though
that w/ Motte being sent down, Chris Perez truly has an opportunity to begin the year w/ the team. I hope this isn't another Chad Hutchinson or Jimmy Journell situation -- where Tony's afraid to put him in a game. If he's up w/ the team, he needs to pitch. God knows our starting pitchers will give our relievers plenty of opportunities.
by houstoncardinal on Mar 17, 2008 11:00 PM EDT 0 recs
I like Perez
but I don't think he's ready. I've watched him a few times so far this spring. Don't get me wrong, I think he'll be good, just not yet. On the other hand, we know what Jimenez is all about, and it's not good. I see the last spot going to McClellan.
by mikeonthecards on
Mar 18, 2008 12:36 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Waino
When Waino was on the team Tony wasn't afraid to use him, nor Kinney, even when it really mattered. I don't see Perez being held out of games but I do see him being used for middle relief for awhile. They are already having him go 2 innings occasionally.
by StLHugo on
Mar 18, 2008 8:04 AM EDT
up
0 recs
lack of a choice
wainer was only one who could be a closer. It was pretty clear that TLR lost faith in looper being able to close. Kinney was the same deal no faith in him to close why would you then let him set up?
"Textbooks are Soviet propaganda" - Rev. Jerry Falwell
by elirock83 on
Mar 18, 2008 9:43 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Besides
Tony's unfettered use of Kinney, Wainwright, and Johnson out of the pen was limited to the last few weeks of 2006 and the following post-season. And, it was duly noted by lboros and others to be an exception to Tony's m.o.
Point is, Tony's use of Perez, if he makes the team, is a legitimate concern, imo. I hope that Perez's status as one of the top prospects of the team merits him some careful usage considerations.
by arch support on
Mar 18, 2008 10:16 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm torn in the situation
I can't really put my finger on whats best for a young closer: pitching in the 6-7th innings in the majors or actually closing out games against lesser players in AAA.
I''m a Jenius!

