Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: GoldenBlogs Interview With Gary Tyrrell Bar-right-arrows



Roster Management

Once you have established any modicum of success in the majors, it can follow you around for years and years to come. Horacio Ramirez was signed by the Royals yesterday despite the fact that he's a well below replacement level pitcher. He had a couple of seasons with the Braves where he was a servicable pitcher but that ended in 2006. He was finally let go by the Mariners during Spring Training this year and now the Royals have picked him up. I don't know the Royals pitching situation but unless they are sending Ramirez to AA (with no expectation of calling him up) than they might as well light their money on fire. If they plan on calling him up, they might as well light their money on fire and shoot themselves in the foot while watching it burn -- it might hurt less than actually letting him pitch in the bigs.

I'm constantly amazed by teams that do this. Notice to any MLB team that needs a starter right now -- take a look at Jack Cassel. I should be this guy's agent at this point as often as I go out of my way to write about him. The Astros optioned him down to the minors since they think that he's not one of their best 12 pitchers -- they're probably wrong about that but I don't care to belabor the point. Cassel has made four starts since then including last night when he went 8 innings allowing 9 hits, 2ER, 5Ks and 1 walk. More importantly, he had 12 groundouts against 6 flyouts. Cassel has always had ridiculously high GO:AO ratios -- he's pushing 3:1 right now. The Astros would probably take some PTBNL for him and yet teams will sign guys like Ramirez over Cassel. Because they were in the majors previously. Stupid. Just stupid.

How does this relate to the Cardinals? Well, I'm not expecting them to try and acquire Cassel (they missed that when they let the Astros sign him for peanuts during the offseason). Instead, I want to give the Cardinals some credit and some criticism for the roster management this season.

The Cardinals recongized, relatively quickly, that Isringhausen was having problems this season. Instead of letting it drag on for months and months (see 2006), they put him on the DL with a -- sort of -- fake injury. The hand laceration isn't really the reason he's on the DL. He's on the DL because he's pitching like crap and no one is sure why. Until he gets some things straightened out, he won't be off the DL. The Cardinals deserve a lot of praise for calling up Chris Perez as rapidly as they did and for inserting Kyle McClellan into the bullpen at the beginning of the year and Mike Parisi a month later. We've watched them languish over these decisions extensively at times and they certainly could have kept someone like Cliff Politte or Kelvin Jimenez on the roster. Instead, they went with the more talented hurler and it's served them well thus far.

The depth in the minors certainly has something to do with this trend and hopefully it gives the Cardinals some confidence that if Ron Villone or Russ Springer continue to struggle, they can just pull the plug. There's still a handful of pitchers at AAA who could be major league relievers right now if called upon -- Mark Worrell and Jason Motte from the right side and Jaime Garcia from the left. That really applies to the pitching in general -- the starters like Pineiro and Lohse should realize that guys like Jaime Garcia or Mitchell Boggs aren't all that far behind. But, on balance this year, the front office deserves a lot of credit for managing their pitching corp. They stockpiled both depth and talent and it's let them weather injuries to Tyler Johnson, Brad Thompson, Mark Mulder, Russ Springer, Jason Isringhausen and Matt Clement that in past years could have undone the team.

If only I could say the same for the middle infield. A month ago, I cited my worries about the middle infield. Disregarding that not a single one of our 4 options (Ryan, Miles, Izturis and Kennedy) are hitting for power, at least they are maintaining respectable OBPs. Except for Kennedy that is. On the 25th of April, he was hitting .315/.367/.333 in 54 PAs. Since then, he's hit .203/.261/.266 bringing his overall line to .254/.310/.297. If we look at his numbers as a Cardinal during 2007 and 2008 (about 400 ABs), we can see that he's been hitting .229/.290/.292. Even if he's a good defender, he'd have to be Adam Everett good (i.e save like 40 runs a year with the glove) to be worth having around. But he's not that good defensively. Outside of the month of April in 2008, Adam Kennedy has shown that he simply can no longer hit the ball.

La Russa has taken the right first step in giving some of his at bats to Ryan and Miles at 2B but it's time to just cut bait. I know we still owe him around 5M dollars but we can owe him 5M dollars and let him post a sub-.600 OPS or we can call up someone like Joe Mather (who hit another HR tonight), pay him league minimum, and get some actual production. 5M dollars for crap of 5.4M dollars for not crap -- the team has taken the uncomfortable but necessary step when working with the bullpen and now it's time to apply the same rules to the middle infield. Don't hang on to a player for nostalgia or because you owe them money. If they aren't helping the team on the field, they don't belong on the team.

- - - - - - - - - -

It looks like the Cardinals may face Clayton Kershaw on Saturday. I hate these stupid West Coast games because they're so bloody late but I'll be staying up for that one. As a 20 year old in AA, Kershaw has been ridiculously good posting a 3:1 K rate and groundball tendencies. He's not someone that I'd relish the Cardinals facing but it should be interesting.

Tonight the Cardinals are going up against Derek Lowe. After being signed to a 36M/4Y contract in 2005, Lowe has been extremely durable and effective for the Dodgers the last three years. He's gotten somewhat overlooked given how good his numbers have been. He'll face off against Adam Wainwright who looks to right the ship after the last few outings. Wainwright claims that he hasn't been as focused lately between starts. Hopefully, he can be more like the pitcher he was in April than the one he's been in May.

0 recs | Comment 200 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Mather’s had a good 130 PA’s after a pretty underwhelming 290 PA’s a year ago at Memphis. Yeah, I know, he had a good half season at Springfield, but he had it at the age of 24 and it followed a pretty underwhelming career to that point. He really doesn’t present an overwhelming case to be brought up ASAP and even if you dump Barton, Mather’s not going to get much playing time anyway.

It’s tough to find good middle infielders. The Cubs, for example, have been chasing after crap for years now and they’re giving playing time to Ryan Theriot and had to give a big pile of money to a utility man in Mark DeRosa. Certainly it’s pointless to do what the Cardinals are doing, since their mad scientist manager can’t somehow amalgamate the four players’ extra-base hits into one or two players. But what I take away from the middle infield mediocrity is that Pete Kozma’s value probably was underrated a year ago.

by greenback06 on May 23, 2008 8:23 AM EDT   0 recs

Huh?

Theriot—.324/.398/.405 with 9 SB’s and 21/17 BB/K ratio.

Derosa—.305/.403/.444 after hitting .293/.371/.420 in 2007

Those are hardly “utility” man numbers for a middle infield - I’d venture to say that they’re in the top five infields in terms of production in all of baseball, and that includes teams who are paying a lot more for league-averageness at this point. (Look at the pile of money they Yanks are spending and the production they’re getting for their buck - Jeter is headed to the “all-overpaid” list, where he should have been for a long time.)

a big pile of money to a utility man in Mark DeRosa.

$4.750 million is a “big pile”? Combined, these two are making $5,178,000 this year…when we compare that to, say, the Cardinal middle infield of Izturis and Kennedy who are making $5,350,000 combined, and that’s before all of Izturis’ incentives kick in, which would push that number over $6 million this year.

I’d take the Cubs production for their dollar over what the Cardinals are getting for theirs any day.

"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 May 23, 2008 11:49 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Is it worth it

to try to get Cedeno from the Cubs somehow? Theriot is entrenched at SS. they’ve got Derosa.

Cedeno seems to have swung back to “hey, this guy is a great prospect”. He’s hitting well this year.

Probably wouldn’t work, of course.

by sdrone on May 23, 2008 12:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Absolutely

Although there’s no chance that they’d trade him inside the division. If I were an American League team who’s struggling at the SS position (just about every one of them), I’d be looking to pry him from the Cubs though.

I think that he just needs to play everyday, but he’s another guy that seems to have somehow gotten into Lou’s doghouse and just isn’t going to get a shot.

"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 May 23, 2008 2:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I would love to take a look at Ronny Cedeno....there is absolutely no reason not to deal within the division.

I do not understand that. If Cedeno’s who you want, you try to go get him. I think he’s got some untapped talent…..

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on May 23, 2008 5:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes Ronny is not a bad option..

Although it comes down to if Chicago wants to deal with the division. The ball would not be in the Cards court.

by ICbirdfan on May 23, 2008 5:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'd think the difficulty lies in that

you have to be sure that you “win” the trade, rather than just “improving your team”. It’s more critical than when dealing with a non-rival, and of course, your rival GM also has to be sure he “wins” the trade, too, making it tough to reach an agreement.

Mo could trade Glaus for Rolen with the knowledge that if Rolen returned to all-star level, he’d be doing it in the AL, so there’d be a low probability of direct consequences. If Mo traded Rolen to MIL, as was rumored, he’d have to face the direct consequences of that for years to come.

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on May 23, 2008 5:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

So what? Why should you care about that? If you're concerned a player might be good enough

to come back and haunt you, maybe you shouldn’t be dealing that player. What if you trade a player to another league, and they turn right around and trade him to one of your division rivals 2 weeks later? Then you don’t get a shot at a player you wanted, and you still have to face that player. I understand it’s risky, but BOTH teams are taking a risk. To me, it’s not about “winning” the trade-it’s about getting the exact player you NEED. If I were GM, I would not hesitate to deal within the division if they had the right player for my team.

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on May 23, 2008 5:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Trading within the division

isn’t about simply getting “the exact player you NEED.” You also have to consider how the player you are trading away helps your division rival. For example, if the division rival is one key player away from winning the division, and your team is 3 key players away, you wouldn’t want to trade for that great middle infielder even though he’s “the exact player you NEED” because you are ensuring that you’ll lose the division. I think that’s what Sleepy’s referring to when he says you have to be sure you win the trade: how much better does your team get compared to how much better your rival gets. Obviously if a team is in a “win now” mode and the trading partner is floundering, they might not care who wins in the long run as long as they get the immediate boost, but they still have to consider the relative value to both sides.

by Ray Lankford on May 23, 2008 6:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

assuming Cedeno was "the right player"

If I were GM, I would not hesitate to deal within the division if they had the right player for my team.

Who would YOU trade for Ronny Cedeno?

Let’s assume adding cedeno would make our team 2.5 wins better from ‘08-12 than playing Ryan. Would you trade a guy like mather, who we don’t really “need”, but who might make the cubs 4-5 wins better per year?

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on May 23, 2008 6:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually I would make that deal.

I doubt the Cubs are ready to set Cedeno loose just yet. And the Cardinals probably aren’t ready to part with Mather just yet. There are not a whole lot of good, young middle infielders to be had in baseball right now, so yes, I would make that trade.

You do know it’s all just talk. I can’t trade anyone, and it’s against baseball’s unwritten rules-you don’t trade in your division. I just happen to think there are times it should be considered. That’s all.

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on May 23, 2008 7:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It's become pretty clear to me

That the biggest problem with this team is filling the hitting gaps. Miles and Ryan usually do their part to justify their existence in the line up. La Rue and Kennedy have not. Izturis was useless for the first month but has since caught on fire. (If hitting 2 singles a game is catching on fire)

I think that the team as a whole has not been hot is a sign of good things to come. My biggest worry though is La Russa’s habit of changing the line up, every single day, no matter what. I get playing the numbers and odds and histories but maybe put the best 9 out there and hope for the best?

by riotmute on May 23, 2008 8:50 AM EDT   0 recs

Lineup tinkery

While not striking the ball well at all (BA .212) and not hitting for power whatsoever (SLG .273), to say that Izturis was worthless in April is inaccurate. He did manage a .350 OBP from the #9 hole, which is Eckstein-esque. I sound like CarsWin. I was pretty excited by his .350 OBP even if I thought it was completely unsustainable. In May, he’s been very productive: .345 / .400 / .418

(God bless Dave Pinto and the Day-by-Database.)

TLR has always tinkered with the lineup. It’s his way. Last year, he led the majors in different lineups, something that he has done multiple times in his career. He switched the lineup around just as much in 2005, when we had 105 wins.

by bgh on May 23, 2008 9:14 AM EDT to parent up   1 recs

Keep on tinkering

I agree with bgh. I think the tinkering is helping in many ways: to find playing time for all our outfielders and to match lefty/righty, to restart hitters at #2 slot (see C. Dunc’s recent take on P-D), to keep guys sharp off the bench. I don’t disagree that a good lineup for a particular day is important (i.e. best 9), but it is also important to have a long term perspective (season-wise and beyond). I am hoping that C. Dunc gets hot (not horrible so far .265 .378 .416) , especially with interleague DH’ing, to boost his trade value. At the very least, the tinkering has provided some nice entertainment for VEB lineup guessing.

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on May 23, 2008 9:33 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If anyone expects

TLR to change the way he manages at this point in his career, they will be sorely disappointed. Yes, it can, and often does, drive people batty, but that’s his way, and there are 2403 reasons wins why it’s worked so far. I’m not a blind homer or defender of his, by any means, but you know what? He knows a hell of a lot more about managing than I do, so I’ll defer to him in these matters.

If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.

by cardsrul on May 23, 2008 10:34 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

two minor points

Izturis has been productive in May but he’s not a .345 hitter so that’s really just his regression to the mean after a crappy April.

When you switch players in and out of the lineup and everyone is good (2005) it really doesn’t matter. When you do that and everyone isn’t good (2008) things can go badly.

by azruavatar on May 23, 2008 10:51 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Not sure about badly

28-21 and 1 GB. I am not sure what you mean by going badly? Are you refering to the potential, or are you referring to something that has already happened? Isn’t the May slide more a function of the pitching than the lineup? I am too slow and am not following.

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on May 23, 2008 11:08 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I just mean that tinkering

when every player is a good one probably isn’t going to impact the offense. Tinkering (for the sake of tinkering) when you have good and bad players can.

by azruavatar on May 23, 2008 11:19 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Thanks for clarifying

Maybe I am too much of a homer, but I think our players in the outfield are pretty good. MIF is another thing altogether. Sigh.

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on May 23, 2008 11:32 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Lineup Tinkering

CBS used to list the total number of different lineups that each team had used in a season. The last time I checked (3 or 4 years ago), LaRussa was actually no more of a tinkerer than any other manager in baseball – it’s just a home fan perception. I originally looked this up as, living in Chicago, I heard Cubs fans complain non-stop about the exact same thing. “Stick with a lineup, Dusty.” (He was still the manager when I lived up there.)

I’ll take a look and see if that information is still out there.

by Robb on May 23, 2008 11:58 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Baseball-reference.com

has all that kind of stuff as well.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on May 23, 2008 12:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

2008

Here’s the info on the Cardinals vs. 1st place teams so far this year, from sportsline.com (CBS). The first number is different lineups used this year, the 2nd number is the number of times the most frequent lineup has been used.

Cardinals 42 5

Red Sox 37 5
White Sox 29 13
Angels 43 3
Marlins 29 6
Cubs 30 6
Diamondbacks 37 5

Granted, this doesn’t take into consideration injuries, and it also doesn’t represent a full season, or teams currently playing badly. But if you pile up the information over more teams and more seasons, you’ll see that there really isn’t a correlation between multiple lineups and winning/losing. In fact, just based on the small list above, on the White Sox are really more consistent with their lineups than the Cardinals.

by Robb on May 23, 2008 12:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I remember that one of the cubs blogs actually sold "Dusty Lineup Dice"

with positions on one die and players on the other. And, of course, a “Neifi!” complete with exclamation point.

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

by Valatan on May 23, 2008 12:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That's funny

Maybe I should have phrased my thought differently. It’s not that tinkering inherently hurts the team and I don’t expect TLR to change his ways. It just seems like and many have voiced this year, that every time this team gets on a roll he finds a way to put out a weak lineup

As for Izturis in May, if he can keep this up all summer long I will be ecstatic but it won’t happen.

by riotmute on May 23, 2008 2:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Updated for his new team...

"because at the end of the day they still are the Chicago Cubs"

by rockin the red on May 23, 2008 6:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Good point

Although, I’d change your parenthetical year for when everyone isn’t good to 2007. TLR had a career high for different lineups and led the league. Granted, injuries likely dictated the uptick in his mad scientist experimenting. Of course, we probably did win more games than we should have last year. (Caveat: I was in Europe for two months, only reading about our precipitous downfall and returned just in time for our last ditch run at first.)

by bgh on May 23, 2008 4:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Don Tony's lineups

are geared to keeping everybody as “sharp” as possible; getting bench players “regular” ABs so they can perform well coming off the bench.

Having said that, Ludwick needs to play EVERY DAY until he cools off. If only Skip could play 2B! Then, you could have Duncan, Ankiel, Ludwick AND a “leadoff hitter” in your lineup… but moving Schu to the IF is highly unlikely, unless it’s done in the off-season.

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

by The Ol Goaler on May 23, 2008 11:40 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think it is weird that they didn't think about this

Skippy did play in the IF in college. How hard would’ve it been to have him take some groundballs during spring training?

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

by Valatan on May 23, 2008 12:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The biggest problem

is turning the double-play; since the Cards rely on groundballers, a good “pivot” man is a must…

Fielding grounders and throwing to 1B wouldn’t be a problem… it’s receiving a throw at 2B, with a runner bearing down on you from behind your back, and making a good throw to 1B! That’s what takes time to learn.

Moving Mike Shannon from RF to 3B was a piece of cake compared to moving anybody from the outfield to 2B; too hard to do during the season, IMO.

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

by The Ol Goaler on May 23, 2008 3:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Furcal

We need to really sweep the Dodgers and hope every day they get closer to falling out of contention. Furcal is still the one player that can solve all our problems. The Dodgers are trying to sign him but he already said if is not re-signed by mid season than he is just going to wait till the off season. If there is anyone we should overpay for in a trade and resign it is Furcal. He could easily bat lead off to bat clean up.

The problem is we don’t match up well with what we have and what the Dodger need. What is half a season of Furcal worth?

P.S

Derek Lowe is sucking this season. He got rocked in last start for 7 ER in 5 IP

by FlimtotheFlam on May 23, 2008 9:12 AM EDT   0 recs

To avoid the jinx

I’ll point out that he volunteered to pitch on short rest for that last start after Penny’s shoulder got tight and he couldn’t go.

by birdo rojo on May 23, 2008 9:18 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Still Bad

Look at his last 4 starts not EVEN including his last one on short rest

21.1 IP 18ER 10 BB 16 K

by FlimtotheFlam on May 23, 2008 9:40 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

yep

yep lowe has been crap as of late

by cd on May 23, 2008 10:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

sinkerballers are better when they're a bit tired

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

by Valatan on May 23, 2008 12:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

We can't afford half a season of Furcal

I just got back from LA and had been following them pretty closely while I was there. I think it will be really tough to get Furcal from them. Even though they have started to hit after languishing in the beginning of the season, they still have tons of offensive problems. Andrew Jones, Third base (even though props to Dewitt), Jeff Kent, etc… My sense is that they will hold on to Furcal unless someone wants to badly overpay which I really don’t see happening.

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on May 23, 2008 9:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i agree that furcal is a great fit for us

but he will be a Type A free agent, so if the dodgers just let him play out his option they will get two #1 draft picks for him. that means any package the cardinals would offer will have to be at least that good — ie, they’ll have to offer two of their very best prospects (e.g., bryan anderson plus jaime garcia) for half a season of furcal. the cards can’t afford that.

by lboros on May 23, 2008 9:28 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

There is no way.....

The Cards would make the trade before talking to Furcal about resigning, I don’t think.

by SoonerfanTU on May 23, 2008 10:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

but do they want to sign a 31-year-old guy

to a 5-year contract? that’s probably what it will take to get furcal; they’ll have to gamble many millions of dollars that he will stay healthy through his mid 30s. and in exchange for that privilege, they’ll have to give up at least two very good, young, cost-controlled players . . . . . i’m not sure that’s in their best interest.

by lboros on May 23, 2008 11:06 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

to follow up on myself

i’d be happy if the cards pursue furcal in the off-season as a free agent; i thought they should have pursued him in 2005-06 when he was available. but i don’t think they should give up 12 years’ worth of young talent to acquire two add’l months of furcal (ie, august/sept of 2008).

by lboros on May 23, 2008 11:09 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not convinced

he’d be worth giving up the draft picks if we signed him in the offseason.

He’d be a 36-year-old in the last year of a 5-year contract. If we could flip him after two (hopefully productive) years, it’d be great. Expecting his legs to retain their value through his age 33 season is a substantial risk.

by liam on May 23, 2008 11:14 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It would only be one pick

Type A free agents net a first or second round pick from the signing team plus a pick in the supplemental round (but not from the signing team).

What about Orlando Hudson, who is an unrestricted free agent after this year I believe? He is 30 going on 31, a plus defender, and a switch hitter, pretty similar to Furcal really. And I would think he would be cheaper to sign than Furcal simply because he is a second baseman rather than a shortstop. Kennedy shouldn’t be starting on a Major League team and the sooner he is off the roster the better. A middle infield of Ryan/Izturis and Hudson would be an upgrade.

by CURVEBALL on May 23, 2008 3:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Short stop prospects

There was a nice rundown of shortstop prospects yesterday by Baseball Prospectus. If you are a subscriber you can read the article.

by CURVEBALL on May 23, 2008 3:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree

But doesn’t that change when you’re in contention for the playoffs and the entire National League is looking like a real crapshoot right now? Aside from Arizona, I don’t see a single team that the Cardinals couldn’t beat in a 5 or 7 game series if Carpenter comes back and can contribute? Even Arizona could be had if they struggle offensively like they did against the Rockies in the NLCS last year.

I think he really is a the one missing piece to this lineup that could make it lethal were he at the top of the order. If it’s possible to get him without giving up the entire farm system, and then sign him in the offseason, I think you have to look at making that deal—especially when you’re in the hunt for a World Series berth

"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 May 23, 2008 11:58 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

"if Carpenter comes back..."

Mo might be waiting to see how Carp’s rehab progresses before committing to a “Win Now” approach. Not sure the team should mortgage the future for a shot at winning without Carpenter contributing.

by ubeddie on May 23, 2008 12:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree

I would think it might be in the Cards best interest to find a minor league MI in some organiztion who looks to be pretty good. Teams tend to hold onto those type of guys though.

by ICbirdfan on May 23, 2008 11:20 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't think he'll cost quite that much

If they are comparing the haul they will get to what they can expect from the two draft picks. Garcia and Anderson are equivalent to two number one picks who pan out in the high minors; I think, given normal flame-out rates, that’s worth a bit more than two unused #1 picks.

Still, even if the cost winds up being even one of those two guys, that’s too expensive for a half-year rental—it’s not as if this team is just missing one final piece to be a strong WS contender

by tdawg on May 23, 2008 11:22 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The problem is there no one else

Look at this of 09 Free Agents of SS and 2B

Second basemen
Ray Durham (37)
Mark Ellis (32)
Marcus Giles (31)
Mark Grudzielanek (39)
Orlando Hudson (31)
Tadahito Iguchi (34)
Jeff Kent (41)
Felipe Lopez (29)
Mark Loretta (37)
Aaron Miles (32)
Jose Valentin (39)

Shortstops
Orlando Cabrera (34)
David Eckstein (34)
Adam Everett (32)
Rafael Furcal (31)
Cristian Guzman (31)
Cesar Izturis (29)
Felipe Lopez (29)
Edgar Renteria (33) – $11MM club option for ‘09 with a $3MM buyout
Juan Uribe (30)
Omar Vizquel (42) – $5.2MM club option for ‘09 with a $0.3MM buyout

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/12/2009-mlb-free-a.html

by FlimtotheFlam on May 23, 2008 9:34 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Orlando Hudson would be a great pick-up for a 2 year contract or so.

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

by Eckstreem on May 23, 2008 10:00 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

no chance will he get only 2 years

he’ll likely get 5

boo cubs, hooray beer

by Raconteur on May 23, 2008 10:22 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

that...

and he’s probably going to be re-signed by Arizona before the end of the year.

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

by fourstick on May 23, 2008 12:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

We all know Aaron Miles isn't a free agent

He’s coming back baby.

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on May 23, 2008 1:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That made me laugh

So very true.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on May 23, 2008 4:54 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If there is anyone we should overpay for in a trade and resign it is Furcal. He could easily bat lead off to bat clean up.

2007 – .270/.333/.355

career – .287/.352/.412

30 years old. overpay? bat cleanup? i’m open-minded, but i’d need an explanation.

he off to a hot start in 2008, but he’s also got a .386 BABIP vs a .299 eBABIP.

by astrostl on May 23, 2008 12:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

+1

I wouldn’t be opposed at shooting for a trade for Hu if Furcal resigns, though. He looked really bad in his short time this year, so he might come cheap. Of course he might also BE really bad.

Wonder what the Brewers would take for Bill Hall? He was a tremendous defensive SS IIRC, and then for some reason they started moving him around and he’s been not-so-good. He makes 6.8M in 2009, and $8.4M in 2010 w/$9.25M team option for 2011, and they don’t really have a position for him.

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on May 23, 2008 2:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

interesting

Hall was #1 in the ML at SS by a considerable margin by PMR, but ranked very low by RZR. So it’s probably not a great idea to try him there again, since he was bad enough to be moved off the position by people who see him every day.

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on May 23, 2008 2:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

defensive metric

I was reading Bernie’s post over at the stltoday defending Duncan, the younger’s defensive abilities in left field. It got me thinking. I don’t have a great understanding of the defensive metrics, but it seems like the most frequently used are based on some sort of ‘zone’ system that grades the defense based on where the ball is hit in relation to where the outfielder is. Now my question is, do these defensive metrics actually look at where the outfielder was playing just before that pitch, or is there an ‘average’ position for left fielders to play? I ask becuase if zones are defined only by where the average outfielder plays, than a well-studies coaching staff that positions their outfielders correctly could largely inflate the ratings of players using ‘zone’ based systems. That is, a defense will look better if properly poitioned by the coaching staff than the players ability warrants.

by cdb on May 23, 2008 2:38 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

PMR is the one I understand best

It doesn’t work by zones so much, but by splitting the field up into vectors directed from home and fanning out across the field of play.

Then you measure how frequently balls hit along those vectors and at what distance and ball-in-play type (ground…fly) are caught by the player manning such and such a position. For individual players, you compare the (smoothed, I imagine) frequency at getting to balls along those vectors to the MLB average.

So player positioning could artificially inflate a player’s defensive ability as measured by PMR, but could also hurt it. I’d guess that it evens out over the course of a season. It would be interesting and useful to develop a similar system that gives a general picture of a player’s range by comparing how far he’s reliably able to make plays from where he’s initially positioned to where the play is made.

by liam on May 23, 2008 2:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

even out

I don’t think it would even out – and that is why I asked. If it did even out than the positioning is really pointless – the benefit of positioning is gone. And clearly some hitters have tendencies which are somewhat predictable (somewhat) – and that should be (and is) taken advantage of.

I do think that these defensive metrics should take into account the starting position of the fielder to be reliable. Easily said – hard to do…..

by cdb on May 23, 2008 2:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

hard to do

yeah, starting position isn’t recorded anywhere right now. That pitch f/x article mentioned below hints that MLB is planning on instituting something similar that’ll measure more events in the years to come.

We live in interesting times.

by liam on May 23, 2008 3:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

but deciding where to stand on the field

is a big part of “playing the position”. Ask Belliard how good he’d be at second if he lined up where Miles or kennedy lines up. it’s all about making the plays, catching the balls, making the outs. The guy who makes the most outs is the better fielder.

Izturis LOOKS better than ryan at short because he’s very good at going to his right, but not as good at going to his left, so he lines up deeper in the hole than Ryan at short. because of this, he makes some very flashy plays to the right. Though h JJ hardy. (the Dewan fielding bible stats available at “bill james online” actually break this down into “plays made/not made to left” ve “plays made/not made to right”)

Ryan, OTOH, doesn’t make as many flashy plays, but a higher percentage of the balls hit towards short get fielded when he is there.

Which one is a better fielder? Watching on TV, you’d say Iz2, because he’s always ranging way over, backhanding and throwing across the diamond. But if Ryan had been in the game, the out would have likely have still been made; it just wouldn’t have impressed us. But over the course of a season, more outs would be probably be made with Ryan than with Izturis (although izturis is still very, very good, better than any other full time starter in the league).

RZR does try to account for this with the “out of zone” numbers; a player who doesn’t make 20 “in the zone” outs but makes 20 “out of zone” outs is as valuable as a guy who makes all of his “in the zone” outs but no out of zone outs. However, it’s pretty tough to make up for poor positioning by making ooz outs, since guys produce at least some “out of zone” outs no matter where they line up.

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on May 23, 2008 3:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

should be

“though he’s still much better at going to his left than a guy like JJ Hardy”. Not sure what happened there.

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on May 23, 2008 3:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Nobody plays deeper than Dunc

saw him play vs. the Nats in RFK. Duncan was about two steps from the warning track. Coincidentally, A. Soriano played about the same depth. I would say neither will be GG any time soon.

by gocards62 on May 23, 2008 2:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

OTOH

duncan catches more than his share of fly balls to left field- he’s one of the best LF’s in the NL- while soriano does not, going by RZR.

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on