Monday Morning Pinch Hitter
(LB may be in later with some more notes but I thought I'd go ahead and kick the morning off.)
[LB responds: thanks for getting up some notes AZ. i've got the day off --- am in portland for a family affair. RB may be along later w/ a post; i'll be on duty tues through thurs this week.]
The outfield has been, to a large extent, a strength for the Cardinals this season. Ryan Ludwick continues to mash the ball to the tune of .976 OPS although in June he’s hitting just .765 OPS. He’s caught the team’s allergy to walks largely. Ankiel isn’t quite the offensive powerhouse he was to start the year but his defense in CF is more than good enough to keep him afloat. Skip Schumaker, for all my skepticism, is getting on base at a .360 clip. For all those positives, the outfield is starting to show a few cracks. Chris Duncan is an obvious and continued source of concern. That’s been talked about a great deal and I’m not sure I have anything to add there.
Perhaps the most disappointing, however, is Brian Barton and his .671 OPS. Given how little LaRussa seems to trust his defense, and the plethora of nearly ready outfielders in the minors (Joe Mather, Nick Stavinoha, Colby Rasmus, Shane Robinson, Jon Jay) I’m starting to question if it isn’t time to cut bait with Barton. It’s not that he doesn’t still have potential, although at 26 one has to wonder how much growth is left, but it’s more along the lines that one of those outfielders – probably one of Mather, Stavinoha or Rasmus – could be a tangible and immediate upgrade to the team.
Mather strikes me as the best option. He’s already been up this year, he plays good corner outfield defense and he’s a right handed hitter. I’d take Rasmus next mainly because he’s left-handed and not on the 40-man roster yet (he also needs to be an everyday player once he comes up). I’m really pleased for Stavinoha who got his first major league hit yesterday but I’m not a believer in his bat and he’s a stiff in the outfield.
Giving up on Barton now means sending him back to
0 recs |
210
comments
Comments
from overthemonster.com
“The Cardinals have a pretty weak line-up without Pujols. Look up there, it’s awful. Ludwick is having a nice season, Ankiel is also good, and Glaus is fair enough. The rest is bad. They have a nice record, sitting at 42-32 entering game today. However, they’re playing a little bit over their heads right now, so expect that record to drop in the near future. So, it’s pretty much your Red Sox vs. a non-playoff NL team. This smells good.”
This was the post for Fridays game…
by UNCDubya on Jun 23, 2008 10:49 AM EDT 0 recs
Ignorance is bliss
Did this blogger really post that the Cards are ”...playing a little bit over their heads right now, so expect that record to drop in the near future…” the day after we got swept at home by the Kansas City Royals?
I’m wondering also how Skip’s .360 OBP is “bad” and how Molina’s .729 (10th in MLB), .290 BA (8th in MLB), and .347 OBP (7th in MLB) is “bad.” The black hole that is our middle infield has been well-documented and I agree that it is “awful.”
by bgh on
Jun 23, 2008 11:04 AM EDT
up
0 recs
It is all too evident...
that we have to cut bait with Iz2 and Kennedy. Izturus has been great defensively…but his OPS is getting scary close to .600 (.628)- isn’t that like the Mendoza line for OPS..you know where no matter how good the defense is you just can’t afford the black hole in the lineup?. Kennedy’s OPS has ballooned a little over the weekend, but it was a paultry .602 as of last Thursday. I’d like to see both of these guys released and Barden called up to start at 2nd or backup 2nd, 3rd and SS with Miles as the everyday 2 bagger.
by cardzfanbub on
Jun 23, 2008 11:18 AM EDT
up
0 recs
ah...
...it’s been nice to see the hubris of “Red Sox Nation” get deflated this last weekend in Boston. On the way out of the game Friday, people were quietly hanging their heads and I heard one person mutter, “Tonight was Celtics night, they should have won for the Celtics.” I couldn’t help thinking, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
by cardgirl on
Jun 23, 2008 11:13 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Can someone please inform me
when the Cardinals are going to fall back to Earth? By the way everyong talks about it, its apparantly going to be a sight to behold. I want to have my camera ready when it happens, but I’m starting to get a cramp holding it in the ready position while I wait, and wait, and wait….
I should ask Al, I’m sure he knows exactly when it’s going to happen.
by Tackle Box on
Jun 23, 2008 11:52 AM EDT
up
0 recs
When we get our best hitter, second-best pitcher, and best pitcher back from injuries
I reckon that’s when we will stop “playing over our heads” and “fall back to earth.”
by bgh on
Jun 23, 2008 11:59 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Maybe in the World Series
against Boston. Seems like people kept trying to write us off in 2004 also. Granted, this team is not as good as the one that won 105 games, but it seems to get the same reaction: “Hey.. we said they’d be bad, let’s make it seem like we’re still gonna be right”
"Give a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a night. Set him on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life."
by BigMOman on
Jun 23, 2008 3:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
remind me, azru
Can the Cards trade Barton to a third team?
by DCGreg on Jun 23, 2008 10:51 AM EDT 0 recs
Yes
by mikedallas45 on
Jun 23, 2008 10:52 AM EDT
up
0 recs
but who could he be traded for that would be an upgrade? Unless he goes as part of a package deal.
by sbentley on
Jun 23, 2008 11:01 AM EDT
up
0 recs
we could
trade him for a prospect as well. A LOOGY would be great, but as long as we’re getting value out him, that’s better than just sending him back to Cleveland. The possibility of a trade to a third party also gives us leverage if we’re negotiating with Cleveland.
by DCGreg on
Jun 23, 2008 11:19 AM EDT
up
0 recs
A nice middle infield prospect would be lovely
Our outfield is a little crowded right now. But at the Major League level and the Minior league level. It would be just swell if we could trade him to someone needing depth in the OF for a MI prospect. While I’ll fully support trading him for someone who could help the club now. I would be able to get behind trading him for a prospect.
by Evilfrog on
Jun 23, 2008 11:24 AM EDT
up
0 recs
who has good middle infield prospects that would think of moving them?
I think the Angels, Mets, Phillies, Marlins will be happy with who they have in the MIF for several years,possibly the Braves and Mariners also. Can anyone think of any other teams set at both second and short?
Now I need to go back and look which of these teams have any prospects worth trading for.
Any ideas?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jun 23, 2008 6:13 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Trading Barton for a Loogy
This is an excellent idea IMHO. Say you are a team that already knows they have no realistic shot in 2008. Right now, that basically half of all MLB teams. You’re a team looking toward the future. Barton would be an attractive prospect to such a team. The Cardinals need a loogy bad. Some organization out there bereft of OF prospects has got to have a solid loogy either on their ML roster or in AAA. It’s a much better option than just handing Barton back to Cleveland.
by jjray on
Jun 23, 2008 12:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
trade him to somebody
this is best for all concerned and the writing is on the wall, ie, iz2 goes down, stav comes up and is in the line-up hitting 5th, not barton. if he can’t be number one for the dh job over a AAA call up, why do we keep him?
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, perhaps you haven't grasped the situation!
by sportsman on
Jun 23, 2008 9:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Um, you do know that the started in LF
that day and batted leadoff.
by Hardcore Legend on
Jun 23, 2008 11:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
A better source?
The source that Wiki cites (a Baseball America bit) does not confirm that teams can trade Rule 5 draftees so easily, and Rob Neyer’s “transaction primer” makes it sound as though no trade could be made unless the would-be-traders first offer the draftee back to his original team and then get the draftee through waivers. I’d like to believe Wikipedia, but I’d also like a better source.
by EABinSTL on
Jun 23, 2008 12:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Josh Hamilton
I remember that Josh Hamilton was traded on the day of the Rule 5 draft. The Cubs picked him for the Reds.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2689855
Not that this is concrete evidence that Barton can be traded now, but somewhat relevant.
by djsmokyc on
Jun 23, 2008 12:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
the confusion lies
in what is meant by “trade”.
Barton CAN be traded to anyone we want, even to cleveland. When that trade is made, the rule 5 qualifications go with him. He can’t be sent to the minors without going through irrevocable waivers.
There is a misconception that we can make a trade with Cleveland and then send him down. According to Brian Walton at “the birdhouse”, who has clubhouse access and has never been wrong about this type of esoteric stuff, THIS bit is false. In order to send him down, we’d have to pass him through waivers and get all 28 teams that aren’t Cleveland to pass, then work out a deal with Cleveland.
"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN
by SleepyCA on
Jun 23, 2008 2:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Oh damn
Great info, Sleepy. I was under the impression we could just send Cleveland something for Barton and be done with it. In that case, I’d like to change my poll vote! If we could do that, I think it would be the best course of action. However, I have zero confidence that BB would fall through waivers of all teams.
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on
Jun 23, 2008 3:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
This is my preference...
with a pleathora of teams that have to be looking at ‘09 now…there has to be a few that would be willing to let him take up their 25th spot for the potential he might bring. I think swapping him for a veteran rental of any useful type is better than selling him back to Cleveland for $25K.
Any chance the Royals would swap Grudzy for him?
To the Pirates for one of their lefty relievers?
by cardzfanbub on
Jun 23, 2008 11:05 AM EDT
up
0 recs
That would be my choice
A LOOGY with a pulse, just so we can see someone beside Flores walk people.
by mikedallas45 on
Jun 23, 2008 11:09 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Maybe Rowland-Smith from SEA?
They could definitely give Barton the playing time.
by mikedallas45 on
Jun 23, 2008 11:13 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Yep
Good thought. I’d try to move him to a 3rd team as well. Obviously we won’t get a ton back, but maybe a veteran 2B or a lefty for the pen.
by SoonerfanTU on
Jun 23, 2008 11:18 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Barton just isn't getting enough playing time
His speed and-potentially, anyway-his bat are exciting. I think LaRussa needs to figure out a way to get him more playing time. Maybe they should send Duncan back to Memphis and bring up a 3B/1B backup or stay overloaded on pitchers for a week, just to see what playing in four or five straight games will do for the lad.
I’m not convinced the 2009 mode of Brian Barton won’t be at least as good as our other options in left field next year. I agree the team would benefit marginally by bringing up Rasmus or Mather right now. But the team would benefit more significantly if it could hold on until the rosters expand and keep Barton around next year.
But if Cleveland really wants him back, okay. Barton for Sabbathia straight up. Deal?
by Red in Chicago on Jun 23, 2008 11:06 AM EDT 0 recs
I agree with you that he has potential and is exciting, but ...
the calculation has to change now that the team is a contender. Increasingly, the team needs to focus more on what gives it the best chance to make the playoffs and less on what would be best for 09 or 10 or 11. That doesn’t mean we give Barton away for free, but I think it should mean we take a little less for him in a third-party trade or, if we like BB that much, be a little more willing to give Cleveland a prospect so we can send Barton down to AAA.
by DCGreg on
Jun 23, 2008 11:44 AM EDT
up
0 recs
"the calculation has to change now that the team is a contender."
I never understood that…Why is a slight increase in our chances at the playoffs this year worth sacrificing a larger increase in our chances next year or the year after. Consistently making the most of your resources strikes me as the more sound policy. Is it not best to always try for the best value moves for the team overall?
If one could say with certainty “we are” or “we aren’t” going to make the playoffs this year or that year… then logically you could try to “timeshift” talent from year to year to create more years with the requisite talent to make the playoffs. Since baseball almost never works that way (ie it is always a matter of chances and probabilities) I fail to see how making moves that intentionally underperform for the sake of competitiveness now does anything but drag down the team.
-- Aidan Sonoda
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
by Aidan Sonoda on
Jun 23, 2008 12:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It's a question of...
does whomever we might pick up give us a better shot at reaching the playoffs this year than BB ever will? It’s a judgement call.
by cardzfanbub on
Jun 23, 2008 1:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Indeed
that’s true, but that doesn’t “change the calculation.” DCGreg spoke of valuing a move the helps this year MORE, simply because it helps us this year. Obviously if we can trade Barton for a piece that helps us more now than Barton will next year or ever – then we should. That’s extremely unlikely of-course since Barton is likely to play better next year (having jumped from AA to the majors this year), and/or have more trade possibilities once he is out of the Rule V and controlled by the Cardinals.
-- Aidan Sonoda
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
by Aidan Sonoda on
Jun 23, 2008 1:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
changing the calculation
I really thought my point was a pretty basic one: If you’re not contending, it makes a lot of sense to carry a guy like Barton who will likely pay dividends down the road. If you are contending, there’s a cost—he’s taking a roster spot from someone who would contribute more, whether that be Mather or Rasmus or Stavinoha.
I continue to like Barton’s potential, but given the way TLR uses him, he really doesn’t have much value on this team. He starts only against lefties and isn’t trusted to play late-inning defense when the team is ahead. I think Mather in particular would probably be an upgrade at this stage.
by DCGreg on
Jun 23, 2008 1:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
He has provided plenty of value to this
team playing the way LaRussa is playing him. He has excelled as a pinch hitter. What exactly is wrong with that?
by Tackle Box on
Jun 23, 2008 1:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
nothing wrong with it, of course
but we’re talking 8 hits (in 27 at-bats). Joe Replacement Player would provide, what, 6 hits in those at-bats? I mean, this is pretty small stuff. And of course, you’ve cherry-picked the statistics, looking at only his 30 plate appearances as a pinch hitter. If I do the same and pick out his 100 or so appearances as an outfielder, he’s .229/.330/.313, which is sub-LaRue.
It’s really hard to make an argument that Barton adds much to this team right now. I understand the point of those who say he’s worth the cost of carrying him, but it’s clearly a cost.
by DCGreg on
Jun 23, 2008 2:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
putting it another way
if it weren’t for the Rule 5 requirement, would Barton be on the big-league club?
by DCGreg on
Jun 23, 2008 2:39 PM EDT
up
0 recs
more than likely, no
still doesn’t erase the fact the Rule 5 requirement exists.
And let me point out to casual readers of this blog, yes I am argueing both “for” and “against’ Brian Barton today. A very special day indeed.
by Tackle Box on
Jun 23, 2008 2:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
the key to being a foolish hobgoblin
is to be consistent.
- joe morgan
"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN
by SleepyCA on
Jun 23, 2008 3:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Okay
then i’ll include his speed into the equation. There’s no one in AAA who would bring his production off the bench + his speed to the team.
And this is boardering on the other conversation I’m having in that if a guy is performing well in a situation (i.e., pinch hitting) why the rush to see if someone else can do it better when the upside is virtually nil? And its not like Brian Barton is making millions of dollars compared to Joe Replacement Player. They’re making the exact same amount of money so the cost in terms of roster spot, payroll or anything really doesn’t hold up.
I can understand these types of arguments in regards to Adam Kennedy or Randy Flores or some other guys to an extent, but not when it comes to our 4th/5th outfielder making the league minimum who has done relatively well in limited playing time.
by Tackle Box on
Jun 23, 2008 2:39 PM EDT
up
0 recs
As outlined farther up this thread,
I understand it’s not so simple as being “a little more willing to give Cleveland a prospect so we can send Barton down to AAA.” I don’t see how a send-down is possible if he has to pass through every other team’s clutches first..
by baw on
Jun 23, 2008 10:05 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Sendind down Duncan does nothing for Barton's playing time
Duncan for the time being is a first baseman and has been for the past week and a half or so. Barton’s playing time didn’t change. He will always be behind Skip, Ankiel and Ludwick and he should be.
by Tackle Box on
Jun 23, 2008 11:59 AM EDT
up
0 recs
agreed. duncan is not blocking barton. i do see value for barton as a schumaker platoon, though. schumaker hits .826 OPS against RHP but only .513 against LHP. ludwick has a reverse split, but he’s still .868 against RHP and a much more palatable .751 against LHP. ankiel is precisely .785 against both!
FIP > ERA, OBP > AVG
by astrostl on
Jun 23, 2008 1:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
yeah, but you aren't seriously
considering Ludwick as a platoon partner with Barton? No matter what the splits say, there’s no reason unless Ryan Ludwick falls off the face of the earth to ever consider replacing him with Brian Barton, platoon or otherwise.
by Tackle Box on
Jun 23, 2008 1:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
no, i’m not. not stated, and if it was implied that was not my intention. i only suggested that it works with schumaker, and cited our remaining OF starters’ splits for notation – and specifically called ludwick’s split “palatable”.
FIP > ERA, OBP > AVG
by astrostl on
Jun 23, 2008 1:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Oh, I was pretty sure you never intended to
but just the fact that you included him in the conversation made me scratch my head a little. You know, like you considered it, and then looked up the stats to see what it might look like?
No harm. No foul. I had enough faith in your judgement to not make that mistake.
by Tackle Box on
Jun 23, 2008 1:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
well, one would be remiss to not consider anything :) i enjoy looking up splits just to stay fresh on them, but the basic point was that we have one need for a platoon and it’s in LF, by way of either schumaker or even duncan. i think it’s safe to pencil ank and lud in CF and RF respectively until september, fenway park-like RFs notwithstanding.
FIP > ERA, OBP > AVG
by astrostl on
Jun 23, 2008 1:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Way too soon to bail on Barton.
The challenge is how to get him more PT, not how to replace him.
Unfortunately, I fully expect this team to not do the right thing.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 23, 2008 11:08 AM EDT 0 recs
what is the right thing?
Sitting Skip, Ank or Ludwick just so Barton can get at bats?
by Tackle Box on
Jun 23, 2008 12:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The right thing is giving Barton 3 starts
every 2 weeks, and more pinch-hitting opportunities. Or, in the unfortunate event one of our OFs goes down with an injury, you give Barton that player’s PT.
I’m sure there are other possibilities, but the point is that he just isn’t getting enough PT right now.
by MdRedbirdFreak on
Jun 23, 2008 12:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don't know how you get into a groove
starting 3 games every 2 weeks while pinch hitting every once in a while.
by Tackle Box on
Jun 23, 2008 12:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Nor do I. If I were manager,
Barton would get a solid 2-3 weeks of starting so I can figure out what we’ve got here. But the guy’s practically a rumor now, anybody would get rusty getting so few appearances. the best we can expect is a small bump in playing time, and that’s what I’m asking for.
by MdRedbirdFreak on
Jun 23, 2008 12:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
How do you justify starting him 2-3 weeks straight
You’re obvioulsy a Brian Barton fan, and I guess that’s okay, but it’s irrational to think you can just give that much continuous playing time to him at this point in the season over Skip, Ank and Ludwick just to see what you’ve got.
by Tackle Box on
Jun 23, 2008 12:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Our current manager
drives us all insane with his bizarro belief that Miles can play SS, or his penchant a few years ago for putting infielders in the outfield every day, or his inability to see how badly Flores sucks, or his strange desire to bunt after a leadoff double, etc. So what would be so wierd about playing Barton every day for 15-20 games?
I am a Barton fan, therefore it stands to reason that I think he’s good enough to play a lot, so why is my position irrational? I think you’re assuming that Barton would grossly underperform Schumaker, and I can’t agree with that.
by MdRedbirdFreak on
Jun 23, 2008 2:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm not saying he would definately underperform Skip
What I’m saying is that at best he’ll perform exaclty the same as Skip, has virutally no chance of dramitically improving the team, and might actually underperform Skip.
Where’s the upside?
And to use past lineup oddities as a justification to do something like start Barton for the better part of a month, just to see what you’ve got, is something I cannot currently wrap my mind around.
Once again, I will say it once more, if this team were in last place and 15 games under .500, I’d have no problem doing what you are suggesting. But with the reality of today, I see absolutely zero justification for it.
by Tackle Box on
Jun 23, 2008 2:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Asked the same question the other day about Barton--trade?
I think we need to look for bullpen help or a MIF prospect
by gocards62 on Jun 23, 2008 11:12 AM EDT 0 recs
I know my reasoning is irrational, but I say send him back to Cleveland.
I like him-a lot. The speed, the high socks, the crazy hair, the all out effort. But I think staying here, rarely playing, is going to kill his chance at any kind of a real career. I don’t know if he really needs to be platooned, but that’s his life here, whether I like it or not, whether he needs it or not. The way LaRussa’s using him, it’s safe to say he’s not really in their plans.
If there’s a chance to trade him, do it. If not, just give him back.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 23, 2008 11:16 AM EDT 0 recs
Are you a Cardinals fan.....
Or a fan of various players? Not trying to stir things up, you just always seem to look at things as what is “best for the player”, while most people look at it as what is best for the Cardinals.
by SoonerfanTU on
Jun 23, 2008 11:20 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I am a Cardinals fan AND a fan of various players-I even like players on other teams. I follow the White Sox and the A's too.
I see no purpose, none at all, to not let loose of players that have no future in your organization.
I just don’t see how it’s best for the Cardinals to keep players around that have no future. Really, not good for the organization or the plalyer. Trade them for players you like better. IMO that helps the organization.
Working a trade would be best for the Cardinals-if they can’t, then return him to Cleveland. So I amend my statement. Sorry I like certain players. I’ll try not to do that. I’ve been trying not to do that since Curt Flood …....
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on
Jun 23, 2008 11:48 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I just disagree profoundly
w/ the notion that Barton “has no future here.” If you mean, ”...as a starter”, I might agree with you. But the guy hits lefties reasonably well, has a little pop and some speed. He’s been projected as a 4th OF and I see no reason why he can’t fill that role admirably.
Of those mentioned, some are approaching their free agent years, some (Rasmus) will, unquestionably, be starters. How is he hurting this team by playing sparingly? Would Mather or Stavinoha on the everyday active roster be a measurable improvement? Do either of them, for example, have the ability to pinch-run? Rasmus is no replacement, as he shouldn’t be recalled to sit on the bench.
I think since Barton was drafted too many Cards’ fans saw him as a solution to our projected OF woes. There was this pervasive belief that he would be a leadoff hitter, hit for power and steal bases, and be, well, what Schumaker has become. He can be a very valuable member of our OF, this year and in years to come. He’s certainly not the worst player on the roster either. If we are truly that desperate to bring Mather up full-time, we should send Kennedy packing. Barton’s a valuable commodity and it makes little sense to just give him away—either to the Indians or anyone else.
by chuckb on
Jun 23, 2008 1:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I just get the vibes by the way he's used
that LaRussa doesn’t think he’s much of a player. Next year when they can make a choice, I bet he doesn’t get chosen…..
I like him. I in no way think he’s anything close to the worst player on the team. I think we’ll never get a true read on him because he just doesn’t play much. So how much value does he really have…...
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on
Jun 23, 2008 1:40 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well, there was a pervasive belief
he could be a leadoff hitter, hit for power and steal bases. I don’t think anyone thought that was a lead-pipe cinch. But at the same time, the guy gets so little playing time I don’t know how anyone can evaluate him. There’s gotta be a way to get him between the lines more often. Would it be heresy to suggest that maybe Ank ought to take a seat for a game or three?
by MdRedbirdFreak on
Jun 23, 2008 2:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Actually, I can see Jill's point here
Things are a little bit different then they were when he was selected in December, or even at the start of the season…there are many more outfield options, and it’s obvious that TLR is not sold on his defense, meaning that even when he starts, he will be replaced at some point during the game…since the team insists on constantly playing with a short bench, I don’t know where as they can afford to have a guy on the team that you don’t trust to play all nine innings…I, too, would rather not give him back, but my question is does he have a future here as a potential starting OF…I don’t see it, so in that regard, you may as well send him back.
by tbell61 on
Jun 23, 2008 11:50 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I cant and dont and heres why....
I cant and dont because Jills point of view always comes down to believing a developing players situation on a team is defined by how management treats them or deals with them on a personal level vs. the talent and skill they posses to play the game.
Gosh I wish it was that easy! Put a hand on Reyes shoulder and say a kind word and everything will be alright? There is no disrespect in questioning perspective, but theres a little more involved here.
The needs of the team today, tomorrow and who can be signed two years from now have so much more to do with it, its a BIG business and we have a winning team.
Barton is caught in a bad situation, theres no room…and yes Rasmus, Stavinoha, and Mather and Jay etc etc are all out there along with Ludwick, Ankiel, Schumacher and Duncan and there are three positions.
Who (in the OF) would we give up to get a LH reliever or a 2nd baseman…..? And what team has what we want and wants what we have to offer in return and who’s going to be a Cardinal next year and the year after….
La Russa does as good a job “infuriating” us with player positioning as anybody managing in baseball without a multi-billion dollar payroll. Larue, Schumacher, Miles and Kennedy were huge in the Boston Red Sawks series, go figure.
by cardschinmusic on
Jun 24, 2008 3:12 AM EDT
up
0 recs
if we're sending anyone away....
my vote goes for adam kennedy. he’s taking at bats away from two superior players. and it’s really saying something when aaron miles is a superior baseball player. (for some reason, i have and have always had this deep hatred for aaron miles.) i continue to be frustrated as to why brendan ryan isn’t in the lineup everyday. i don’t think he’s the answer to our middle infield woes, but i do believe he is the best all-around middle infielder on our roster, and should therefore be in the lineup everyday. furthermore, i don’t think we’ll ever know what his absolute ceiling is if he’s not given the opportunity to perform on an everyday basis. my feeling is the same about barton. particularly because i think barton has a fairly high ceiling. i just feel that he was never given an opportunity to get comfortable. with the outfield situation as it is, i would like to see him get a chance to take over left field for a bit and see if he can play himself into a groove. if he can get his average and obp up, i think he can do a lot for the team. and i can’t rationalize just sending him back to cleveland. at least trade him, or keep him as part of an off-season package. and although this contradicts with my opinion on barton, i wouldn’t mind seeing our outfield be ludwick, ankiel, and rasmus from here on out…
by bwhitt on Jun 23, 2008 11:27 AM EDT 0 recs
The apparent justification for...
not having Ryan in the lineup everyday is Kennedy’s .030 adavantage in OPS vs. righties. Just for the record Iz2 should never hit against RHP’s (.220/.288/.283 – .571 OPS) Splits for AK and BR:
AK
vs. RH – .261/.312/.324 – .636 OPS
vs. LH – .303/.343/.333 – .676 OPS
BR
vs. RH – .250/.294/.313 – .607OPS
vs. LH – .333/.373/.375 – .748 OPS!!
by cardzfanbub on
Jun 23, 2008 11:40 AM EDT
up
0 recs
what's awesome
is that, in this thread, we’ve discussed sending Barton back to the Indians because he can’t get enough playing time, and yet he has 8 more PA’s than Brendan Ryan, the best SS on our team defensively.
Who is also outperforming the starting SS offensively.
Sure, being out for the first 2 weeks of the season hurt him a bit with playing time, but it is just ridiculous that Ryan can’t get more PA’s.
"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN
by SleepyCA on
Jun 23, 2008 3:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Ryan is our best defensive SS?
Do you really think Ryan is better defensively than Iz2?
Granted, I’d rather see Ryan as the starting SS every game, but my take was that although Izturis sucks BADLY at the plate, his defense is superb.
I haven’t looked at any of the (admittedly varying) defensive metrics, but my impression was that Iz2’s D was outstanding and slightly better than Ryan’s, although Ryan’s was solid (and the difference is NOT enough to justify giving Iz2 starts over Ryan, imho). I’m just surprised that you rate Shoulder Licker’s D better…
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
by Mr Clean on
Jun 23, 2008 4:37 PM EDT
up
0 recs
yes.
subjectively, I think he makes a lot of plays look easy, that Iz2 makes look spectacular. In spring training I spent a lot of time watching them take fielding practice together and I commented at the time that Ryan had a couple of feet of additional range than izturis; this was argued with, but I thought it was especially apparent watching iz2 go to his left. IMO iz2 compensates for his inability to go left by playing closer to the bag, which leads to a lot of “spectacular” diving plays on balls to his right that Ryan would have just “made the play” on.
Also, at the time IIRC I caveated it with a “but I’m probably biased”, because I was very against the izturis signing, but after about half a season, the defensive metrics pretty much back me up. Fielding Bible Plus/Minus (a counting stat, available at billjamesonline.com) says Ryan and izturis are both at +3, with Izturis


