Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Check out our NFL Scoreboard: scores, schedule and blogs Bar-right-arrows



Can't Touch This

I'm not a big curser, just by nature, really. I don't toss around obscenities a whole lot, particularly when in print. I do occasionally, of course, but I try not to go to extremes. I just don't think that it's really necessary. That being said, there's something that I feel I need to say this morning. I apologise in advance to anyone who is easily offended, and to all of the ladies who might be reading this.

Goddamn fucking Royals.

There. Again, I apologise to everyone for that, but it really and truly did need to be said, I think.

Alright, now that we've got the unpleasantness out of the way, we can move on. There's really not very much that I can say about last night's game. We had the worst possible combination of middle infielders on the field, Chris Duncan's double doesn't change the fact that he still can't hit his way out of a soggy paper bag at the moment, Ryan Ludwick desperately needs to get hot again, and Joel Pineiro should sue Aaron Miles and himself for poor defense and throwing meatballs, respectively. Just a poor showing pretty much all around.

A couple of days ago, in Lboros's post entitled "The Market for Pitchers", someone mentioned that they would be interested in a post about which players in the Cards' minor league system we consider, or should consider, untouchable when looking at possible trades to improve the current roster. Well, when I read that, I thought to myself, you know, that's a fantastic idea. And I am nothing if not willing to run with somebody else's good idea, (I'm like the Jasper Johns of sports blogging, really) so that's just what I want to talk about this morning.

Now, of course, when we're talking about possibly making trades involving the Cards' minor league depth, it's important to consider just what they might be receiving in return. In order to keep this from becoming too very overwrought, though, I can't really take into account every possible trade target. Suffice it to say that if Brian Sabean were really, really looking to move Tim Lincecum or Matt Cain, I would trade anyone and everyone, possibly outside of Rasmus, to bring one of them in. The only reason I wouldn't move Rasmus is because I'm not a big fan of trading superstar position players for pitchers, no matter how good. Too much injury risk and all that.

With that caveat in mind, about not mapping out specific trades, let's take a look at what they Cardinals have, and what they should and should not be willing to move, shall we?

First off, of course, there's Colby. Others, most notably Azruavatar, have laid out the reasons why you shouldn't trade Rasmus more completely than I ever could, so I won't rehash the exact arguments here. The point is, the kid is going to be a star, and for cheap, for awhile at least. I'm not sure there's a player in the major leagues right now I would move Colby for straight up, to be honest. Maybe Jay Bruce. He and Rasmus are fairly equivalent players, with Colby's defense a big plus over Bruce, but Bruce's bat much closer to a finished product. Since the Cards already have a player who can man center field pretty well in Ankiel, I would consider making the deal for Bruce. Other than that, though, I just don't know if there's anyone I would move him for. I think Rasmus has to fall pretty firmly in the untouchable category.

Jess Todd, RHP- The other day, I believe it was on the MLB channel on XM Radio, I heard a news break that included the line score for the Double A All Star Game. In it, Jess Todd was referred to as "Cardinals' righty phenom Jess Todd." It's the first time I've heard Todd referred to as a phenom, but I doubt it will be the last. Admittedly, Todd has struggled badly lately, seeing his ERA balloon all the way into the upper 1.00s, but I think he'll get back on track soon. His peripherals are all pretty much in line, so it's not as if his success is an illusion at the moment.

The biggest key to Todd's performance this year has apparently been his development of a cut fastball, as detailed by Derrick Goold a while back in his Birdland blog. Todd also falls firmly in the untouchable category for me. He's a little undersized, but his mechanics are solid, so I don't think he'll be a huge injury risk. I wouldn't move him.

Chris Perez, RHP- We all know what's happened with Perez this year. He came into the season seeking better command over his repertoire, found it in Triple A, got called up to the bigs, and hasn't looked back since. He's still not exactly Greg Maddux on the control front, but he's good enough. I still want to see Perez continue to develop, but this is the sort of pitcher you can build a bullpen around. Untouchable.

Bryan Anderson, C-After working with Mike Matheny in Spring Training on his blocking abilities, a lot of us had high hopes for Anderson, and for the most part, he hasn't disappointed. The power still just doesn't seem to be around very often, but he's hitting above .300 at Triple A as a 21 year old, while upping his caught stealing % to nearly 40% and not giving up a passed ball every other day. In short, this is a very, very good prospect, one that I think is quite underappreciated by most Cardinal fans.

Still, with Yadier Molina appearing to have the big league job locked up for years to come, (and I find it hard to complain too much as long as he continues to hit) I think you have to consider Anderson movable. I wouldn't ship him out on just any deal, but I wouldn't put him in the same category as these other guys. If you could trade for a young stud middle infielder or starting pitcher, Anderson should be on the block. (It hurts me inside to say that.)

Jaime Garcia, LHP- Garcia will turn 22 years old in a couple of weeks. He's pitching in Triple A right now, and doing so quite well. Enough said.

You want a good stat to demonstrate how well a pitcher is throwing? One of my personal favourites is GB%+K%. The two most desirable outcomes for a pitcher, added together, presents a pretty good picture of what kind of a job a pitcher is doing of preventing hard contact. (Yes, that's right, despite my railing against Dave Duncan, I do think groundballs are a very good thing.) Two years ago, Garcia was second in all the minor leagues in GB%+K%, next to only Philip Hughes. Last year, of course, Garcia struggled a bit with his control, his delivery, and his elbow, but appears to have mostly put that behind him this season.

He's only 21, lefthanded, and looks to be turning the corner in Triple A. He's untouchable, for me at least.

Pete Kozma, SS- Now here's an interesting case. The thing about Kozma is, he's probably too young, or at least too far away, to be much of a trade target anyhow, so this is most likely a moot point. Still, though, I have to wonder if the Koz is untouchable. He's 20, playing in the Midwest League, (Low A) and holding his own. Kozma got off to a very hot start in April this year but has since cooled off with the bat. Still, he's not overmatched in his first full year of pro ball, and by all accounts his defense is the real selling point, so he's still doing just what you hope he would.

As to whether or not he's untouchable, that's a little more complicated. The Cardinals are utterly barren at the shortstop position in the minors, with both Jose Martinez and Tyler Greene proving to all of us why they weren't considered top prospects in the first place. So Kozma's value is definitely improved within the organisation by positional scarcity. However, any move the Cards make would likely be made to try and upgrade the middle infield, so it's entirely possible they might end up making him less valuable as they make any hypothetical trade. Bottom line, I think you have to consider Kozma untouchable at this moment, but that may not stay true. The Cards just drafted a kid by the name of Niko Vasquez this season, who's off to a very hot start in short season ball, and as I said, any move is possible to bring in middle infield help. For now, though, I don't move Kozma. He looks to be for real, and the Cards desperately need for him to be.

Clayton Mortensen, RHP- Mortensen, only in his first full pro season, has reached Memphis already. Now, he wasn't necessarily moved up because he just absolutely decimated Double A, but he's held his own in Triple A despite being slightly, (though not a lot) young for the level and definitely being short on experience. He's walking too many in Triple A so far, as he looks to be trying to trick hitters rather than just attacking the strike zone, but he hasn't been overly hittable and is mostly getting the job done.

With the depth that the Cardinals currently have in the pitching ranks, particularly among those who throw from the right side, you have to consider Mort tradeable. I wouldn't be in any kind of hurry to move him, because I think he has a chance to be a very, very good pitcher, but there are others who probably have just as much potential. He's not exactly a fungible commodity, but he's not on the list of guys I just couldn't bear to part with. In the right deal, I have to consider moving Mort.

That's my list. Pretty much everyone else in the system is eminently tradeable, in my estimation. I'm not at all in favour of moving prospects just in general, but if the right deal comes along, I would part with pretty much anyone in the system outside of the players I listed above. Guys like Jon Jay or Jason Motte, while exciting talents in one way or another, are replaceable assets at this point.

The Cardinals have finally begun to build a minor league system with enough depth that they can afford to start moving some pieces here or there if it will help the big league team. Again, I'm not really a big proponent of moving prospects, as I think the future of this team is in the players they already have in the system and can build around, but outside of a few select individuals, the depth is now there to start using the minor leagues to bulk up the big club, if you can get good value.

So, what about you all? Who would you be willing, (or unwilling) to move?

0 recs | Comment 172 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

NIce summary

I agree with pretty much all the sentiments expressed, but it makes me wonder if any deals will get done with that many prospects off the table. I like Anderson more than most people and am glad to hear his defense is improving as Matheney suggested it would. Yadi has always been much more effective against LHPs and his number this year, .600 OPS vs. RHP and 1.041 OPS vs. LHPs, just underscore that imbalance. I would love to see Anderson get a chance to get some significant playing time with the big club this year, but I doubt that will happen. It would be a real luxury to have a right/lefty catching combination with legitimate offensive production from both guys.

I am still not sold on Kozma, but I am willing to be patient. For all the admiration of his defense, the DFR at future redbirds said he made his 15th error last night.

The Cardinals are in a pretty strong position as they don’t have to make any moves and look to be sitting pretty for ‘09.

Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...

by giveml on Jun 28, 2008 10:28 AM EDT   0 recs

It's true,

I do see a whole lot of these guys as being important enough to be untouchable, but even so just look at the amount of depth you’ve still got, especially in the relief pitching area. Guys like Motte, Salas, Worrell, Francisco Samuel, and others are all useful players and could be used to acquire talent.

I guess that, more than anything, I just don’t think that the Cardinals are in a position that they can make that one magic bullet trade, at least not without giving up way too much in return.

I really like where the Cards are sitting right now, with the exception of a few little problems here and there. If they can make a marginal move or two, such as getting a lefty for the ‘pen, and try to acquire one talented young middle infielder, I think that’s an absolutely great situation. I guess I just fall into the camp of believing that what they already have is going to be tough to improve upon without way overpaying and gutting their chances in the future.

Why don't you just make like a tree, and get out of here?

by the red baron on Jun 28, 2008 10:42 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

mo knows

listening to mo last night it seemed pretty clear that a trade on the margin is the only kind of trade we’re likely to see this with eye toward improving the club’s performance this year. he seemed fixed on making next year a big year and wasn’t too enthusiastic about moving anyone before deadline outside of the outfield. the priority seemed clearly to be as competitive as we can be now, but no move that would mortgage the future. not sure how that impacts the list of untouchables, he did not discuss individuals.

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, perhaps you haven't grasped the situation!

by sportsman on Jun 28, 2008 1:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Jeff Lunow

was interviewed on Ktrs last week and the 1st question asked was. ” Is there one MiL player you would like to give special attention to as standing out so far this season and having a good chance of being a future Cardinal.
Lunow didn’t hesitate and talked for several minutes singing the praises about Donavan Solano, Palm beach SS. I don’t know anything about Solano except reading the box scores and know that he is hitting solid this year, but evidently the Cards hold him in high regard…might make Kosma expendable in future.

One other thing off subject (and this crap started last year) Seems every series we face with other teams, there is one maybe two opposing players that are killin us in key spots, just can’t get them out at all in key situations. KC, it is Alex Gordon supported by De Jesus. Gordon and De Jesus have just about beat us single handed in both series….every team has at least one player that just rakes Cardinal pitching…wish that problem could be solved. Are the advanced scouting getting good reads on other teams.

by ridgesee on Jun 28, 2008 11:16 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't like the term "untouchable".....

Because for the right deal, I’d move anybody. Obviously Rasmus comes the closes to that term as far as current prospects, but if somebody offered up a deal for a 25 year old SS that was a complete stud, and they wanted Rasmus, I’d have to seriously consider that.

Same with the pitching. I don’t want to move our talented young pitching for 2 month rentals, but I’d move any pitcher in our system for a proven 1-2 type starter, so long as the guy didn’t have a terrible contract, or wasn’t 35 years old.

That said, I kind of hope the Cardinals stand pat this season. Sure, we could add a small piece or two and maybe sure up a wild card birth, but are we really going to be much better than that this year? Actually, let me rephrase that first part…..I hope management doesn’t make any moves that are ONLY for this year. If we acquire a LOOGY, for instance, that would be around going forward, I’m all for that.

I’m hoping that at some point we can move an OF or two. Looking at AAA, we’ve got some talented kids that aren’t even getting AB’s due to our depth. I’d look to move Skip, see what we can get for him. I also think one of Ankiel/Ludwick should be made available, at some point. And while I’d like to see us resign Lohse, if we aren’t going to, lets move him. Not sure what we’d get in the way of picks if we let him just walk though.

by SoonerfanTU on Jun 28, 2008 10:52 AM EDT   0 recs

Agreed.

If the Dodgers suddenly decided they didn’t want Clayton Kershaw around, I would probably have to consider moving Rasmus too. I just don’t see a deal coming up that I’m so blown away by that I feel comfortable moving that player for, though. I’m in the same boat, of feeling that standing pat isn’t at all the worst thing, although I’m sure it will piss off a decent portion of the fan base if it does come to pass.

You are right, though, in that untouchable probably isn’t the best possible word for the situation, but I’m not sure what better one there really is.

Why don't you just make like a tree, and get out of here?

by the red baron on Jun 28, 2008 10:56 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And understand.....

I wasn’t really calling out your use of that word, as I know it gets thrown around alot in baseball circles. Just wanted to point out that nobody is really untouchable.

Where would a guy like Motte fall on your list?

by SoonerfanTU on Jun 28, 2008 11:16 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I really, really, really like Kershaw

but I still wouldn’t consider moving Rasmus straight up for him. A combination of either Todd or Garcia AND another good prospect? Yes….maybe

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 28, 2008 11:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

damn straight!

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 28, 2008 12:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

+1

bad philosophy to trade above average everyday players (actual or projected such as rasmus) for any pitcher, ever

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, perhaps you haven't grasped the situation!

by sportsman on Jun 28, 2008 1:21 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Why?

I know this is the standard mantra throughout baseball, since time immemorial, but it just doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.

Who are the best hitter and pitcher in baseball, respectively? How about Pujols and Johan Santana? We could debate the particulars but it really doesn’t matter.

Last year, Pujols played in 158 games and came to the plate 679 times. Santana also played a full season and faced hitters 878 times. So both played the entire season and Pujols had the opportunity to directly impact the game 679 times while Santana had the opportunity to impact the game 200 more times than Pujols.

Now, it’s not quite that simple as Pujols (or any hitter) makes more of an impact than any pitcher defensively but the idea that we should never, ever trade a position player for a pitcher is short-sighted IMO. For example, Pujols was, w/o question, the best defensive player in baseball last year. He made 37 more plays, defensively, than the average first baseman ).(according to the fielding bible Still, that’s just 37 more plays than the average first baseman would have made. So, the argument could be made that Santana is tougher to replace b/c he impacted the game 200 more times than Pujols did at the plate. Even subtracting the 37 plays Pujols made at 1st that an average person would have made and the difference is still 163 plays in Santana’s favor. Therefore, as I said, it’s short-sighted to just arbitrarily dismiss the idea of trading a position player for a pitcher.

It’s based on the notion that position players are more able to affect the game b/c they play every day whereas pitchers only play once every fifth day. The difference, of course, is that position players are only able to affect play, offensively, once out of every 9 PA’s when they play but pitchers affect every PA when they’re in the game.

Now, I wouldn’t trade Pujols for Santana or anyone else but, as I said, I believe it’s short-sighted to say you should NEVER consider trading a position player for a pitcher, straight-up.

by chuckb on Jun 28, 2008 3:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

+1: You win.

Good argument. I’m with you.

Boomer.

by glamboomer on Jun 28, 2008 3:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Not that I disagree

But putting 37 plays above average on the same plane as the 679/878 “PAs affected”.....isn’t good.

Pujols got on base in 284 plate appearances whereas the average 1B in Busch would’ve gotten on 242 times and …...Pujols got on 42 extra times over the average 1B. Obviously he hit way more homeruns and doubles than the average 1B so it’s not perfect (in theory I guess he also prevented many more doubles as well), but that’s much closer to the scale those 37 “plays he affected” should be on rather than the straight just plate appearances.

Like I said I don’t disagree with you on the general principle, just that little math quip.

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jun 28, 2008 4:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I would never trade a great postion player for a great pitcher

Using the Pujols/Santana comparison works for me
37 games with a direct chance of impacting the game vs 158.
Santana can win at most 37 games. Pujols has the chance to win 119 more.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 28, 2008 4:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

huh?

how many games does either a pitcher or 1st baseman win by himself? If the Mets don’t score any runs in any of Santana’s starts, he’ll get credit for 0 runs regardless of how well he pitches. You can’t honestly believe that this is a good method of comparison.

by chuckb on Jun 28, 2008 5:38 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

no it isn't really

I am just going on potential. I guess it didn’t come off right. I just don’t think you should ever trade a superstar player for a superstar pitcher.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 28, 2008 5:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

My reason is different

I feel much more confidence in a hitters ability to maintain his skill for 3,4,5 years than I do an elite pitcher. Not going so far as to say I’d never deal a hitter for a pitcher, but it does make me leary for that reason.

by Merry CRasmus on Jun 28, 2008 6:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

and by damn straight

I mean that is the only type of hitter I would think of trading Rasmus for.
Still wouldn’t do it.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 28, 2008 4:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This Troy Tulo?

.148 .210 .234??

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jun 28, 2008 2:56 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

c'mon joker

I’m guessing you are kidding since we both know that his injury ridden half year stats are hardly indicative of his true talent level. Not to mention he’s the best defensive SS since Adam Everett.

by azruavatar on Jun 28, 2008 3:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I wouldn't trade Rasmus for Tulowitzki

and I know how good Tulowitzki is.

by chuckb on Jun 28, 2008 3:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

really?

even with the number of outfielders we have in the system?

by azruavatar on Jun 28, 2008 3:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

fair point

but I don’t have the confidence that Ludwick and Ankiel will be 6+ year above average performers or that Jon Jay will be an everyday OF or that Skip’s improvement will be repeated for several years. To me, Rasmus is special and we’d have him for 2 more years than Tulowitzki. I wouldn’t do it.

If Brett Wallace shoots through the system and gives every indication that he’s going to be an above average major league hitter, I wouldn’t trade Pujols for another star to open a spot for him. Pujols is special. Rasmus is not Pujols, but he’s special.

by chuckb on Jun 28, 2008 3:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Half kidding

In the sense I know he’s much better than that line but I think I’m in the minority in saying he’s not a superstar. Coors effect even with the humidor still pumped up his numbers last year.

I’m speaking out of two sides of my mouth in this thread but I probably wouldn’t deal Rasmus for him (the injury ridden doesn’t really apply as he was brutal before popping the quad). Razzy boy also plays good defense at a premium position and I’d venture to say he’s probably going to be the better hitter..

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jun 28, 2008 3:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

+1

Tulo’s home line in ‘07 was .326/.392/.568/.960 with 15 HR and 60 RBI, but only .256/.327/.393/.719 with 9 and 39 on the road. Gotta do better on the road to be a superstar.

I can imagine some circumstances where I would trade Rasmus, but I can’t imagine them actually happening.

Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...

by giveml on Jun 28, 2008 8:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

In my view

No one in the Cardinal farm system should be considered untouchable, including Rasmus, who has yet to convince me that he will hit like a super star (Andy Van Slyke may be more like it). No one should be off the table if the right deal comes along. That being said, the right deal for a Rasmus, a Garcia, or a Perez is not too likely to manifest itself, considering the value-I hope correctly-the Cardinals are placing on these players. The others mentioned seem to be more likely bargaining chips in a major trade. I would not be too quick, however, to trade the unmentioned Joe Mather, whose bat-both power and average- really seems to be coming along and who might well be ready to take over in left field for the possibly overexposed Ludwick-he’s also four years younger- as well as be a better first-base backup than the increasingly hapless-looking Duncan.

by Mike G on Jun 28, 2008 11:07 AM EDT   0 recs

last night's game

I have to second guess Oquendo. I think with speedy Skippy on the bags and a double… One has to send Skippy. I know it was first inning and one out. But we’ve been struggling of late, especially with the offense. Letting Meche off without a run was a missed opportunity. IMHO, I think Oquendo doesn’t do a good job, in general, in sending/stopping runners. I don’t think I can find any stats to back that up, as I don’t think anyone keeps coaching stats. I do appreciate his work with the MIF on fundamentals, though.

About Lud and Duncan, they are both equally hapless right now. Here are their recents stats (a day old):
Split GS PA AB R H HR RBI BB SO GDP BA OBP SLG
Luddy
Last7 5 26 22 2 2 0 1 3 6 2 0.091 0.231 0.091
14 11 52 45 4 6 0 4 5 13 3 0.133 0.231 0.178
Dunc
Last7 3 17 13 1 2 0 0 4 3 0 0.154 0.353 0.231
14 9 40 36 1 6 0 1 4 7 0 0.167 0.25 0.194

Let’s all hope that they get back on track soon. Both had a solid hit (Luddy a single to left, and Dunc a double to right).

And agreed about others’ sentiment of not wanitng to use an untouchable label. But I get your point, Baron, that it’s fun to list the top assets. It’s so exciting to see a stocked farm system.

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Jun 28, 2008 11:37 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Sometimes I think the same about Oquendo

Especially after watching that Extra Inning Game in Fenway on Sunday. With Duncan on 2nd base, and I believe Shumacker’s single to right, he should not have sent him with only one out. Duncan does not have great speed, we have all seen Drew’s arm in Rightfield before, and at worst we would have had men on the corners, maybe even 2nd & 3rd. That leaves so many more chances for whoever was up to bat to drive in a run. A sac fly, a base hit, maybe even a LaRussa squeeze… Whatever. But instead of giving us that opportunity, Duncan was thrown out at home by a mile and we did not put up any runs. Just something that really made me angry with our 3rd base coach this season. Can’t really recall any other instances…

by Pujols Is A God on Jun 28, 2008 11:56 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

and I can count 4 or 5 times where that “go ahead” aggressiveness has saved our asses in games.

You can’t take the some and be upset about the others.

I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang

by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 28, 2008 12:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Exactly

That’s why I said… “Can’t really recall any other instances” There have not been enough “ba calls” by Jose to sway me either way on this issue. Granted, living in DC I don’t see nearly as many Cardinal game as I would like to. Oquendo’s aggressiveness is something that I do admire, but there are limits. The BoSox game was the most frustrating in recent memory… And I believe for justifiable reason. That’s all.

by Pujols Is A God on Jun 28, 2008 12:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

sorry

i probably should have worded it differently.

so take this comment instead.

At the end of the day Oquendo has earned the respect to have us look at a whole picture scenario rather than a particular game. That being said, his “sending of runners” has gained us wins in perspective.

Though I agree about BoSox game being frustrating, the part where it was frustrating is when we sat with a pitcher who couldn’t locate to get us to extras, rather than the play in the extras.

I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang

by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 28, 2008 12:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Agreed on a balanced assessment

So the problem is that there are no stats on evaluating 3rd base coaching that I am aware of. Strangely enough, my impression of Oquendo is different from yours. I think he is aggressive at the wrong time and not aggressive enough at other times. I can’t recall when his aggressiveness has saved us games, but I can recall plenty of times when he has made the wrong call. Personally, I feel positive about Oquendo as a coach and that’s not counting his past as the “secret weapon”. So I wonder why I would have such a different impression than you? I am not only referring to this season, but this is based on my impression over the past several years. I wish there were some stats to prove me right or wrong. How about the times when Pujols runs through his signs? Is it Pujols’ extra aggressiveness or Oquendo’s lack of aggressiveness? Or a little of both?

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Jun 28, 2008 1:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

+1

sending cd in boston really reduced our chances of winning that game. runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs is a good place to be regardless of who is hitting. major f… u.

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, perhaps you haven't grasped the situation!

by sportsman on Jun 28, 2008 1:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

What, short of hitting in the majors, does Rasmus have to do to convince you he'll hit like a superstar?

I’m curious if there’s a reason or if this is one of those “prospects flame out” things.

by azruavatar on Jun 28, 2008 12:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not him

But you can’t be absolutely convinced he’s going to rake in the majors can you? There are so many examples of guys who can’t quite get it done at the major league level as they did in the minors from Alex Gordon to Ruben Rivera to Cliff Floyd to Greg Vaughn. It’s a long list. At this point we can pretty much guarantee that he’s going to be a productive major leaguer, but superstar?? Not so much. Note: I’m not saying it’s not possible, just that assuming he’s going to be 6 years of cheap superstar isn’t very smart.

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jun 28, 2008 3:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Cliff Floyd?

And his career 119 OPS+ can’t rake? From Age 26 to 32, he had an average 128 OPS+

by Hardcore Legend on Jun 28, 2008 3:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Forgot how good he actually was.........

Whoops. Point still stands.

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jun 28, 2008 3:56 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Don't you have to draw a line in the sand though.

Eventually you have to say that this kid has hit so well in the minors that the chance of him busting out is simply outweighed by the chance that he’s going to hit (and hit well) in the majors. Sure players bust as they try to transition to the majors but no club is going to build a successful team nowadays unless they have prospects coming up from the minors (or have a 150M+ payroll). If you can’t bet on a player like Colby Rasmus than you’re basically saying that every prospect ever is a total crapshoot so f—k it, let’s just trade them all.

by azruavatar on Jun 28, 2008 3:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You can't be absolutely convinced

that Pujols won’t blow out his elbow tomorrow and never hit another homerun in the majors. Still, I’d be willing to take Pujols on a long-term deal. If you’re looking for guarantees, baseball’s not the place but Rasmus has done everything in the minors to suggest that he’s going to be a special major league player. It’s not a guarantee, but I’d take that bet.

by chuckb on Jun 28, 2008 3:15 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I understand that

This pretty much semantical. I’m defining superstar as .910+ OPS (~20th or better in the league, top 1-2 CF’er in the league). Make more sense now?

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jun 28, 2008 4:02 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Alex Gordon? Are you kidding?

The kid still has PLENTY of time to prove himself, and he’s been far from terrible thus far in the MLB.

boo cubs, hooray beer

by Raconteur on Jun 28, 2008 3:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

He's two years in to mediocrity....

Guys put it together, but as it stands I don’t think he looks like a franchise changer.

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jun 28, 2008 3:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I still fully expect him to be a franchise changer

the kid has unreal talent, he will put it together

boo cubs, hooray beer

by Raconteur on Jun 28, 2008 4:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That's fine

But he’s 900 PAs into .254 .325 .418. That’s not a good start.

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jun 28, 2008 4:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Agree he hasn't been as good so far as many thought, but

“he’s 900 PAs into .254 .325 .418” isn’t a very accurate reflection of where he’s at. After a horrible first half (roughly; I don’t remember exactly when he started hitting) last year, he was much better in the second half. And this season he’s clearly been better than last season.

by BTown Birds fan on Jun 28, 2008 4:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The best way to doctor the numbers

He hit .285 .330 .478 from June 7th on last year, he’s working on .266 .345 .431 this year. Like I said it’s early, but he’s shown nothing at the major league level that screams 1.000 OPS monster.

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jun 28, 2008 4:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That is still only 900 PAs in

Of the many things that APu has done in his career, you can add expecting others to be superstars right out of the box to the list

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 28, 2008 4:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

red baron

Nice entry today, I enjoyed it….. I paruse futureredbirds so I knew a bit about some of the guys you discussed.

The most intriguing part of the organization at this point is the outfield. It would be interesting to look at all the outfielders from the MLB level and the minor’s to see just what we have. Something is going to have to happen as STL just has too many outfielders but what makes it so interesting is not outfielder is a slam dunk. No one has a real history of any consistent health/production. It would be fun to be a fly on the wall in the player evaluation dept…. Is Mather for real? Is Jay for real? Is Robinson any good? Is Ludwick good enough to consistently contribute? Lots of questions on all the outfielders and there is not going to be room for all of them.

by ICbirdfan on Jun 28, 2008 11:31 AM EDT   0 recs

As far as the "cussing"

I’m not much on it either Red Baron, but I do throw around a little trashy talk from time to time, but I never put God’s name with it. In fact I cringe a little when someone does. I leave Him out of it because I think he is real and in the end will be my judge.

If you think about it, when you say God damn somebody or some thing. you are petitioning God to Damn a person or thing and really you don’t have that right…it’s beyond foolhardy…just my opinion…I’m no Angel.

by ridgesee on Jun 28, 2008 11:33 AM EDT   0 recs

with that said....

i am petitioning GOD to Damn the royals!

Why don't we get glausy eyed and put back some franklin's....

by punksoulbrutha on Jun 28, 2008 4:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

C'mon

it is a blog! Like if there is a God (god, gods, whatever), he, she, it or they really care about the goings on of a blog.
It was humor!

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 28, 2008 8:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Kozma

I saw him play last week….. It was only one game so I am not going to really say any thought on him is solid..

He does nothing that “wow’s” you…... He does seem to have really good hands but what SS doesn’t once you get to professional ball.

I saw him make a throw from the hole (not the deep hole) and his arm looked very average at best. Who knows, could be suffering from a bit of dead arm right now.

I was just a bit dissappointed in the fact that nothing really stood out in his game. Generally a guy drafted that high has some tool that stands out…

He is still young and like I said it was only one game so take it for what it’s worth.

by ICbirdfan on Jun 28, 2008 11:34 AM EDT   0 recs

Todd

Good post – I get the feeling that Jess Todd is being overvalued a bit here. Seems to me that he has put together a good year but I haven’t heard any scout/expert calling him anything but a future #3 or relief pitcher.

Off the wall trade idea: Ryan Ludwick straight up for Mark Ellis? Probably not the smartest trade in the world but if you could sign Ellis that would be awesome. This would open up a spot for Colby allow you to DFA Kennedy and give you “control” of the best 2B on the market this winter.

by Lawless on Jun 28, 2008 11:42 AM EDT   0 recs

I don't see Beane wanting

Ludwick anyway. I might be wrong, but he doesn’t strike me as Beane’s type of player.

by chuckb on Jun 28, 2008 12:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ludwick is the type of player Beane trades and brings back a haul of prospects for

So I doubt he’d want to trade for him, unless he wants to turn around and flip him again.

boo cubs, hooray beer

by Raconteur on Jun 28, 2008 12:15 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ludwick hadn't

been more than a platoon player her until recently. Seems to be a good chance he will be the odd man out when they bring up Rasmus or Mather again.

Westcoastbirdwatcher

by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jun 28, 2008 12:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs