A Modest Proposal
Wow. That was quite an All Star Game last night, wasn't it? What pitching performances! And the home runs, from all those guys! Wow. Words fail one.
Note: The author of this piece did not watch the AS Game. In fact, it was actually written a couple of hours before it even began, so the above statements may not, in fact, be true.
Anyway, the 'second half' of the season is just about to start. The Cardinals find themselves in second place in the division, well back of the Cubs, and just a hair up on the Brewers for the Wild Card. There's been a lot of talk lately about the Cards making a move to try and compete this year, or move some players as sellers to plan for next year, and all these other things. Well, I've been thinking about it a lot lately, and you know what? The Cardinals can do both. They can build a team to make a run this year, without tearing apart what they have going forward. You say that you want to be a winner? Well, I'm going to tell you how. Now, please don't thing I'm advocating this without reservations. I do, however, think I have a pretty decent plan.
First off, the Cards probably need some more runs. This offense has been plenty iffy at times, and worse than that at others. Unfortunately, the positions that the Cards really need upgrades, namely in the middle infield, don't really have upgrades available that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg. So instead of trying to fill a specific spot on the diamond, we're just going to get the best bat available. So, first off, you sign Barry Bonds. Now, before everyone out there gets all upset, I don't particularly like the idea either. I've long been on the side that despises Bonds for all he's done to our precious game, and all of that. In fact, I was just discussing the notion of Bonds in a Cardinal uni the other night, and everyone pretty much agreed it would be a travesty. However, the longer I think about it, that's kind of a BS way to look at it, even if it's mostly the way I still feel.
The Cardinals already have PED users in uniform every day. Our very own golden boy, Rick Ankiel, purchased HGH, and he's the most heartwarming story any of us have ever seen. But HGH wasn't against the rules at the time, you say? How about Ryan Franklin? He tested positive, and served a suspension for, steroid use. None of us boo him every time he comes on the field. Well, technically, some of us might, but that's not for the steroids, that's because we think he's going to give the game away. Troy Glaus was named in the Mitchell Report; we don't have a problem with him. I realise that Bonds really bugs a lot of us, but to single him out as the face of the steroid era, and try to turn him into a pariah, is hypocritical, when it has become increasingly clear that a pretty large percentage of the players in the past fifteen to twenty years were juicers. Okay, enough soapbox. I still don't necessarily like the idea, but we're trying to win here, right?
Right. We sign Bonds. He has gone on record as saying that not only would he play for the league minimum, but that he would donate his salary to charity. He may be a jerk, but it's pretty clear that the guy really does want to play baseball. So, he costs you the prorated portion of league minimum, which in baseball terms, literally doesn't exist. He costs no talent to bring in, so he's as close to a free player as you're going to find. He also becomes the teams' second best hitter in all likelihood. At this point, you need to move Chris Duncan, so you either send him down to Memphis to work on his swing some more or you just package him with a minor league reliever to try and bring in a LOOGY from some team that's out of it.
All right. With Bonds in place in left field, your every day outfield becomes Bonds, Ankiel, and Ludwick left to right. Mather and Schumaker are your fourth OF/ defensive replacement guys when you need them.
Okay. Take a look at the middle infield. The thing is, Aaron Miles has pretty much done exactly what we've needed him to do this season, and he needs to be starting every day at 2B. I realise that Kennedy is hitting a bit at the moment, but Miles has been much better on the season. So Miles is your everyday 2Bman. Unless, of course, you can come up with something better.
Enter Ray Durham. You look around the league, and he's really the only name that pops up that gives you what you're looking for. Guys like Brian Roberts or Dan Uggla are awesome, yes, but they're also going to cost you, big time. The Giants seem to want to move Durham, partially just to get his salary off the books, but also because they are a team in full rebuild mode, and as such, need as much opportunity for auditions and so on as possible. Durham could easily be had for a middle of the road prospect, I think.
Why Durham? Well, given that he's 36 years old, I can understand you asking that question. However, he's a free agent after this season, meaning that you aren't tied to him long term. More importantly, even at 36, he's currently putting up an OPS right at .800 in one of the toughest pitcher's parks in the game. The move to Busch might actually bump his SLG numbers up a bit. Even if they don't move any, an .800 OPS from a second baseman isn't anything to sneeze at. Even better than that raw number is the OBP chunk of it. He's carrying a .385 on base percentage, which is, as those of us in the biz like to say, not too shabby. Durham doesn't have much in the way of wheels anymore, but I don't look for him to be in a situation to run much anyhow. You trade any one of Garcia, Todd, Mortensen, and Boggs, I think you net Durham easily, and still have a pretty good shot of at least one productive major league pitcher out of the three you hold on to. You trade a guy like Garcia, I would hope you could get maybe a decent throw in prospect as well. Honestly, I think you could probably fetch Durham without giving up any of those guys, but even if you do have to include one, it isn't the end of the world.
I'm not sure where Durham would fall in the free agent classification. However, since it's based on a three year average, we can safely assume he would be at least a 'B' for service time alone. He's OPSing .800 this year, which is pretty damned good for a 2B. Last year he was awful, posting a .638, but the year before that he was the man, with an OPS near .900(!). .891, to be exact. Based on those numbers as a second baseman, I would think he has a very good chance of being a Type A, so there's a decent chance you could get two draft picks for him anyway.
With his on base abilities, I think you could slot Durham right into the top of the lineup immediately. He would be an upgrade, and a pretty decent one, but not massive, so if the price is too high, it doesn't kill you to pass on him.
At this point, you need to rearrange your assets in the lineup to maximize what you get out of them. Here's your new batting order:
- Durham/Miles 2B
- Molina C
- Pujols 1B
- Bonds LF
- Glaus 3B
- Ankiel CF
- Ludwick RF
- Pitcher
- Izturis SS
I know, Molina is kind of an odd choice for the second hole, but I think it works. He makes contact well enough to be an excellent hit and run combo with Durham or Miles, and you don't run ahead of Albert anyway, so speed at the top of the order is essentially wasted on this team. The only concern with Yadi, of course, would be his penchant for grounding into double plays, but he doesn't hit into an enormous amount, particularly when you consider just how slow afoot he is. At the very least, he should get on base a fair amount ahead of the big boppers.
Okay. That's the lineup taken care of. Time to shore up the pitching staff. Go out and trade for Jarrod Washburn. Lb made all the important arguments for Washburn yesterday, so I won't go back over them here. Personally, I'm not all that excited about the prospect of dealing for Washburn, but as a salary dump, he wouldn't cost any kind of real prospect, and he has only limited no trade protection, so you could potentially move him after the season if you really wanted him out of town. For now, though, he provides some protection in the rotation, and frees up one of our current starters to potentially be dealt if you want. (Braden Looper, I'm looking your way.) There's been plenty of talk about A.J. Burnett, and I agree he would help you more, but I'm not sure I want to give up what it would probably cost to bring him in from Toronto, plus dealing with the whole opt out thing? Feh.
I wouldn't give up a better prospect than, say, a David Freese type guy for Washburn, since we're talking about pretty much a straight salary dump here. If you're taking on the guy's contract, you won't give up a top 20 type talent to the Mariners. That makes your every day rotation look something like this:
- Lohse
- Wellemeyer
- Washburn
- Pineiro
- Looper
When Wainwright or Carpenter come back, you simply flip Looper to a team looking to bolster the back end of the rotation. Again, what you're looking for is bullpen assistance, particularly of the lefthanded variety. If both of them come back, you might even consider moving Pineiro. He could bring a pretty solid return, I would have to think. Hopefully, by the middle or possibly the end of August, you're looking at a rotation of:
- Carpenter
- A.D.A.M.
- Lohse
- Wellemeyer
- Washburn
Of course, at the end of the season, you either let Lohse walk or trade Washburn and sign Lohse, opening up at least one rotation spot for Garcia/ Boggs/ Todd/ Mortensen/ McClellan/ whoever. It's not a cheap rotation, but particularly if you move Lohse, it's one that doesn't tie the Cards' hands long term.
So that allows us to potentially trade Chris Duncan, Braden Looper, Adam Kennedy, and possibly Joel Pineiro from the big league squad. In addition, I would be willing to trade any one of Jaime Garcia, Jess Todd, Clayton Mortensen, or Mitchell Boggs, even outside of the trade for Ray Durham I already mentioned specifically. In this particular scenario, I don't see a reason to trade Bryan Anderson, so I wouldn't. If you move Anderson, I think it needs to be for a guy who's going to be a big piece of the future, and I'm not describing any of those sorts of deals at the moment. Again, I think you could move one of the four pitching prospects simply because there are four of them, and I think they all have a pretty similar chance of making it to the majors. Note that I did say similar, not exactly equal.
Any and all AAAA roster filler can also be moved; guys like Mike Parisi, Anthony, and so on. Randy Flores can be moved, too, if anyone seems interested in him as a throw in. If you simply can't move Kennedy, either just DFA him or send Brendan Ryan back to the minors. It would leave the team thin on third basemen, but that's not a prohibitive downside, in my opinion.
Out of all those players to be moved, you need to turn them into one good left handed reliever. You want to turn the rest of them into a promising young MI prospect, but that's not really the point of this. For this exercise, I'm only interested in this year. Find a team that still believes in Chris Duncan's bat (if there are any), and try to get their best LOOGY. Depending on whether they're in contention or out of it, you'll probably need to try and create a package of either Duncan and Looper/Pineiro or Duncan plus, say, Boggs. You can try to pry one of the Pirates' lefties away, or look at a guy like Jimmy Gobble from KC, maybe. (I think he has good lefty splits, but I don't feel like looking it up at the moment, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Arthur Rhodes of the M's would be a good target, too. Point being, just find the best lefthanded reliever you can and try to get him. Villone can serve as LOOGY if need be, if you simply can't find a guy, but Tony seems set on using Ron for whole innings, much to my dismay. So, try to get someone else.
The one real downfall to this plan, aside from the fact that you may not like the idea of Bonds here, is the money. This would require ownership to take on some extra salary this season. Not a prohibitive amount, and I think they would probably be willing to do so. I'm sure that some will argue they won't take on any salary, no matter what, but the point of this exercise is to demonstrate something, namely that you could turn this team into a big time contender, I think, without mortgaging the future too very badly.
So, we've got our big bat to slot in the middle of the order. He can't play defense too very well, but he's not any worse than Chris Duncan, I don't believe, and far better than a guy like a Manny Ramirez. You can make Bonds work on this team. The salary is so low there's no real risk to the clubhouse, either. He creates a problem with the team, just release him. As I said, in baseball terms, 200K or whatever it would cost to get him right now almost doesn't exist.
We upgrade in the middle infield, at least from an offensive standpoint. You may take a bit of a hit here on defense, too, and that does concern me. Kennedy has been quite good with the glove; Miles, just okay. Durham is pretty average, so you lose a bit in regards to Kennedy, but the extra offense definitely offsets it, in my opinion. You have a new high OBP guy for the top of the lineup. No speed at the top, obviously, with Durham and Molina, but this team doesn't run with those guys anyway. You do have some speed further down, with Ankiel and Ludwick, and they're in a better position to use that speed and be a bit creative with the bottom of the order up.
You help to upgrade the rotation for right now, and don't have to go overboard committing to the guy long term. Again, Washburn has only limited no trade protection, so I'm sure you could move him if you really, really wanted to.
With the amount of players you would have free to trade, I'm sure you could come up with at least a little bit of bullpen help. The 'pen is probably going to be a bit of question mark this year, though, pretty much no matter what, so I think we may all just have to live with it. Still, one more lefty reliever isn't too much to ask, is it? You've got to be able to get one of those for what you have to give up.Guys like that are out there, you just have to be willing to give up a little bit to get them sometimes.
Bottom line, you could do all these things and not spend much of anything in the way of talent. It would cost you something in money, but money is much less valuable than talent. You can trade one of your four pitching prospects and stil have a pretty good chance that one of the other three will become something useful. This utilises mostly talent that's very nearly freely available, and there's really very little risk or opportunity cost lost going forward.
I've gone on record as saying that I think this team should just wait, sit tight with what they have, and give it a run. The pipeline of talent they've managed to develop to this point is just too valuable to blow up, in my estimation. You go with this sort of a strategy, though, and you can turn the team into a real contender without doing so.
Do I think they should do it? Hell, I have no idea. Do I think it would work? Absolutely. If I didn't, I wouldn't have wasted your time with it.
Thoughts?
Second author's note: Apparently, I have the absolute worst luck in the world when it comes to picking which games I should and should not watch. The 20-2 Phillies shellacking? Totally saw that. The Boston epic? Nope, not even an inning. Thus, it figures that I skipped the greatest All Star game ever. It's really beginning to get on my nerves.
0 recs |
369
comments
Comments
durham's defense is dreadful
he probably wouldn’t be better than Kennedy, this year and next, and if he IS a type A based on his offensive stats, he’ll not play after this season due to the heavy weight that modern GM’s (rightfully) place on draft picks. No sane GM will trade a 37yo for negative draft pcks plus $xM.
Bonds OTOH is a clearly HUGE upgrade over Schumaker, costs nothing, and should have been signed in May to play LF. Esp if we can trade schu.dunc/barton etc for something useful.
"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN
by SleepyCA on Jul 16, 2008 4:30 AM EDT 0 recs
I don't see why Durham is...
such a better option than Grudzy. Mark is sporting a .770 OPS (.360 OBP) now which is just a tick below RD. He also is MUCH greater defensively, and may even be an upgrade over Kennedy…not to mention he is already well liked by the Cardinal faithful. He may cost a tick better prospect than what Durham would, but would surely be worth it. I would also think he’s a lock for being a Type A free agent – if we don’t just decide to re-up for 2009.
by cardzfanbub on
Jul 16, 2008 7:54 AM EDT
up
0 recs
i don't dislike bonds because he's a PED user
i dislike bonds because he’s an arrogant prick. say what you want about donating his salary to charity, etc., but from my outward impressions he seems to crave attention so much that i believe his personal needs would clash with the current personality of the team.
between the personality issue and the media circus swarming the team as a result of signing him acting as a distraction, i don’t care if he donated $10 million to the team’s payroll in order to play, i wouldn’t want him on the st. louis cardinals.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 16, 2008 7:45 AM EDT 0 recs
+1 Bonds is known as a CLUB HOUSE CANCER... Do the Cardinals need that?
Bonds is so bad with teamates that I recently heard he has been known to play with teamates for YEARS and not speak a single word to them…even if they are in the lineup everyday and bat either directly in front of or behind him…This team has chemistry (minus a strong closer) do we really want to mess with it?
mattnj
by mattnj on
Jul 16, 2008 9:33 AM EDT
up
0 recs
if he's not talking to his teammates
how bad a cancer could he possibly be?
Any lack of clubhouse chemistry inflicted by Bonds (which I believe to be overhyped by a media that has complete contempt for the man) would be resoundingly outweighed by the offensive improvement he would bring. It wouldn’t even be close. The team that signs Bonds, and I think someone will, improves their team markedly immediately by 2-3 wins at least.
by chuckb on
Jul 16, 2008 11:17 AM EDT
up
0 recs
agreed
Bonds is just one guy. Based on reports this season the clubhouse atmosphere seems to be great. I have a hard time believing that Bonds could someone affect it that much when there are 24 other guys in the clubhouse as well. He would almost have to try to cause that much of a problem.
"The right-hander is throwing up in the bullpen." -Mike Shannon
by DJ87 on
Jul 16, 2008 12:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
most of the good chemistry this season
has come from the fact that there are no “stars” on the team. even the better players on the roster (pujols, ww, etc.) lead with humility and work ethic, not a prima donna attitude. rolen and edmonds didn’t fit into that and wouldn’t accept their roles on the team, and thus were traded. i am worried bonds would come in with too big a sense of entitlement, as he has seemingly had his entire career. i don’t want to see another bonds/kent-esque feud with whoever he finds distasteful on our roster. last year’s team had enough drama for a decade.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on
Jul 16, 2008 1:52 PM EDT
up
0 recs
This post is utter insanity
How can you presume to know the culture of the clubhouse without spending any time in it? How can you presume to know any of the following claims you make:
- The Cards’ chemistry comes from having no “stars”
- Pujols and Waino lead with humility and work ethic and aren’t prima donnas
- Rolen didn’t fit into the chemistry (we know he didn’t agree with LaRussa, but how can you claim to know how he fit in with the rest of the players?)
- Edmonds didn’t fit into the chemistry
- The Edmonds trade had ANYTHING to do with his clubhouse presence
You’re stating a lot of things as fact that you have no way of actually knowing.
by mojowo11 on
Jul 16, 2008 1:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
pardon
i should’ve clarified that several of my statements were my own speculation. (though i thought it was fairly clear that edmonds was going to have a reduced role in ‘08, so he demanded a trade… as well as most details of the rolen/la russa feud. management does play a part in clubhouse chemistry, do they not?)
but frankly, everything regarding bonds is speculation. nobody knows that he’s going to come in and be a perfect gentleman either. and heck, nobody knows if he’s even going to come in and be a healthy, productive player. so to each, their own opinion.
the one thing we can probably assume with certainty is that any team that signs bonds is going to be scrutinized heavily by the national media, for better or for worse. and i don’t think media attention is what this team needs. it seems la russa’s teams tend to thrive in the neglected/underdog role (most notably the 2004 season and 2006 postseason), so i tend to believe that any gains in performance from picking up bonds would be offset by the negative psychological toll brought on by playing under a magnifying glass.
so, i’m going to say it – signing barry bonds would, in fact, be “utter insanity”.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on
Jul 16, 2008 2:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
steve kline said the clubhouse cancer thing
was total crap on the radio the other day. Coming straight from someone who was on his team….
by azruavatar on
Jul 16, 2008 12:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Plus
Der Kliney bear is not particularly warm and fuzzy.
by bgh on
Jul 16, 2008 3:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
and...
correct me if I am forgetting someone, but the only teammate I have ever heardof Bonds not getting along with is Jeff Kent. Does anyone get along with Jeff Kent?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jul 16, 2008 6:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Bonds got into a fight with Jason Christiansen.
by greenback06 on
Jul 16, 2008 7:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think much of this year's success is attributable to a collection of players who actually embrace 27 hard outs.
Bonds would inject a whole lot of indifference into the team, create media mayhem and generally undo a lot of what has gone well for the team. Check that, no UNDO, destroy.
Cry havoc and let loose the Dogs of Tony before adding Bonds!
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 16, 2008 7:59 AM EDT 0 recs
bonds has never won a world championship
I think that would be enough to motivate him to “embrace 27 hard outs”. Besides, if there ever was a player who is hard to get out, it’s barry bonds…
"..and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped." -Sir Belvedere
by SleepyCA on
Jul 16, 2008 2:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Trade Talk
Under no circumstances would I be pleased to see the Cardinals trade Garcia (potential #2-3 starter), Mortenson (fast tracked to AAA in what, his second year of pro ball?), Todd (moving up w/a bullet), or Boggs (I think he could evolve into Jeff Suppan in time) for Durham. Durham? Please sir, say it isn’t so.
by Callaway Kid on Jul 16, 2008 8:09 AM EDT 0 recs
You give me Dan Haren
I’ll give you Bud Smith and Jose Jiminez. Both were sold high and recouped a player greater than them… it’s not always a bad thing to do.
by Hal Lanier's Pants on
Jul 16, 2008 10:56 AM EDT
up
0 recs
one sweet day
we’ll get over danny haren and mark mulder.
by spencegrif on
Jul 16, 2008 11:30 AM EDT
up
0 recs
That would be great...
I know I’m ready to move on!
by tbell61 on
Jul 16, 2008 11:40 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree
But Todd is no Bud Smith orJose Jiminez. I guess that my beef is that “sell high on Todd” implies that Todd’s value is at its highest now. In my opinion, that is way off base.
by rthorat on
Jul 16, 2008 11:49 AM EDT
up
0 recs
What does that mean?
Todd is no Bud Smith or Jose Jiminez? The guy is a pitching prospect, just like Smith and Jiminez were. Whether he is a “better” prospect than Smith or Jiminez is irrelevant. The issue here is whether he is “at his highest value” for trading purposes, which you seem to state in your post. How does a comparison of the pitchers at issue apply here?
by Hal Lanier's Pants on
Jul 16, 2008 3:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
whats the risk of bud smith and jose jimenez though?
you arent paying them a thing. trading them away is a lot riskier than keeping them.
by UNCDubya on
Jul 16, 2008 12:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, but...
thnk about the team on the other side. They’re taking on some risk too. They could trade an established vet who goes on to give the Cards serous value for 6 months to 6 years, and get a prospect or two who fizzles out and leaves them with nothing in return.
I’m all for prospects and generating homegrown talent, but I think people forget the low success rates for these guys. Even a lot of can’t-miss guys just don’t really pan out. Some do, of course, and that’s what you hope for. But a lot just don’t.
by Hal Lanier's Pants on
Jul 16, 2008 3:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
a lot of trades
dont pan out either. but if the trade doesnt pan out for the team acquiring prospects, theyve typically given up and older high paid star and have low paid guys under contract. and theyve moved a high salary off the books, giving themselves flexibility. if it doesnt work for the other side, you are stuck with a player with a huge contract or worse yet, youve given up a cost controlled star.
by UNCDubya on
Jul 16, 2008 5:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Where is the optimism?
We seem to be disucssing the obvious here, but I’ll plow on.
You are correct on everything you say. However, the one big thing you are leaving out is the common scenario where a trade DOES pan out. Look at the Edmonds-Kennedy deal. Yeah sure, the Angels got a low paid guy who played many solid years for them. The Cardinals, however, got a superstar who cost a lot of money, and was worth it.
The “hedging” logic you present is pretty defensive. If all a team worried about when making trades was how to minimize their damage in the event of a bust, they’d go nowhere. Teams make trades with the hope, whether inspried by research or the GM’s gut, that they do pan out.
by Hal Lanier's Pants on
Jul 16, 2008 5:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
How about
Kent Bottenfield – not exactly the same because he was no longer a prospect, but the Cardinals sold at the absolute pinnacle on that guy.
by roarke on
Jul 16, 2008 12:45 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yes
might be a position player, but, that is like selling Ludwick right now.
by hoofhearted-pujols on
Jul 16, 2008 12:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Garcia, Todd, and Mortenson are untouchable for me
unless we get a top shelf player for them. Boggs is expendable and Parisi even more so. Mortenson and Todd are possibly top of the rotation guys and Garcia is a 2 or 3. That’s a lot of years of cheap, good pitching. And all 3 of them will probably be ready to start within a year or so.
by rthorat on
Jul 16, 2008 10:14 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Ray Durham? Maybe Bonds? Also no
Bonds is a great player, and the PED thing doesn’t bother me all that much, but the guy is 43 and about as immobile as they come.
As for Durham? If we can get him for cheap (basicly a 2nd level prospect like Shane Robinson), then sure.
boo cubs, hooray beer
by Raconteur on Jul 16, 2008 8:38 AM EDT 0 recs
So not to be a huge Richard or anything...
and seriously, not to knock the post above, but but I got 1 bazillion cyber-dollars that no one rips Red Baron for posting what amounts to “trade rumor/speculation” stuff.
Look, I am completely fine reading stuff like this; I think about it myself and I enjoy reading others’ creative (and even sometimes not-so-creative) thoughts on the subject. I think such posts often generate some pretty decent discussion and if nothing else, they give us all a chance to procrastinate a little while at work.
What rubs me the wrong way is that when Fan X authors a Fanpost with no links to sources and what basically amounts to his or her opinions on what team could/should do, we inevitably get the enforcers who feel compelled to chime in and point out just how worthless the post is and how it doesn’t deserve to be its own entry, yet here we have 2,843 words (sans the author’s notes…yep, I counted) as the “main page” entry today.
Again, I’m sure Baron’s opinions on acquiring Barry Bonds, Ray Durham, et al. have the potential to generate some good discussion today. I’m just saying that we’re all fans here and if one of the regular contributors can use nearly 3000 words on pure, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants trade speculation on a main post, maybe we should be a little more tolerant when other readers devote far-less prominent spaces to their own speculation.
Bring on the criticism…..
by goodymobb on Jul 16, 2008 8:46 AM EDT 0 recs
Ha!
Nice…..
Still, I see no one has taken my bet.
Also, moboiler, I totally agree that the one-stop-shop thread for trade stuff was a great idea.
by goodymobb on
Jul 16, 2008 10:00 AM EDT
up
0 recs
i'm in agreement
although i think everyone goes a little overboard with the wacky trading ideas. i suppose it’s fun for some people to talk about… but i’d prefer the main posts to focus on analysis rather than pure speculation. the global rumor thread fanpost was a fantastic idea.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on
Jul 16, 2008 9:57 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm fine with a fanpost
that is well thought out and well written dealing with any subject, including trade proposals.
The fanpost clutter begins when there is just a title like: “Aaron Cook?” and a subject of: “What would it take to get this guy? Anderson>?? Rasmus?? I’d do it!!! He’d be AWESPOME!!! and for some reason i have to keep typing tp get to mu characterlimit even though i mades my point to sign aaron cook no matter waht it takes!”
Well who the hell can see forever?
by Alxfritz on
Jul 16, 2008 10:03 AM EDT
up
0 recs
+9,395,289,395,358,257,932,684,852,356,257,002,893,189,025,486,361,593,482
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on
Jul 16, 2008 10:36 AM EDT
up
0 recs
ha
drop in the bucket there.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on
Jul 16, 2008 1:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Exactly
and then there are 3 different fanposts about acquiring the exact same player when they could have simply replied to either of the other previous fanposts about that player.
by chuckb on
Jul 16, 2008 11:21 AM EDT
up
0 recs
But again,
how much of RB’s main-page post today is “new?” There have been tons of discussions on acquiring Bonds and bullpen help and I’m 99% sure that someone mentioned Ray Durham fairly recently.
Look, I totally get that we all prefer to read well-reasoned trade ideas, but your argument (i.e., repeated posts on the same thing detract from the site) doesn’t really hold up here. Ultimately, today’s post is an “I think the Cardinals should get Bat X, Bullpen Help Y, and Middle Infielder Z” post. Sure, there’s not as many double question marks or typos, and again, I’m not picking on RB here, but this post is basically the same thing, except it uses waaaaaay more words to say it.
by goodymobb on
Jul 16, 2008 1:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
alex fritz nailed it
most of the objectionable FanPosts have about 1/1000th as much thought put into them as RB’s main-page post today. RB gives a rationale, analyzes the strengths / weaknesses of the players involved, and weighs the costs / benefits of his proposed acquisition. the typical “let’s trade !!” FanPost doesn’t do any of those things. a FanPost that does meet those specifications generally gets into the Recommended category.
there’s a reason RB is writing on the main page — it’s because he used to write FanPosts (then known as “diaries”) that were really, really good. nobody ever objects to a thoughtful, well-written FanPost. it’s the tossed-off-in-60-seconds junk —the equivalent of FanPost spam -—that everybody hates.
by lboros on
Jul 16, 2008 1:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
if this is the best we can do
ill play with the hand were holding please
we dont need the Bonds circus, unfairly ostracized or not
the difference between Barry and a guy like Franklin is Barry is a colossal jerk
and has always been
we dont need the clubhouse cancer that is Barry Lamar
Washburn has been good of late, but has been a career back end guy
if hes the best we can do, we need to look to the bullpen and just try to bring along some guys for next year
id take him over Burnett though, truth be told
and goodymobb has a great point
i dont do a lot of posts on here because i cant tell whos allowed to post what
Come on 2009!
by benstl on Jul 16, 2008 9:15 AM EDT 0 recs
I think you're being a bit unfair to Washburn...
...when you call him a “career back end guy.”
This is a guy who has posted ERA+s of 136, 120, 141, and 132 over his career. True, he is often quite average (his other ERA+s: 93, 99, 97, 95, 100), and will probably never get back to his former glory. These days he’s probably #4 in the NL. But he’s certainly been better than a “career back end guy,” and he even finished 4th in Cy Young voting in 2002.
/nitpicking
by mojowo11 on
Jul 16, 2008 10:55 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I said this the other day, and got absolutely LIT UP over it, but I will stand by my comments....
If Bonds is signed, I will boycott the Cards for his entire putrid term of existence on the team. My dislike for this guy and what he has done to bastardize baseball knows no bounds.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on
Jul 16, 2008 12:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Probably more of a loss...
for yourself than for the team.
by cardzfanbub on
Jul 16, 2008 12:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
dont think....
hes the only one
i can name five people i know closely that would look for other things to do until he left town
about time to build that Koi pond
Come on 2009!
by benstl on
Jul 23, 2008 11:39 AM EDT
up
0 recs
IMO
he didnt do a thing to baseball, and HE is a creation of what the culture of baseball has/had become. he wasnt the first, nor the last, he did not push other players to do anything. he just happens to be the most talented player to use PEDs. to which i say meh, there have been roids in the NFL since what the 70s and no one even cares.
feel free to disagree
by FunkeeC on
Jul 16, 2008 1:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
FunkeeC......
I view the PED era just like you do, oh well…....
by ICbirdfan on
Jul 16, 2008 1:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Agreed
I don’t know why people can’t see this. We are blinded by our emotions, I guess.
Looks, Bonds is a Class A dick. We all know that. But what makes him worse than Ryan Franklin? The steroids worked out better for him and he broke the HR record? Just because you are a more notable player who took steroids doesn’t mean you’re more guilty. And the funny thing is that Bonds hasn’t even tested positive like Franklin did.
Dislike him as a person, fine. But this “what he’s done to the game” line is a load of media force-fed crap. He hasn’t done anything to the game that a dozen, two dozen, two hundred, a thousand other steroid/PED users haven’t also done. He was a good player who became elite after he (probably) took steroids. Other guys were bad players who became passable when they took steroids, and nobody gives a crap about them other than their role as a miniscule part of the “steroid era” as a whole. Just because Bonds’ ceiling was higher doesn’t mean he deserves more punishment, more scorn, or the role of the scapegoat that he’s been assigned by the public and the media.
I don’t want Bonds. I don’t want the media circus, I don’t want to deal with his legal problems, and I don’t really think that the marginal gain he provides is worth it. But people have got to stop pretending like Bonds is the devil when it comes to this steroid crap. If Franklin can be on the Cardinals, then it makes no sense to say Bonds shouldn’t be on the Cardinals because of the steroid allegations.
by mojowo11 on
Jul 16, 2008 1:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
nice post
although, i thought bonds was an elite player who became elite-er after taking steroids?
i think part of the issue is that there are subtleties that people overlook or don’t want to admit. is a serial killer more guilty of murder than a man who killed only once? sure, maybe bonds did more steroids than anyone in baseball, ever. i don’t know, i can’t speculate. and it does seem like he’s unrepentant, but do i know for sure how many other players are repentant? nope. i wish players would be encouraged to get it all out in the open instead of just doing our best to sweep it under the rug. that way there might be potential for coming to terms with it.
by mattybobo on
Jul 16, 2008 2:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
BTW, the media didn't force-feed me any crap. I force-fed it to myself!!!
:)
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on
Jul 16, 2008 2:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It's not the PED's that I object to.
It is the way that he has created this horrible melodrama about himself. I feel that, when Bonds is around, the game is almost trivialized. McGwire and Sosa didn’t do that. I want to win games. I want to win games the right way. I want the wins to be the news, not indictments or divorces or mistresses or dugout fistfights or hat size or shoe size or personal trainers. And, I definately don’t want Carlos Gomez reporting daily from the clubhouse about how Bonds sneezed yesterday after the game.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on
Jul 16, 2008 2:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
pedro gomez
carlos = twins’ CF
but yes, i agree with you.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on
Jul 16, 2008 2:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
So basically your main concern
is the media coverage of the man.
by FunkeeC on
Jul 16, 2008 3:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Maybe they’ll send Jeremy Schapp “for E-S-PEEEEE-IN” to monitor Bonds attempt to get his body physically able (not ready…able!) to play baseball and discuss ad nauseum how his Dad used to be a Cardinal and how emotional it all is.
by cardschinmusic on
Jul 17, 2008 7:02 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Bonds
Was just going to echo what Benstl said. It isn’t so much the PED thing with Bonds, it’s that he’s a jerk.
by Chris68 on Jul 16, 2008 9:18 AM EDT 0 recs
this is a BS argument
Tony LaRussa and Dave Duncan can be, on many occassions, world class “jerks”. The club should be interested in winning games, so if there’s nothing morally incorrect with signing bonds (as the previous posters have claimed), then the club is seriously failing in its responsibility to sign one of the greatest hitters in the game at bargain basement prices.
Now, if you can give me a reason based on actual performance or numbers why they shouldn’t sign him, you might be onto something. Citing his age alone doesn’t count because you could have screamed 42!!!!! last year and the argument would have been just as false.
by spencegrif on
Jul 16, 2008 10:32 AM EDT
up
0 recs
yeah...
it’s taken me a while to admit it to myself, but the controversy surrounding bonds has become such a circus. if he did ped’s, he’s merely the most accomplished and best player to do so. i really like troy glaus, and even ryan franklin, and guess what, they did it too. he also happens to be a jerk, which has little to do with “playing the game the right way”, it’s just nice to have players who aren’t jerks. he’s the perfect storm, so to speak, of the ped era, and so far more than his fair share of bitterness is heaped upon him. and i’m not saying he doesn’t deserve bitterness, either; i’m just saying he has become for many people the incarnation of steroids, and it’s as if by denying him the chance to play anymore, it makes the whole thing better in some way.
on the other hand, i wish i could say i was brave enough to advocate signing him and ignoring the tidal wave of negativity that will crash upon the cardinals for doing so, but i’m not. i don’t think we need him, because he’s kind of old and could break down, and out outfield is good enough. but the truth is i just don’t want to deal with what would surround us signing him. blah.
by mattybobo on
Jul 16, 2008 10:57 AM EDT
up
0 recs
its not a BS arguement
chemistry can be everything
this team is considerably better than last year
could we honestly not say it could well be due to no more scotty and jimmy fueding with tony
the atmosphere you play in can make or break a team
its BS to dismiss this arguement
with his talent he should have a ring, it wasnt like they didnt have good teams in san francisco and pittsburgh
Come on 2009!
by benstl on
Jul 17, 2008 12:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What?
Why don’t y


