Trade Rumour Roundup
by the red baron on Jul 2, 2008 10:25 AM EDT
321 comments
Tough loss last night. That, unfortunately, was the Todd Wellemeyer that we saw so much of before he got here, the one that has largely been absent this season. Too many pitches, unable to put hitters away, just generally all the things you get from a pitcher who, despite the quality of his stuff, just isn't sharp enough to be successful.
It's not that I fear that Wellemeyer still isn't healthy, but I do still question the Cardinals' decision not to DL him. He looks like he's okay physically, but he doesn't look like he's right. He said it himself after last night's game; he could probably use another extra bullpen session or two to try and get back on track. Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen. Now, of course, if the Cardinals had just put him on the shelf whenever he experienced the elbow issues, he would have had plenty of time to not only get healthy, but also to get his stuff ironed out before rejoining the rotation. Too late for all of that, I suppose. Don't get me wrong; I understand that the options to replace Welley in the rotation, even temporarily, weren't at all attractive, but watching the Cards give away games because of a pitcher who just isn't right is a less than enjoyable option.
In case you missed it, the Cardinals came to terms with their first round draft pick, Brett Wallace, yesterday. He signed for very slightly more than slot money, with a reported bonus of right around $1.84 million. I'm extremely glad the Cards moved so quickly to get this done early this year, rather than allowing the process to drag on until the signing deadline the way they did last year with Kozma. The sooner they can get Wallace into the system and playing ball, the better.
You know, the way the trade deadline is beginning to shape up this year, we may finally see some real movement this season. Every year, it seems we hear of all the big deals that are going to take place, yet the ESPN trade deadline special always seems to be mostly about a couple of middling relievers and a fourth outfielder or two. This year, though, I think we just may see that magic combination of teams with some excess in the farm system and several big names with reasons to be moved. So, in that spirit, let's take a look around at what some of the latest chatter may be.
Probably the biggest name on the trading block this year is the Indian's big lefty, C.C. Sabathia. It now actually appears that the Brewers (the article is insider only) may be one of the strongest suitors for his services. I must admit, I was shocked when I first heard this little tidbit making the rounds. For one thing, the Brewers' farm system has taken a pretty significant hit the past couple of seasons, with a ton of players graduating to the majors, and several others being moved in deals to help shore up some of the big club's weaknesses. For another, the Brewers already have a ton of money tied up in their rotation, with Ben Sheets and Jeff Suppan both having big, expensive deals. Of course, I thought that before I found out that Ben Sheets has apparently already indicated that he'll opt out of his current deal at the end of the season, and apparently the Brewers aren't willing to commit to him on a longer term basis. (There's an interesting discussion about that topic here.) With all of that in play, Milwaukee actually seems like a fairly sensible destination for Sabathia, though I still question whether or not they would be able to get a long term deal done with him.
Of course, the rumour that concerns us the most is probably the one about the Cards' interest in Matt Holliday and Brian Fuentes. There was a great discussion about it over Future Redbirds yesterday, and the prevailing sentiment over there was mostly that the deal would cost too much to make it worthwhile. I happen to agree with that notion, but I won't go into all the details here as to why. I'm just here to report the facts.
Besides our own Redbirds, the Red Sox and Yankees both appear to be suitors for Fuentes' services. The Sawx are certainly in a great position to make a play for the lefty, with a farm system that could easily take the hit. The Yankee system is a little less robust, but Steinbrenner appears to be pretty much hell bent on doing whatever it takes to build the team he wants, regardless of the cost or the wisdom. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Randy Wolf is an intriguing name, given just how astoundingly awful the Padres have been this season. Strangely enough, though, not a whole lot of teams have been linked to Wolf. The Cubbies appear to at least be somewhat interested, but I'm a little fuzzy on just what they might have to offer.
Even though they're in contention, the Athletics have a couple of players that seem to definitely be on the market. Rich Harden is a name that gets thrown around constantly, pretty much any time trades are the subject. He's as dominant as Sabathia when healthy; unfortunately, that's not really all that often. I'm sure it would take a ridiculous offer in order to pry Billy Beane's fingers off of Harden, but some team in contention could very well make that knockout offer to bring in this level of talent.
Mark Ellis, the A's second baseman, could make an attractive target as well, particularly to someone like the Cardinals. Ellis is relatively young, relatively cheap, and also just happens to be quite a ballplayer. Given those qualities, Ellis would also probably draw a pretty serious package, but he might be just what the doctor ordered. I heard a bit about the Mets or the Indians possibly being interested, but it was just a tiny little blurb somewhere, and I cannot for the life of me find it now.
The Blue Jays are trying like hell to unload A.J. Burnett, their $55 million problem child. He's also planning to opt out of his contract after this season, so he would be strictly a rental most likely. The Brewers, Phillies, Mets, and A's have all reportedly kicked the tires at least, and the Cubs have been rumoured to be interested, although there are quite a few conflicting stories on that front.
Vincente Padilla is being looked at by the Mets and Yankees. No thanks.
The A's are apparently looking at Adrian Beltre, from the Mariners. This one doesn't make much sense at all to me, I have to say. Beltre hasn't had a really good season since his contract year, he's owed $12 million next season, and the A's have a pretty good third baseman already, as far as I know. Actually, I take that back. I just checked Eric Chavez's page; he's been awful this year. I hadn't been paying that much attention to the A's this year, to be honest. Does anybody know what in the world has happened to Chavez?
I've got to run, everybody. Discuss amongst yourselves. I'll have a game thread up this evening.
0 recs |
321 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Chavez has had too many injuries
Shoulder is keeping him from playing 3B at the moment.
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on Jul 2, 2008 10:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ellis
has openly expressed his desire to remain in oakland, even to the point of starting up below-market extension negotiations in-season. with that in mind i seriously doubt he’ll be traded.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jul 2, 2008 10:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand why STL would be interested.....
Chances are, Oak wouldn’t take back a guy like Kennedy. And with Miles hitting the ball well, and Kennedy being better of late, and Ryan who “could” share time there once Iz comes back, it just doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
Of course, during the offseason I’d be all for trying to sure up the 2B position, but like I mentioned above, that is likely going to involve dealing a guy like AK, or not tendering Miles/Iz.
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Ellis is going anywhere
Just last week I read that Ellis was involved with the A’s in negotiations over an extension. This would seem to reflect a sentiment on both sides that Ellis playing in Oakland is in their plans.
by bgh on Jul 2, 2008 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
And Ellis has said several times that he likes Oakland so much he wants to resign, possibly under market value.
Free Colby
by Oregonian Redbird on Jul 2, 2008 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoops
Just saw moboiler’s comment, so apparently mine was a repeat.
Free Colby
by Oregonian Redbird on Jul 2, 2008 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chavez has had injury trouble-for quite some time now.
I also read that Mark Ellis would like to stay in Oakland and Oakland would like to keep him. His agent/A’s have been in talks. The Brewers have a boatload of talent on their Huntsville AA team-Gamel and LaPorta to name two. They could also give up a player or two from their ML team and not really miss them. If they are not signing Sheets, they certainly could go big on an offer to Sabathia. Makes sense to me…...
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 2, 2008 10:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wolf
Do we really need another SP like this? I’m assuming we don’t have any further SP breakdowns, but don’t we seem pretty set with Waino, Lohse, Wellemeyer, Looper, and JP? I don’t see Wolf being an improvement over 3-4 of those guys.
IF STL is in the market for a SP, I’d hope it was a 1-2 type guy, and preferably somebody we could keep around for more than a couple of months. Otherwise, ride with what we’ve got, maybe try to pick up a bat, and let’s look forward to next season.
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 10:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Cardinals will be the only team
with four number four starters.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
change "will" to "are"
They already do have four #4.
They may have more starting pitchers in the bullpen and former bullpen pitchers who are now starters then any team I can remember.
by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jul 2, 2008 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is your opinion.....
I don’t happen to agree with it. I’d say Welly and Lohse have both thrown like 3’s, at least.
Waino is a 1-2.
What is Wolf, a 3? He certainly isn’t a 1 or a 2, right now.
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but waino is hurt
and welley hasn’t been healthy for a month and is stil rusty - or maybe still injured.
and it doesn’t look as if carpenter will be riding to the rescue in august . . . . this team needs another starter. maybe they’re best served to promote garcia or todd rather than trading for somebody, but i wouldn’t count on the current group for another 80 games
by lboros on Jul 2, 2008 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless we're overlooking something
It looks like promoting Garcia would be the best thing to do…
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to take a flyer on someone like Maddux or Wolf
who could give us some innings and wouldn’t cost so much to acquire. Our lineup and defense are more than strong enough to prop up an unspectacular pitching staff.
by JI on Jul 2, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Maddux
Because it shouldn’t cost much, he is consistently good, and what a bonus it would be to see him beat the Cubs pitching as a Cardinal. That’s like Edmonds beating the Cardinals with a walkoff home run (knock on wood).
by rthorat on Jul 2, 2008 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two problems
1. He would be more likely to join the Cubs.
2. He has said he doesn’t want to leave San Diego, and has a no-trade clause, IIRC.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember a few 100 win seasons with that same scenario...
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jul 2, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously.....
Didn’t we win a WS with Suppan as our 3rd starter? Is Lohse not that good?
Welly will be fine, just needs a short break. Waino is back soon too.
I just don’t think Wolf adds anything that Mulder, Reyes, or Boggs can add.
I guess if we could get him dirt cheap, I wouldn’t hate the idea, but I wouldn’t want to give up any of our top, lets say, 6-7 prospects in a deal for him.
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Matt Morris was a #4 starter?
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 2, 2008 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In '04/'05???
He most definitely was.
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on Jul 2, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess
but Mark Mulder certainly wasn’t in 05.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 2, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now we are arguing semantics
did we have 4 number 4 starters based on their numbers or their prestige? Because in 2004, Jason Marquis had an ERA+ of 115, in 2005 Mark Mulder (115), Jeff Suppan (119). In the National League, both were in the Top 25, which..I would think, would not make them #4 starters.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 2, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ERA+ is a bad way to evaluate pitchers
look at the hits, walks, and strikeouts.
by JI on Jul 2, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
ERA is a bad way, ERA+ is adjusted to include the things you list and much more to be reflective of performance
by FunkeeC on Jul 2, 2008 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In your ideal situation
you would create some metric that is WHiP+K plus?
ERA+ is not a bad way to evaluate pitchers on face value. In fact, it equalizes all pitchers in the league and is one of the more fair ways to look at them.
Either way, this whole argument has been based on semantics. What is ‘four #4 starters’? Is it the production value? No, because in 2004/2005, we had atleast 2, maybe 4 pitchers perform above #4 pitcher status. Is it name recognition? No, because in 2005 we had 3 ‘name’ pitchers in Carpenter, Mulder and Morris.
This year, yes, we’ve got a hodge podge bunch of starters. But saying we had the same situation in 2004 and 2005 doesn’t jive. Especially when the #1 was one of the Top 3 pitchers in the league.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 2, 2008 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
there is no "proper context"
the arguments against ERA are that it is less predictive than other stats like FIP because it takes into account events (IE, hits) that are outside of the pitchers control and/or random. You can’t say ERA is bad and then say counting hits is useful, because it’s the fact that the pitcher relies on defense to turn balls in play into outs (IE hits) that makes ERA bad to begin with.
"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN
by SleepyCA on Jul 2, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I hate HATE this argument anyway
in the context of a team that actually has a pretty spectacular defense, which is the common thread between the current team and the 04/05 squad. We shouldn’t be looking for guys with low FIP. What we should be looking for is guys who have been slaughtered by butcher defenses behind them. These are the ones that will look good for us and will come cheaply.
A dude who strikes everyone out is worth far more to a team with a crappy defense than they are to us. Why pay for production that you can get out of our defense just as easily as you can get it out of the pitcher? Just give me someone who can keep the ball in the park and who isn’t completely overmatched, and move the remaining resources into the offense.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jamie Moyer
or one of the Pirates’ many southpaws?
I wouldn’t mind buying low on Ian Snell’s pretty nicely structured contract.
by liam on Jul 2, 2008 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Snell seems like a decent idea
I doubt Moyer would cost much. I still like the idea of Maddux if they can convince him to waive the no trade. But from a cost/benefit standpoint, I don’t really see the point in saying that everyone but these high K, 2.5 FIP guys sucks, especially when you’re talking about this team
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Snell is hurt
and it took him sucking something awful to figure that out.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 2, 2008 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Supposed to be back next Tuesday
And we’ve had such great success with pitchers coming back from sore elbows.
by liam on Jul 2, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you can call Lohse a 4th starter this year then yes...
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jul 2, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't seen it posted
But Wolf has AWEFUL home/road splits. He plays in the the ultimate pitchers park and would be a bad addition in mu opinion.
I find that interesting after yesterday’s discussion on Holliday. At least Holliday is an All-star.
by CardFaninTTown on Jul 2, 2008 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
New Busch is pretty pitcher-friendly, too
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From what I've seen/heard
it’s sorta a combination of a pitcher’s park for pitchers but neutral for decent to good hitters. If that makes any sense, I’ll try to explain. As far as hitters, it doesn’t seem to effect the true hitters in the game. The walls aren’t ridicluously deep or tall, and theres not a whole hell of a lot of foul territory. Good hitters in the game don’t seem to be affected by Busch too much. Not sure how that makes sense….
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I think that does make sense
But it does have supress HR a bit, even for good hitters. But that might be masked by just having HR become 2B or something. Troy Glaus is certainly seeming to nod his head in agreement over there.
But I don’t think Wolf will be particularly exposed here, regardless.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I guess my “observation” more affects the “acquisition” of hitters as opposed to pitchers.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's because of the thick air
floating up from the Mississippi…or the Post-Dispatch offices down the street.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why couldn't Wellemeyer go on the DL now?
He’d be back just after the ASB and Mulder/Thompson/Reyes could take his next two starts.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 2, 2008 10:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is Reyes activated from the DL?
(Please forgive my ignorance.)
by bgh on Jul 2, 2008 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
but he could be. His time would be up before Wellemeyer’s next start.
With the ASB, Wellemeyer would only miss 2 starts.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 2, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like a viable option to me
A dull Wellemeyer, unable to get his offspeed stuff across for strikes, does not give the club a better chance at winning that the trio you list, IMO.
by bgh on Jul 2, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would be in favor of giving Mulder a start
and giving Wellemeyer a week off. Maybe you could time it so his start falls on the ASG break and give him two weeks off.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But he may also be
a trade piece.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Memphis paper says he's scheduled to start there tonight.
Just forget about him. He’s not even really a Cardinal anymore. They never even bothered to issue a press release about his re-hab assignment.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 2, 2008 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it really a rehab assignment.....
When he’ll likely stay in AAA regardless?
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
You know everything. Why don’t you tell me.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 2, 2008 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say no.
Sorry your boy didn’t get a press release. Hopefully he’s handling it better than you are.
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Calm down, everyone
Reyes is the Cardinals’ “boy.” I believe that makes him every Cardinal fan’s “boy” and worthy of our rooting for him. Especially since his succeeding only helps the St. Louis Cardinals, whether it drives up his value in a trade or allows him to effectively fill a rotation slot. Here’s hoping for Reyes’s continued success in Memphis.
by bgh on Jul 2, 2008 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought
the cards killed him 14 months ago. {/sarcasm]
He’ll be back when he’s needed. Just like Wonderbrad. I don’t agree with how either has been treated, and respect the hell out of both of them for being professionals about it, but right now both of them are really nothing but organizational plug-ins, getting in where they fit in.
Which, compared to what most are doing when they’re 25/27 years old, sounds like an impossibly great way of life.
Well who the hell can see forever?
by Alxfritz on Jul 2, 2008 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt they're the only players that get that treatment
It’s the realities of playing in the majors sometimes.
by saladdays on Jul 2, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is this Reyes you speak of? Any chance he is a promising prospect???
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jul 2, 2008 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
About the Cards-Rockies rumor...
Is there any chance we can get Kip Wells back in that deal too??? I would hope that he would reduce the price we would have to pay…
Would the Rockies be interested in any deal that did not include Garcia or Rasmus? Can we send quantity in lieu of quality (Duncan, Reyes, Anderson, Jay, Craig, Walters, Parisi)?
by Jumsy on Jul 2, 2008 11:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not so fast with giving away P.J. I wanna see him here not to mention wouldn't Coors be kyptonite to his screwball change?
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jul 2, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I brought up Joe Beimel
Sunday and no one bit on the discussion. I think the Dodgers will hang around in the West and probably won’t end up being sellers, but if they do, Beimel could be a good acquisition. He’s a free agent at the end of the year so he won’t cost much. He’s only given up 1 homer in his last 111 innings or something. Good GB rate, good BB rate, and good K rate. Even if we don’t trade for him, he could be a good FA acquisition this winter.
by chuckb on Jul 2, 2008 11:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree he'd be a great target
but, against all reason, the D-backs haven’t been able to put any distance between themselves and .500 ball (and, consequently, the rest of the NL West). I don’t see them becoming sellers.
by punditmoi on Jul 2, 2008 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
w/ the Rocks and Pads playing horribly and the Giants just being bad, the Dodgers almost have to remain viable in case something freakish happens to the D-backs. You never see an entire division abandon a pretty good, but not truly outstanding, team.
by chuckb on Jul 2, 2008 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Beimel too......
He’s sort of quietly been having a nice run as a reliever. He probably wouldn’t cost much-except the Dodgers really like him and might just try to re sign him. A viable option that would cost less than the bigger names and give you just about as much….My guess is they keep him for the season.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 2, 2008 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's bewilder me...
It seems like they are always dumping players, yet they remain competative, for the most part…I don’t know if there is another team that plays the “sell high” game as well as they do…they did that with Haren and now, you get the feeling that sooner or later, Harden will head out the door, and Billy Beane will have stolen some other team’s blue chip prospects…Amazing.
by tbell61 on Jul 2, 2008 11:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
one of the things is
that Billy Beane just doesn’t give a shit what anyone thinks. That’s a tremendous quality to have in a GM. Imagine if Walt had sold off Mulder and Hudson for prospects when they were winning the way they were and then did the same w/ Haren a couple of years later. Imagine letting Tejada, Giambi, Izzy, and Johnny Damon all become free agents w/o trading them at the trade deadline or making any real attempt to resign him. Cards fans, and any others, along w/ the media would raise holy hell. They would go berserk! There’d be calls to fire him; the media would be all over him as an imbecile. There’s too much public pressure to do anything that ballsy! Beane just doesn’t give a damn. He does what he knows to be right and to hell w/ the consequences. He’s not always right, but he is more often than not.
by chuckb on Jul 2, 2008 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good post
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“He’s not always right, but he is more often than not”
The reason why is because he tends to trade with a short term future view instead of a long term view, or a “now” philosophy. You’re going to win more there, because you dodge the age and peak concerns a lot more than not.
It’s no different than what most successful day traders are doing on the stock market. If you buy into a stock that is already at its peak, you can have more confidence that the stock will be lower in value when you’re ready to release it. It may plateau for a while, it may even go up. Odds are against you. Walt was for the most part a buy high, sell low kinda guy. Billy is a buy low, sell high.
He picks “stocks” that all trend around low risk, high ceiling. When they fail, you don’t see them because its nothing outlandish so all of the wins are what’s seen.
I have no issue on the Cards locking up and having deals with nonpeak players to cornerstone for the fan base, we’ve always had cornerstone players, then add ins.
Sadly, though a lot of the “cornerstone” players we’ve signed recently (21st century) have been at their peak, so we get to witness the true fall and a substantial risk. Thus being handcuffed into the financial and prospect strain that we’ve witnessed the past few years.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jul 2, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree completely
Nevertheless, his approach is the riskier approach—popularity-wise. It’s much safer to lock up those guys rather than face the fans and media having to explain why you’re doing what you’re doing. Also, I know that Moneyball calls this a “now” approach but, b/c it avoids the age and peak problems of which you speak, it’s also a future approach, IMO. He does buy and sell players w/ the day trader approach to which you referred but it also avoids saddling the team w/ long-term expensive contracts that burden the club when the player is less productive. So there is a “then” element to it as well.
by chuckb on Jul 2, 2008 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Long Versus Short Term Approach
I agree with HC. I think Beane’s approach looks more at long term value. I can’t ever recall the A’s with a “win now” approach that really sacrificed prospects for the sake of a 1 year shot at a division title.
The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!
by Zubin on Jul 2, 2008 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do hope you read my reply to h.c., as I never implied to call Beane “win now”, and I agree he’s never been anything of the sort. I would, however, call Walt’s approach “win now” any day of the week.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jul 2, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is riskier from the media and fan base, I’ll completely back. It approaches the area where the locals need to follow a team rather than players. They’ve been trained in that regard for some time. They are used to it all in all, aware that a favorite may garner more names down the road, and generally view success in wins instead of key players – a nice fanbase to have under his mantra.
As far as the rest I think this line may have came out where it didn’t accurately say what I was thinking..
“The reason why is because he tends to trade with a short term future view instead of a long term view, or a "now" philosophy. You’re going to win more there, because you dodge the age and peak concerns a lot more than not.”
I see it as a three fold approach.
There’s the win now mode, where you clean out prospects often to garner peak players, but then usually get saddle bagged with the drop off in performance, or injury issues (age, use, or historical). This where it would be to grab some solid but peaked out stocks to diversify your performance as a team.
There’s a short term future view where I think Beane sits. You pick up cost controlled player for your peak players. You take the extra draft picks so you don’t get saddled with a bunch of long term, or overvalued salaries when and if they hit the market. You let the rest of the players go knowing that you’ve gotten a solid return on investment for the past years. You can do this because you’ve positioned yourself to have another “stock” fill that need. This would be akin to picking some beaten down stocks or unproven stocks and holding them as they gain value. That allows you to release and reinvest, release and take something high ceiling, or cash in and sit.
The long term view is quite different, and for the most part may align with the Rays. Years of the fan base suffering from losing seasons have garnered them top draft choices have put them into a stronger position. Then they’ve built around that. It’s highly long term look at things, it takes long cost controlled contracts in an aggressive manner that may backfire three years in, or may end up being quite strong. Trends and the market aren’t a heavy factor from initial purchase, and the waves are going to be rode out. Something akin to penny stocks, or stocks who have a solid 15 year outlook within a trend, but you may not see value for a long time, or it may crash around you.
There’s three different scenarios. I do believe that Walt was more of a now mode. We got some peak years out of it in key positions, but we also got hammered in long and costly contracts, handcuffed contracts from injuries, and the downslope of production. It also got us a farm system that didn’t have an outlook before.
Because we have a larger market and more money to invest in the A’s that should allow us to do a couple of things, be aggressive and prospect heavy. Sell high, all of the good things.
But that extra 25-40 million allows us to tie up a few cornerstone pieces that give us a marketing boost, allow fans to “attach”, and give us a long term view on things in key positions.
Waino, Albert, Yadi would be those current players.They give the fan base something. Now we just need the rest of the approach. Something we’re a hell of a lot closer to than ‘05.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jul 2, 2008 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But of course, the A's have taken a popularity hit from this
to the point that they’re considered a ‘small market’ franchise, despite being located in one of the five largest metropolitan areas in the country. The Giant’s approach has garnered them a much larger fan following.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would submit...
That the Giants greater popularity is largely due to their location and ballpark (and until recently, Barrymania).
by mikedallas45 on Jul 2, 2008 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
but this ‘small market’ nonsense annoys me to no end.
San Fransisco Metro: 7.2M people, 764,000 of which live in SF city
St. Louis Metro: 2.8M people.
Why don’t we ever hear about the struggling small market Cardinals?
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
b/c They don't struggle
It’s a crutch, an excuse for bad management. The Royals were a small-market team way back when they actually won more than 65 games a year, but they just didn’t complain about it then. I’m sure then A’s are the same way.
"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 Jul 2, 2008 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for saying that
I’ve been argueing with people for years, to the point of giving up on it, about Oakland’s “small market” status when they’re located smack dab not only in the middle of the Bay Area, but also one of the weathiest areas of the world.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes, though,
it’s more than the number of people in your metro area…it’s the condition of your ball park and the number of people who want to travel long distances to see a game there…this is the difference between the Cards (good ballpark, seen as more of a “regional” team) vs the A’s (horrible park, seen as a second class team in it’s metro area,not really drawing much from the region)...I grew up in St Louis and lived in Oakland for nine years, and it’s truly night and day.
That said, I hate using the “small market” thing as a crutch…that’s one thing I dislike about the current commissioner…he is from a so called small market and he has used that mentality to his advantage at times.
by tbell61 on Jul 2, 2008 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I follow the A's-
How do they do it? Go look at their pitching staff. They know how to draft/develop/trade for pitching and they have for quite some time. They have a sixth starter this year in the bullpen-ready if they go ahead and trade one of their current starters.
They have always had to struggle on offense-but they manage to get just enough runs, and their pitching takes care of the rest. Don’t forget they have also traded away their best pitchers just about every year-they seem to have an endless supply of arms to take over.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 2, 2008 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It always seems like the A's
have about 53,000 injuries every year, but they seem to bring up kids and force feed them into service, much like the Cards have been forced to do this year.
It seems to me that one of the reasons for success for Oakland is that they have no illusions that they are in anything but a small market…they can’t afford to buy their way out of bad contracts (I’m looking at you, Boston!)so they rarely make bad FA decisions…Minnesota has been lauded for this approach (and rightfully so) but Oakland does it pretty well too…it will be interesting to see how that new ballpark works for them…they will be moving further south from Oakland proper, and they will be in a location that is indisputably A’s territory (as opposed to arguing with the Giants about territorial rights).
by tbell61 on Jul 2, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's fans know the teams financial constrainst well.
They do manage to field competitve teams; they just don’t ever win it all. Developing top flight pitching is the real key to everything they do. They trade or let their top rotation guys walk as free agents on a regular basis. Always have a new arm to step in or find the diamond in someone else’s farm system. They have a few misses-but not many.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 2, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They do manage to field competitve teams; they just don’t ever win it all
You could have said the same thing about the Cardinals after 2005.
by JI on Jul 2, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no you couldn't
we won the World Series in 2006. Am I missing something?
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you missed the prepositional phrase:
“after 2005”
Although I don’t know if you could say that. The Cardinals through 2005 had had MUCH more playoff success than the A’s have had recently.
"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 Jul 2, 2008 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
shouldn't it say before 2005?
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree. Many of the pitchers they have are reclamation projects or lesser known guys they’ve they’ve traded for. The real key to their success has been that they understand defense better than most teams. You’ll notice that after OBP started to get mainstream attention, and became overpriced, Beane shifted his focus to finding cheap players that were very good with the glove.
by JI on Jul 2, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, lets see now......
Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, Barry Zito, Rich Harden., Huston Street …...yes, and numerous castoffs and never weres…..I’m pretty sure that some of those guys count as top flight pitchers and the ability to develop pitching-yes, even pitchers that have not been too good elsewhere. I did say draft/develop/trade for pitching. I’ll grant you they are not all top flight. Some of them are and they find enough to round out their staff every year. Of course they have great defense. That’s a big part of having successful pitching. I think the Marlins are finding that out the hard way right now…....
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 2, 2008 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, Barry Zito
That was 8 years ago.
by JI on Jul 2, 2008 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, Zito was the ninth pick overall in his draft, and Hudson the second
not that there isn’t a big flameout rate, even that high in the draft, but still… they WERE touted quite a bit before they started playing in the majors. Street was a big deal when he was here at the University of Texas, too—he set a record for saves in the college world series, as he led the team to a championship, and only spent a few months in the minors, because he was basically ML ready after graduating college.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the A's fans wouldn't have to know financial restraints so well
if enough of them would go into the ball park so they wouldn’t have to put that damn tarp around it. They do still have that thing around the top, no?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 2, 2008 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, those seats were
installed for Raidahs games.
They’d have to get D-I college football game sized crowds every night to fill the place without the tarp.
by liam on Jul 2, 2008 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but still
they haven’t averaged over 30,000 per game since 1992. That is just pathetic considering how good that team has been
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 2, 2008 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's hard for a fanbase to invest in a team
when they know that team will be completely blown up in 1 or 2 years. How do you buy jerseys? (which is not a wise decision anyway, but there are even some Edmonds cubs jerseys walking around wrigleyville) and other stuff that is personalized? You can’t because that player will be gone in a year. And it’s stuff like that that drives fans away. They want to know the team.
It may sound silly, but that’s how you build a fan base. At least when the Marlins do it they actually win a world series.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but still, even back from 87-92
when the A’s were great!, the attendance was never over 35,000 a game. In my opinion that is inexcusable
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 2, 2008 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
also, maybe if they could draw
they wouldn’t have to be blown up. No one blows up a team just for the sake of doing it
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 2, 2008 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think any team averaged much over
30-35K per game in the late 80s early 90s. Just certain ones (Yankees?, Cards, etc.). I’d be surprised if the Cubs did and the Braves might have. But the majority of teams didn’t come close to drawing what they do now.
And I have a hard time justifying the constant turnover of that roster due simply to the fans attendance. Fans don’t just decide to alter their behavior, they have to be convinced and the team that keeps flipping rosters like a minor league team doesn’t inspire much faith from the fans.
Just looked up the figures. In 1987, (1.68M) they out drew Atlanta, Cleveland, White Sox, San Diego, Seattle, Pittsburgh. 6 out of 28 teams.
In 1988, (2.29M) they out drew all but 9 teams. Anaheim, St. Louis, LA, Toronto, Boston, Kansas City, Minnesota, Mets (tops attendence), and Yankees.
In 1989, (2.67M) they out drew all but 3 teams. St. Louis (tops), LA, Mets.
In 1990, (2.90M) they out drew all but 2 teams. LA Dodgers and Toronto (tops).
In 1991, (2.71M) they out drew all but 3 teams. White Sox (new park), LA Dodgers, and Toronto (tops with over 4 Million).
In 1992, (2.49M) they out drew all but 4 teams. Atlanta, Baltimore (new park), White Sox (2nd year of new park), and Toronto (tops again with over 4 Mil).
Looks like they did pretty well in those years. Dividing by 81 (not sure how else to do it) you come up with yearly avearages of 20,700, 28,000, 33,000, 35,000, 33,000, and 31,000 roughly. Granted, they never drew over 35,000, but they were consistantly one of the highest drawing teams in baseball. To say the fans didn’t support the team is not quite accurate.
It wasn’t until 1994 until they went below 2 Million. Beane took the team over in 1997 and the team went over 2 million again in 2001 – 2005, but all teams saw a spike in those years, and just missed the past two years.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point about the 87-92 seasons
I still don’t feel sorry for them. They have been a good team for years, there is no reason for them not to be supported better in the last 10 years. They win, that is all that should matter. You have a history of winning, you should be supported. You can say all you want about turnover of players. I still think you support the team, not just the players.
I just think teams like the A’s and Marlins just don’t have great fans.
Valatan was right way the hell up the page. It is a 7M+ market. The fans not supporting a consistent playoff team is a disgrace.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 2, 2008 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s a lot of context though that you can’t dismiss when you’re talking attendance numbers.
Stadium, prices, atmosphere all have a part.
When you look at metro numbers and base a market off of it, you lose a lot of substance. The Cardinals have (I would guess) a bigger “market” outside of the metro area than within. People from all over travel for games. They’re economy determined a little bit more than they may like, but the range the Cards have (and the pure history in terms of years) is massive.
Leaning on metro numbers leaves a lot of variables that should be included, out.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jul 2, 2008 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and fans (rightfully so) don’t need to show up in order to be quality fans.Sports by and large are part of the entertainment industry. If there isn’t any quality in the entertainment off field, I’d rather watch the team from home.
Nose bleed seats in a shit stadium isn’t something fans are going to come back for, and traditionally it’s those seats you want to overly cater to as the other seats are generally filled.
See: Movie theatres vs waiting to rent/purchase.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jul 2, 2008 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorta depends on your definition of "success"
Granted, you didn’t actually say they were successful, but you did say “I don’t know if there is another team that plays the sell high game as well as they do”....I just translated that into “success” so I could get it in my subject line.
Really, what are they so good at doing? Developing a fan base? No. Winning championships? No. Building a perinnial playoff machine? Eh, not if you prefer to actually win those playoff series.
Once the team gets good, it’s always in to rebuild mode. They rebuild like every 2 years. And you can’t say their competitive, because no one really cares. Honestly, if that is the definition of doing something right, I hope the Cardinals NEVER perfect it. All you’re doing is rooting for a really good AAAA baseball team that is developing talent for other organizations, except that talent never really does a whole hell of a lot any more when it goes to the other organizations.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think "success" is defined differently by different organizations...
Everybody wants to win a championship, obviously, but they have varied ways of getting there…for the A’s, keeping their heads above water at the Oakland Mausoleum, until they get into their new park in Fremont, CA, where they can further build a fan base in a baseball only stadium, which hopefully will increase revenues, whereas they can hold on to the Hardens that their system produces and in turn make deeper playoff runs, I would say that is the path they are taking to success, which is going to be different that what will work for the Yankees, the Cubs, the Red Sox or even their crossbay rivals in San Francisco.
by tbell61 on Jul 2, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
there are very few successful teams, so the fact Oakland at least has a chance is something.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'll see
If that’s what they want to pin to their caps and sell to their fans then I guess I’ll have to give them the benefit of the doubt and see what happens. However, I do take everything they do with a grain of salt (sand?, whatever) and at this time cannont say they’ve had any type of real success.
But, I guess it all depends on who is eventually running the A’s in the future. I’ve read or heard that Beane is interested in leaving baseball to run the organization’s MLS soccer team. There was speculation that he’d run both, although seems like a pretty steep order to accomplish.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
they are sort of like the Braves
they had an amazing run, and 10 years later they are still trying to get back to that plateau
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually more than 10 years
but you get the picture
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
at least the Braves made it to a few WS and actually won one
BIG HUMONGOUS DIFFERENCE
Those examples are in different Universes.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry
I thought it was a good one though
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so the early 90's A's we no where near as good as the Braves?
I’d have to differ on that
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We aren't talking about the early 90s A's
we’re talking about the 2000s A’s.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why can't making the playoffs
5 times in 7 years be considered successful. And the two seasons in which they didn’t make the playoffs, they won 88 and 91 games. I’d call that successful. Granted, they had a little hiccup last year but will win 85-90 games again this year, in all likelihood. I’d call that a successful season. If we win 85-90 games and don’t win the WS, I’d say the Cards were successful. If winning the WS is your only barometer for a successful season, you’re going to be disappointed an awful lot. For example, the Cards wouldn’t have been successful in either 2004 or 2005 when they won 205 games combined. Still, I’d say the Cards had successful seasons.
by chuckb on Jul 2, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
By always being in the playoffs you increase your chances of winning a World Series. I call that successful. What was the last team that won back to back Championships ?
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jul 2, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Back to Back
Wasn’t it Toronto in ‘92-’93? And before that the Yankess in the late ‘70s, I think. (I am not bothering to look this stuff up).
Anyway, I am of the opinion that the playoffs and post season in general is a crapshoot. Its just the nature of baseball that even the worst MLB team can outplay (or seemingly outplay) the best in a short series.
The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!
by Zubin on Jul 2, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 1998, 1999 and 2000
Yankees are not amused by your selective memory.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 2, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From a "right now" perspective
90 wins and a playoff berth is considered “success”. But the ulitmate goal of any season is, or should be, to win a championship, and when you look back on all those 90 win seasons and have 1 LDS victory to show for it, yeah I wouldn’t call that being successful.
If your ultimate goal is NOT to win the Championship and you are simply fine with winning 90 games and bowing out in the first round every year, then why in the hell are you even “competing’?
Perspective is everything. I can handle not winning the Championship this year, if I know the organization is positioning itself to make that run sometime relatively soon in the future. Hell, I could even deal with a Tampa Bay situation since it was declared what they were doing. But, by having a long-term, or whatever, approach to your team when the long-term gets traded away in 2 or 3 years is not a situation I’d EVER want to be in. He makes really good moves, but tears it down before it has a chance to win anything.
In other words, he builds for the long-term basically every 2 years, when the long term might actually take closer to 3 to 5 years to build.
And in all fairness, qualifying for the playoffs out of that division is not particularly difficult. You basically have to compete with the Angels and even if you don’t beat them out, you might have accumulated enough wins against the Mariners and Rangers to slip into the wild card, which doesn’t happen often but it has happened 3 times that a team from the West has been the wild card in the 13 years since the wild card. And as of right now, Oakland is 3.5 games out of the wild card.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wellemeyer
I was at the game last night and got there a little after 5:30 so I got to see all the warm-ups. It seemed like Wellemeyer through long toss with Yadi for much longer than a normal started would. I had never seem Wellemeyer pitch in person though, so it could just be his routine. Then during the bullpen session, after every couple of pitches he would sort of do the arm exercise (where you move your arms in a circular motion) with his throwing arm.
I’m not a doctor, so is this just a Wellemeyer warm-up that I just never noticed before? Or is it something more?
I''m a Jenius!
If Adam Kennedy can make a MLB roster, anyone can!
by gibbons on Jul 2, 2008 11:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Joe Buck can't be bothered with these lengthy baseball games
when there is the reality TV to be watched! Huzzah!
I think Joe probably lost his job full time to Thom Brenneman now.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 2, 2008 11:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I have wondered about Joe this season.
How come he’s not doing any baseball now? I’m sure he will do the post season & the All-Star Game…but something tells me Fox is trying to make him just their NFL lead guy and is taking him off baseball at least during the regular season. Of course he could be out in Hollywood trying to pitch another talk show.
by KYCards on Jul 2, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Joe Buck
did the Yankees/Mets game last weekend.
I have a love/hate relationship with the Cardinals' middle relief corps.
by madding on Jul 2, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still hold out hope that he will come back to the Cards
and become their #1 radio guy..after Shannon retires….but I really doubt he will want to take a pay cut that Fox is giving him. I kind of doubt he will work for the Cards full time again.
by KYCards on Jul 2, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he will come back someday
it may take awhile though. It just seems that the networks don’t like the old guys doing play by play. At least that was the only reason I could think of that CBS replaced Jack Buck with Sean McDonough.
So see you in about 10-20 years Joe!
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 2, 2008 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I've heard that
Since he’s their numero uno football guy, I’ve heard somewhere (radio maybe?) that they are getting him out of a lot of baseball obligations. I don’t even hear him on Cardinal games anymore and he used to do a handful just a couple of years ago.
Btw, outside of the baseball playoffs, I believe the average NFL game is as long if not longer than the average baseball game. How many baseball games approach the 3 hour 15 minute mark? Not many that I seem to watch. But EVERY football game goes at least that long.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s usually one of my arguments when I hear the traditional “baseball takes too long” gripe. Nascar in almost all races go longer than the average game, and it’s considered the fastest climbing spectator sport we’ve had in recent times. Even Golf, who’s fan base has been growing more and more per event in recent years is set over days, not hours.
There’s a lot wrong with baseball, but length of time per game isn’t one of them.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jul 2, 2008 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harden
in a Cardinals uniform would be awesome. However, with our injury track record, and the questionable – not criticizing, just making a point – medical staff, it is a high risk/high reward venture. Not sure that the current management would want to do that.
What would it take to get Harden? Dunc, Reyes, and prospect?
I have discovered in twenty years of moving around a ball park, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. ~Bill Veeck
by bukowski on Jul 2, 2008 11:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
NO! He would want much more than that.
Beane will only trade him for a super-sized fleece. They will keep him unless that happens because he is the most amazing pitcher ever. He is under contract with them-they have no reason to do anything at all with him. If he’s not hurt, and with the pitching depth in their organization you keep him unless and until you simply get an offer you can’t refuse-which his injury history precludes.
I would love him here though. I know he’d probably break down for sure if we ever got him. So, best not bring him here. Does that make any sense?
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 2, 2008 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno about "most amazing"
If you read that article about Linceum that I posted yesterday, you might believe he is the Tiger Woods of pitchers.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did read the article. Lincecum is amazing too.
Dream match up-Harden against Lincecum. I’ve seen Harden pitch, I’ve only seen Lincecum on TV. Harden’s stuff is otherworldly. I don’t doubt Lincecum’s stuff is too. I’ve never seen it close up though….....
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 2, 2008 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Parents like that kill me
“Tim, everybody is calling you a freak.”“Well, Dad, I am. Why?”
“How can you say you’re a freak? You’re just a good athlete.”
“O.K., is Michael Jordan a freak? Tiger Woods? Jack Nicklaus?”
“Yeah, I’d consider them freaks,” Chris said. “Then, O.K., you’re a freak.”....
“He’ll throw forever,” Chris once posted on a blog, referring to his son, “and maintain his velocities and the best breaking ball since Sandy Koufax and the best fastball since Gibson and Feller.”
In a national publication he’s putting his kid in the same league as Jordan/Woods/Nicklaus/Koufax/Gibson?? Seriously, it may or may not be true I don’t care, have just a wee bit of humility.
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on Jul 2, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah....
This will COUGHToddVanPoppleCOUGH end well…
Well who the hell can see forever?
by Alxfritz on Jul 2, 2008 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I have VanPopples rookie card somewhere...It was worth some $$$ for like 10 seconds.
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jul 2, 2008 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it was Todd
not his father, who compared himself to Jordan, Woods & Nicklaus. His father just agreed with his characterization.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read it pretty differently
But regardless of who was saying what in that specific conversation, he was the one who was recalling this conversation to Verducci. How do you let yourself do that?
And there’s no doubt the ridiculous Koufax/Gibson/Feller quote is his…..
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on Jul 2, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
is Todd Tim's evil twin?
When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?
by RosevilleRedbird on Jul 2, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right Tim
Was thinking of Jones, I think.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harden
is relatively inexpensive next season, so the A’s would be perfectly capable of holding on to him; he isn’t going to kill them salary wise. I think Beane will probably hold onto him unless he absolutely just gets his socks knocked off by someone’s offer. It would take a big time package to land him, probably something along the lines of Garcia/Todd, Jon Jay, and on other guy, maybe an Allen Craig or someone along those lines.
Why don't you just make like a tree, and get out of here?
by the red baron on Jul 2, 2008 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rosenthal...
reported that the A’s want a king’s ransom for Harden. He has such a good contract… besides there’s no way we do business with those guys again.
by guayzimi on Jul 2, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Walt isn’t around any longer, so that ego train has moved on.
The A’s org isn’t some disease that we now need to run away from.
That trade should be blamed on Walt :), and then add in the extension.
Only dealing with 28 teams because your exGM got burnt on one (remember, Walt didn’t think Haren was going to be any good) is bad business, and borderline petty.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jul 2, 2008 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't I read somewhere that Dunc told Walt not to trade Haren and that he wanted to keep him?
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jul 2, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe I recall something similar, but I am fairly sure that Walt so no value with Haren and thought he was getting his own steal by grabbing Mulder. Then of course we get the sting of ego and resigning to a lengthy and costly contract during surgery mode.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jul 2, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was either Duncan or LaRussa, I forget which one.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm having Mulder for Haren Flashbacks ....
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jul 2, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather not deal with Beane
after the Haren trade
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anybody see the post-game?
Supposedly they went into detail about Wellemeyer’s shoulders not being squared up or other mechanical aspects. Heard it on KFNS, but those tools breezed over it and started telling dick jokes or something.
I have discovered in twenty years of moving around a ball park, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. ~Bill Veeck
by bukowski on Jul 2, 2008 11:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
his slider
was all over the place last night. when it was close it was up and sitting pretty and gettting tagged, otherwise it wasn’t even close enough to be chased
that leans more to injury or soreness for me as he used his FB and change heavily most of the game.
and the mets were sitting on those pitches
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jul 2, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't control the slider more or less
equals bad elbow. He has been completely mishandled and it is starting to get sad. Over a 21-day period all we had to show for his roster spot was a 20-2 loss.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jul 2, 2008 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps there's a chance that he's just rusty
It is tricky getting all of your feel pitches back after a month off.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully no more clamoring for Brett Myers by westcoast
Since he was sent to AAA yesterday…
by saladdays on Jul 2, 2008 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i laughed so hard when i saw that article
How depressing is it being you? Is it closer to being a lifelong cubs fan or being born without lips? - Janitor
by themanthemyth on Jul 2, 2008 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
west coast was maybe thinking a little more about the phillies needs than the cards….he is that way sometimes. I notices he predicted Wellenmyers breakdown, almost to the out. And he know why, and you don’t…..so ha ha
Westcoastbirdwatcher
by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jul 2, 2008 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't even attempt to predict anything
so….
by saladdays on Jul 2, 2008 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
are you speaking in the third person there?
neat
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"George is getting hungry"
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on Jul 2, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hey
that’s my name and I just went and got lunch!
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rickey knows what's best for the team
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But, but, but he's an angry man!!!
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on Jul 2, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure he's pretty angry about that demotion
by saladdays on Jul 2, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully the wife isn't around
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on Jul 2, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure I'd go that far...
he’s been ok with the stick, and the reports are that he’s not GG’er by any stretch anymore.
by guayzimi on Jul 2, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's Livin' the Dream
Get called up, have one huge season in a walk year, and coast until the next one.
by Turkatron on Jul 2, 2008 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He also has the great misfortune to be in a lineup filled with terrible hitters.
Why on earth would you pitch to him?
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jul 2, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he stinks...
and he has a huge hole in his swing.
Adrian Beltre is not a particularly good hitter. He’s ok.
by guayzimi on Jul 2, 2008 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're wrong
Safeco Field is the one of the most (if not the most) difficult park for RHBs in all of baseball. Add to that his low BABIP, he’s been hitting line drives at people all year long.
There’s only one thirdbaseman in the AL that is clearly better than him, and it’s A-Rod.
by JI on Jul 2, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Evan Longoria,
Mike Lowell, Scott Rolen, Joe Crede, Carlos Guillen, Alex Gordon, Casey Blake, and that Vazquez guy in Texas are all better.
by guayzimi on Jul 2, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'd have to be crazy to think that
Defense matters. Park factors matter.
Beltre is no worse of a hitter than Mike Lowell.
by JI on Jul 2, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beltre's OPS+
is lower than anyone on that list except Gordon by a few points, and his zone rating is dead last by a long shot. He turns 66.7% of the balls in his zone into outs. Last year it was 66.8%. He simply isn’t a good fielder anymore.
by guayzimi on Jul 2, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OPS+ is flawed.
Safeco is a great park for left handers and a deadly park for righthanders. And OPS+ from Safeco will make a RHB look bad and an LHB look better than what he is.
You mean his RZR? Look at all the OOZ plays.
by JI on Jul 2, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His home/road splits...
aren’t even that extreme….
Look at the PMR data from 2006:
http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/DisplayCharts.py?PlayerID=639&fpos=5&year=2006
It’s pretty good
Now look at 2007:
http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/DisplayCharts.py?PlayerID=639&fpos=5&year=2007
It’s getting worse, and while 2008 isn’t out yet, early reports are of a clear decline in range.
by guayzimi on Jul 2, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is today full out assault day
on park adjusted statistics?
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 2, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that kind of comment is flawed too
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 2, 2008 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
zI would trade Beltre for Gordon or Longoria
simply because those two are young and have better contracts, but at this point in time the only player who’d have a case is Longoria.
by JI on Jul 2, 2008 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may trade Beltre
for those two in your fantasy league. No way KC or TB is giving either of those guys up.
Did you see Longoria’s play from his knees yesterday?
I have discovered in twenty years of moving around a ball park, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. ~Bill Veeck
by bukowski on Jul 2, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we can get Holliday for Anderson, Barton, Boggs...Throw in Motte for Fuentes.
I would hate to see those guys gone but It would be a fair trade.
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jul 2, 2008 12:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd do that.....
In a heartbeat. Would rather swap Barton for Duncan or Skip, but other than that, I like it.
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's think about this...
rationally.
In 2007 Mark Texeira was 27 years old, he had 4.5 years of experience, and he was basically a 290/370/540 type hitter who played first base.
In 2008 Matt Holliday is 28 years old, he has 4.5 years of experience, and he is a 320/390/550 hitter who plays left field and benefits a bit from Coors Field.
In 2007 the Braves gave up, according to Sickels, their #2 prospect (Elvis Andrus), #3 prospect (Salty), #4 prospect (Harrison), #5 prospect (Beau Jones), and their #13 prospect, a huge upside guy named Neftali Feliz.
The Cardinals don’t have the position players to match up with the haul Texas got, but it would start with Rasmus, and include Anderson, and probably two of Herron-Garcia-Todd-Mortenson.
by guayzimi on Jul 2, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is NO WAY Colorado will get a haul like that
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
Is it because you think Holliday isn’t the player Tex was/is, or do you think team execs have learned a lesson?
by guayzimi on Jul 2, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's the latter
but I am haunted by a line that Strauss put out in last week’s chat…something to the effect of “stockpiling prospects are no good if they are not used to help the big club…”
Maybe “haunted” isn’t the correct word, but after what seems like years and years of a barren farm system, now that we are turning the corner, comes the tough job of figuring out which ones to keep and which ones to barter…I think we have the right team to figure that out.
by tbell61 on Jul 2, 2008 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's really tough...
I follow the D-backs and the fans here are squirming. Uggla and Quentin are MVP candidates. Greg Smith is a bonafide major league starter. And Brett Anderson just struck out 12 in 6 innings in his double-A debut.
Meanwhile all the ones they kept – Reynolds, Drew, Upton, Young – can’t put the bat on the ball if their life depended on it.
by guayzimi on Jul 2, 2008 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats a different complaint
In that scenario, the team traded away the wrong guys and that’s an completely different problem (actaully a good one to have). Time will tell if that’s actually true since last September and October it seemed like the team traded away the right guys.
Btw, are these the same Diamondback fans that couldn’t sell out their stadium for the playoffs?
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Arizona
Where professional sports franchises come to die.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it's still a valid concern
who here wishes that we had traded Reyes for a(some) useful player(s) before the 2007 season? Please raise your hand if so.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And had we done so, this whole board would have been gnashing and wailing
But you have coaches and scouts for this very reason—to pick out the guys that can improve, and the guys that will fail. Sabr-type analysis does a fantastic job at describing where guys are, but teams should look at the total set of information. There is a bunch of stuff in these arguments that we don’t quite know.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Walt was kindly asked to leave
since his ways were not popular or effective anymore.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if you trust the people running the system
you trust them enough to keep the pipeline running.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but you have to keep in mind
that a stockpile, even if it is deemed glut is cost controlled and “future proof” (they’re with us for a long time.
Using that stockpile is one thing to get prospects/trades going, but the other is unloading free agent guys and using that stockpile with the team.
Dumping a stockpile on guys like that seems like it’s fixing some glut we’re having, but in reality it’s softening our position for the next few years
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jul 2, 2008 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and then you end up with guys like
Anthony Reyes who you can’t do anything with or you can’t promote guys who are stuck in the lower levels which is already starting to happen with the outfield.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we can both agree that the Reyes situation was unique. One, he wasn’t apart of a stockpile, I do believe he was one of a few. (Waino, who else?).
Secondly we had a couple of points in his career that we could have sold high, we didn’t.
However, he does follow under the “using the stockpile with the team”, he just wasn’t any good at it.
That being said we do have OF issues. 8 that are ML ready (or capped out where they’re going to do AAA level – Stav). They may not have enough value to really do anything in the trade season, but may in the off season.
But when you start trading away 10-12 cost controlled years combined for one player, you should really, really know what you’re getting yourself into. More times than not, you’ll lose.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jul 2, 2008 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like Strauss being Strauss
I can’t find it right now, but in one of the chats during ST, he said something snarky to the effect of “I’m not sold on the sophistication and purity of watching minor-league players compete at this level” when arguing that the Cardinals were right in the Jocketty era to be trading away young talent for “name” major leaguers.
I may have distorted his meaning in the intervening time, but I remember it capturing pretty well the attitude shared by a pretty sizable fraction of my group of friends: the skepticism about growing-your-own coupled with an inability to let go of aging big name players.
Of course, Jimmy Ballgame is playing pretty well for the Cubs right now.
by liam on Jul 2, 2008 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strauss has some biases of his own
But I think when he says some of these things, he’s not, as a rule, speaking about what hethinks, but speaking in an oblique way about what the Cardinals’ philosophy is. He is very seldom off on these things.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
like the time he said
Reyes would be traded before the end of the week…
Then the end of the camp..
Then before he went be sent down to AAA…
Actually. This year I have found Strauss to be off on a lot of thing. I don’t think he has Mo figured out yet. But I do agree that he generally reports what he thinks the Cardinals are going to do. Not what he thinks they should do. Unless someone asks for his opinion.
by Evilfrog on Jul 2, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, he's been right directionally
almost every time. If Strauss says the Cardinals are looking to deal prospects, I would expect them to do that at some point soon. He called the Rolen trade almost uncannily, even when TLR was publicly saying “Don’t trade Scott Rolen.” He said they won’t DFA Kennedy, and we’ve yet to hear the Cardinals mentioned in connection with any middle infielder trade. He said Flores had to get right on the last road trip. He didn’t, and I would be surprised if it wasn’t the end of his career as a Cardinal.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looks like Holliday is out then
You just gave Reason No. 1 why Holliday won’t be coming to St. Louis in the ChatMeister’s opinion. Holliday received the JSL!!! vote as NL MVP last season. You don’t get him for second-tier prospects. I’m skeptical he will be moved at all. Fuentes is the potential find.
by Evilfrog on Jul 2, 2008 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those chats are nauseating
How anyone can stand the grandstanding and self-congratulating is beyond me. If ever there were more insipid back and forth between individuals. . .
by azruavatar on Jul 2, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
but it’s so over the top though that it HAS to be tongue in cheek, right? If not, the guy is in need of a serious ego correction…
"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN
by SleepyCA on Jul 2, 2008 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's relatively modest on the radio
so I have to assume it’s some kind of chat schtick but I honestly cannot read them. Can’t do it. The exclamations, the mocking humility, the fawning questions. Cannot. Do. It.
by azruavatar on Jul 2, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+ another 1
but I still read them because I think he does tip what the team management is thinking on a fairly regular basis. Let’s me make sure I have plenty of medication handy before they actually make many of the moves he talks about.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jul 2, 2008 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe I have a twisted sense of humor
but I find the whole thing hilarious every week. I guess I’ve always taken it with several teaspoons of salt. On the radio, he has an extremely dry sense of humor and is very very sarcastic. I read the chat that way and enjoy reading between the lines.
mel
by mel1975 on Jul 2, 2008 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You just said yourself they didn't give up thier #1 prospect so we keep Rasmus...
Salty pretty much is Anderson.
Barton would be a top prospect if he were in AAA
Boggs i gotta be considered a top prospect after what he has done in the majors.
Who doesn’t need a RH relief pitcher that can throw in the high 90’s?
Not to mention Barton and Boggs have had success as major leaguers.
Maybe they could get more by trading Fuentes seperately though…How about we throw in that Fernando Salsa and Chips cat.?
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jul 2, 2008 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
the ‘07 Braves didn’t have a clear #1 prospect like we do now. Andrus, Salty and another guy were like #1, 1A, and 1B.
The point is the talent load will be massive. I don’t know how it wouldn’t include Rasmus since we have no other top shelf position player in the system except maybe Anderson and catcher is one position the Rox seem set at.
As for Barton, he’s too old to be any kind of a prospect. We were debating releasing him just a few days ago.
by guayzimi on Jul 2, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could do a three-way trade
with, say, the Marlins and use Anderson that way.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barton would be a top prospect?
I like Barton and all, but when was the last time a 26 year old in AAA was considered a top prospect? I think people forget how old Brian is sometimes.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 2, 2008 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
they'd probably want a different starting pitcher
but I think that deal is closer to what it would take to make it happen then the people saying it would take Rasmus, Garcia, Todd, Anderson, McGee, Hendrick, and Dean.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really think we'd be fools to do anything like that.
I think that Rasmus will give us what Holliday could, within a season or two.
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Without rehashing yesterday's discussion with Hardcore
And I have stuff to do, so I’m not going to get into this thoroughly. Just throwing it out there rhetorically, if you like…...
what is wrong with having two guys that can perform like that?
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
are the rockies going to hand him over?
if so sure lets have em both! lets get them to add in tulo to play SS! Aaron Cook would look nice in our rotation as well while we are at it.
by FunkeeC on Jul 2, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sure it is
whats the point of saying, why not have both? why not have every star we want? we arent going to have him at all without giving up money and players. the point of many of the posts have been that this, in our opinions, isnt a good idea.
by FunkeeC on Jul 2, 2008 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
FunkeeC yo make a good point about Tulo...
They have handed out contracts to some of the younger core guys. There may not be enough money for them to sign Holliday as well and they may be better served moving him for some talented cost controlled players. If they can’t sign him or afford him it is reasonable to turn him into cheaper talented players.
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jul 2, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely understand why they might want to movie Holiday and sell high
I just dont see the cards being a good fit considering what they would want for 1+ yrs of holiday
by FunkeeC on Jul 2, 2008 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like, film
with sound and all?
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 2, 2008 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing.....
I was talking of why it wouldn’t make sense to move Rasmus in a deal for Holliday.
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah
I see. I guess I’m just of the opinion that we wouldn’t have to trade Rasmus and have stopped even considering him part of that deal. I see your point, and I agree. I wouldn’t trade Rasmus for Holliday, although I don’t think Rasmus will put up the same numers. They’re simply different types of players.
And I’m glad you at least got what I have been saying…
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good article about TLR and the Cards....
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3469110
Wait, is ESPN actually writing something nice/good about the Cardinals??
by launchshuttle on Jul 2, 2008 12:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice article
“We haven’t proven anything except that we play hard.”
I like it.
by liam on Jul 2, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What are the statistics that show you
whether a manager has won you games or lost you games? Pythagorean or something?
Has TLR won us games this year? I know the CHicago Tribune mentions the stats as they pertain to Baker, Piniella, and Guillen a week or so ago, but I’d like to know where TLR stands.
by sdrone on Jul 2, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMNSFHO
managers can only lose games for you. But Tony does a good job of enforcing a professional attitude on the players, getting them to “play the Cardinal way,” and all that not-so-quantifiable shit.
The studies that you may be looking for are linked from the bottom of this essay, though. (Chris Jaffey’s 3-part series about manager evaluation)
by liam on Jul 2, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nevery
stupid Y key. I’m taking it off my ke board.
by azruavatar on Jul 2, 2008 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the only truly humble opinion
is one that is kept to yourself.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jul 2, 2008 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
had to look it up, never saw it before
In My Not So Freaking Humble Opinion
guess I failed in blogspeak.
by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jul 2, 2008 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Liam uses Freaking?
I would have never thought that to be so.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jul 2, 2008 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's a difference between in-game managerial stuff
and being a good coach to rookies and whatnot that come up into your system. He shoudl be credited for taking a bunch of rookies and has-beens and adjusting their games to the point where they were competitive.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially when you consider platoons and all the lineups he's used
Credit to putting the right guys into the right position to succeed more times than not. It’s not like he’s got a set lineup 1-8 and can just send those guys out there every single night.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's really hard to tell though
what all those different lineups accomplish. it could be better with some more regularity… but it was a good point that he’s not pressuring anyone to perform above their heads (other than the regulars like Pujols and Glaus).
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A thought about TLR
he is signed through next year, yet this is arguably his best managing job and they are set for good things, presumably for ‘09…do you think he would re-up for 2010 and beyond? He seemed tired after last year, but so much has changed since then.
by tbell61 on Jul 2, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
personally
I think it would be more likely for him to stay past next year, unless he really wants to get out of the game and retire to spend more time with his family.
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think TLR will stay at least until he wins his 2764th game
so, what , about 4-5 more years?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jul 2, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about 3 years (to win 2764th game)
:-) ‘twould be nice
"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 Jul 2, 2008 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's got to stay until Pujols
is re-signed. Whatever it takes. If Albert likes him, I think he’s wonderful.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stat I heard last night.....
In 85 games, the Cardinals have used 75 different lineups.
That is CRAZY. Pretty amazing what kind of results TLR can get by managing the team they way he does.
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 12:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One of the years since he’s been here, he used 161 different lineups … don’t remember which year though.
by jeff_abs on Jul 2, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
was it '97?
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trend for TLR
2007 – 125 lineups
2006 – 101 lineups
2005 – 92 lineups
2004 – 93 lineups
by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jul 2, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
93 lineups in 2004?
Odd. It seemed like we ran out the same team every day.
by sdrone on Jul 2, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There were lots of outfield rotations
and at the 2B spot and also Molina was getting spot starts at catching. Almost sounds like this year?
by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jul 2, 2008 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And also, people forget that we picked up walker pretty late in the season
If I remember correctly, the waiver deadline, and that there was no clear LF starter until Walker came along and displaced Reggie Sanders.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Walker played
right field.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He did
and when he was acquired, Sanders was playing right and moved to left to be the everyday left fielder.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont see
Why it is crazy. Why would using the same lineup every day be more/less successful than not doing it?
SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.
by beanocook on Jul 2, 2008 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The idea is that starting all of your players regularly
gives them the Ab to stay fresh. So it allows your bench players to be sharp and see more hits. Of course, this should be pretty easily measurable—all one would need to do is look at how TLR teams pinch-hit relative to other teams.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 2, 2008 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curious if that's way different than every other team
granted there are some teams that have a pretty solid core, but if you look at even the cubs, Lou jacks around with the lineup a lot too.
by Tackle Box on Jul 2, 2008 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2008 only, NL different lineups
Cubs = 45 Mil = 36 Pit = 48 Cin = 53 Hou = 43
Phi = 35 Fla = 42 NYM = 48 Atl = 41 WSN = 66
Ari = 49 LAD = 43 SFG = 63 COL = 58 SDP = 46
by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jul 2, 2008 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defensive Lineups vs. Batting Orders
There’s a difference if you’re counting defensive lineups vs. batting orders (especially with pitcher/DHs in interleague game)
Adiueordie pointed this out a week ago:
http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2008/6/25/558723/game-79-open-thread-june-2#6977505
http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2008/6/25/558723/game-79-open-thread-june-2#6978295
Anyhow in 1997 Tony put out 161 different batting orders – so he only replicated the order once all season.
by enoscountry on Jul 2, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's about time for a lineup
with Ludwick in it!
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jul 2, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is the latest on.....
Tyler Johnson and Josh Kinney? Either do back this season?
by SoonerfanTU on Jul 2, 2008 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think they are both cooked for '08
I remember Strauss saying that last week about Johnson, for sure, and I think Kinney is the same
by tbell61 on Jul 2, 2008 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
I think they’re both out for the season…
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strauss also indicated
Johnson may be cooked for good with the Cardinals organization due to attitude problems.
by Red in Chicago on Jul 2, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to agree
Amazing article, shows just how lucky STL fans are to have such a great management staff. It’s hard to find very many shortcomings with the amount of wins compared to the setbacks the cards have faced.
by NattyNat on Jul 2, 2008 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
More LOOGYs
I posted this yesterday but didn’t get any feedback. I read about them in the mlb trade rumors page. How about::
Schoeneweis RH .292 LH .225
Ohman RH .266 LH .189
Cheaper than Marte and Fuentes, I reckon.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
by totalloser on Jul 2, 2008 1:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Apparently we will not be making any trades to improve this team
This must be an impressive team if the general manager, John Mozeliak, says he believes all of the needs can be filled from within the organization. (This, in response to questions concerning trade possibilities.)
boo cubs, hooray beer
by Raconteur on Jul 2, 2008 2:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Source?
I’d like to read the rest of that.
by liam on Jul 2, 2008 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Read Bernie Miklasz's latest column
boo cubs, hooray beer
by Raconteur on Jul 2, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
somehow that doesn't surprise me
and it seems like a good choice (barring any perfect deals of course).
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
best transition season evar
strikeouts from left-center
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs