Hot Stove Catch-all Thread Jan 4 and on . . .
by aet15 on Jan 4, 2009 9:14 PM EST
441 comments
I saw the post about Kawakami being shut down because it wasn't in the catch all thread, but there wasn't a catch-all thread in existence! So without further adieu, I created one for more rumors about Kawakami and any other rumblings we come across.
Haven't seen much else lately besides MLB trade rumors saying we have money to spend. Hopefully we spend that well!
Simple poll for this week. Now that less are out there, might as well narrow our choices.
7 recs |
441 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Kawakami
What kind of contract would the Cards be offering??
by wizardofozzie on Jan 4, 2009 9:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Lou-rouni Kenshin?
Was there any indication we were in on Kenshin before the most recent reports? Because I totally missed it.
by mattybobo on Jan 4, 2009 9:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
there were reports that we were looking at him...
… i still haven’t seen a report that we’ve actually offered a deal. still, if it really does come down to us, the Twins, and the O’s, then i’d like our chances.
by kindred on Jan 4, 2009 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would like our chances as well.
I fell like the Twins are in better shape with pitching (totally not certain about that) and wouldn’t have as much of a need. The Orioles are the Orioles, which is a double-edged sword. Surely we can compete with the O’s, but they might be desperate and willing to shell out a lot of cash for a glamorous Japanese import. (Glamorous as in hype. We all know how the Cost-K situation turned out).
by mattybobo on Jan 5, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like our chances if the Twins get him....
of possibly picking up one of their castoffs via trade. If they get Kawakami, we could easily toss them one of our 3B prospects and an outfielder and pick up someone like Bonser, Perkins, or one of their high minors starters to bolster our rotation. It’s kinda win-win either way if the Twins are involved. I just hope he doesn’t end up in Baltimore.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 5, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kawakami
I would assume he would be more cost-controlled than Sheets. He would also not cost us a draft pick. Sheets gets injured too much for the money we would give him. And I also have to assume that Kawakami would be less injury prone than Sheets. Most of this has to be based on assumptions about Kawakami because I don’t know anything about him except he’s good enough for the majors and better than Pineiro (it would be hard to be worse).
by waino on Jan 4, 2009 10:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Your sentiment about
the draft pick is a good one, I didn’t think about that. However, Kawakami pitched only 117 innings last year and 167 the year before. He is also 33. Sheets threw 198 innings lsat year and 148 the year before. He is 30. Kawakami’s career ERA in Japan is 3.22. For reference, Dice-K’s was 2.95 (though he is only 28). Dice-K’s MLB career ERA is 3.72.
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 4, 2009 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see what your saying.
Sheets is higher cost, higher reward.
Kawakami might actually be a higher risk because you are gambling on his health and performance.
Now I’m saying Sheets……
by TheBirds on Jan 4, 2009 11:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
league factors...
… 3.72 ERA in the AL East is pretty damn good, especially considering that the first year he was adjusting. last year he posted 2.90, which is exceptional. we couldn’t expect that from Kawakami, but if we could tease a sub-4.00 ERA from him without having to spend too much than it would be a coup.
another consideration: even So Taguchi generated some good Cards’ publicity in Japan. or, so says my friend who lives in Tokyo. despite the fact that he was merely a bit player for us, his at-bats would always be replayed on the news. and when we he played in the World Series, it was a big deal there. no, he’s not Dice-K or Ichiro or Matsui, but making the team more marketable in Japan can have positive external benefits to the club and its future revenue streams. especially if Kawakami is successful and the team makes the playoffs.
by kindred on Jan 4, 2009 11:45 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I'm just worried we may be getting an older Kei Igawa.
what lead to his downfall?
by TheBirds on Jan 4, 2009 11:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i'm not entirely convinced...
… that Igawa got a fair shake. he got 12 MLB starts, and those in the AL East. he’s been banished since then.
in other words, Anthony Reyes got much more of a chance with the Cardinals than Igawa got with the Yanks. Igawa could still be decent.
by kindred on Jan 5, 2009 4:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He could be...
Although what team is going to take a chance on him until after his ridiculous contract expires? I sure wouldn’t pay him $4M per year for the next 3 seasons to find out if he’s worth a crap or not, would you?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 5, 2009 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
of course not...
… but the Yanks have seemed willing to eat some of that cash.
i’m not actually proposing that the Cards go out and get him; our situation precludes us from gambling like that. i was just saying that it’s possible that Igawa could be a decent major-leaguer.
by kindred on Jan 5, 2009 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that he could be too
Although I thought that about Hideki Irabu and he never really amounted to much.
I wasn’t suggesting taking a flier on him either, just that no GM in his right mind would pay $12M over 3 years for a guy that hasn’t shown anything at the MLB level. If the Yanks picked up $10M of that I’d do it, but then why wouldn’t they just keep him and use him for rotation insurance?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 5, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice post
You offered a fabulous perspective that most of us would have little chance to receive (concerning Japanese news and So Taguchi). He was such a bit player for us, as you said, that most of us naturally would not expect his little ripples to make any waves in Japan. Thank you for your post!
by Big Rev on Jan 5, 2009 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't
trying to say Dice-K isn’t very good, just comparing them. The problem is Dice-K is only 28 NOW and he had to adjust. I imagine that Kawakami, an older pitcher who isn’t as good, will take at least as long to adjust. Plus he’s a likely injury risk.
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 5, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Japan baseball
I spent time in Japan this summer and I can back up this comment. As we all likely know the Japanese LOVE baseball. There is at least 1 MLB game televised live daily. We were even able to catch a Cards game on tv while staying in Ichinoseke, a small farming community in northern Japan.
We looked for So Taguchi gear but couldn’t find any.
Every night on the news they televised the performances of what seemed like every single Japanese player who was playing in the states. They also did a daily video summary of what happened in MLB.
So for all of you contemplating moving to Japan, yes, you could still get your Cards fix while there.
by airhad on Jan 6, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Would Kawakami definitely start
or is there a posibility they would throw him into the coser mix?
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and sometime it rains.
by garden nome on Jan 5, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No idea
all I know is that apparently we’re in the mix to get him along with the Twins and Orioles. I don’t even know if there has been an offer.
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 5, 2009 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I voted Kawakami
The fact that Sheets’ medical report is scaring off teams is enough to scare me away. If I were to hear some positive things about his health, I would reconsider.
by TheBirds on Jan 4, 2009 11:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
right...
… and it’s his elbow that teams are skittish about. if he’s still around and we can get him on a 1-year deal, then i’m on board. but the last thing we need is another injured former ace who may or may not come back around the all-star break.
by kindred on Jan 4, 2009 11:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." - Joe Theismann
by TurdFerguson on Jan 5, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's his shoulder, at least according to Buster Olney's reporting
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jan 5, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no please
no hoffman or sheets or anyone on a one year deal that costs us a first round pick. if we give up that pick, we need to be signing someone who will be useful for at least 3 years.
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
by sportsman on Jan 5, 2009 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sheets is worth it
Hoffman, not so much
by vivaelpujols on Jan 5, 2009 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hoffman won't cost a pick.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 5, 2009 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fuentes...
… ended up taking a deal worth 2/$17.5, with some performance bonuses and an option throw in. in other words, perhaps less money than the Cards offered, and if he negotiated he probably could’ve gotten more from us. looks like he wanted to play in LA.
the Angels made out great: they swapped closers and possibly got the better of the two, all while saving $4-5mn/year, and got a better draft pick also. doesn’t make up for the Matthews signing, which has to be one of the worst of all time, but still some good maneuvering.
by kindred on Jan 4, 2009 11:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fuentes' option
It’s only kinda an option…it vests based on games finished. So if Fuentes is healthy, it’s really a three-year contract if they use him at closer.
by mojowo11 on Jan 5, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's still an option
If he gets hurt they don’t have to pay him for the 3rd year. If he sucks and gets replaced mid-season in both years then they don’t have to pay him the third year. It’s better than signing him to a three year deal by far. What if we had signed Carpenter to a 3 year contract with the other three years vesting on number of starts? We’d be out of that deal after 2009, which is significantly better than the outcome that we currently have.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 5, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I know it's still an option
It’s just a weird one. Like kindred said, it’s not an option if he’s good and they keep him as the closer. Bad wording on my part.
by mojowo11 on Jan 5, 2009 7:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kawakami would cost less
He wouldn’t cost us a draft pick and if he was successful that management might look towards the Japanese market more. The cons are that Sheets would likely be more productive. However we can use the money saved by acquiring another LOOGY and a utility infielder.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 5, 2009 12:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking this too
If we can be more active in Japan maybe we will get better chances at higher profile talent later on due to the market we created. Although I always see players around or after 30 always becoming available, but I’m sure there’s others.
by from First to Third on Jan 5, 2009 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
why a loogy
when we have the lord of the ring?
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
by sportsman on Jan 5, 2009 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
heyyyyyy, what happened to that thread?
hope everyone got to hear those interview links i posted.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Jan 5, 2009 12:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
it was closed.
I was disappointed to see that it was shut down, and that’s why I opened this one. Any chance you can copy-paste them into here?
On with the (good) youth movement!
by aet15 on Jan 5, 2009 2:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Done & Done
now this one has about 5min of crap before Tony comes on so fast forward unless you want to hear about STL radio guys sweat shirts.
and this one Grandpa Bill keeps letting the phone fall away from his mouth so you gotta crank the volume all the way up to 11 for some parts.
both are long, about 30min each. so find a comfy chair, get some tasty snacks & your favorite beverage & have at it. they cover almost everything we’ve covered this off season, but not as in depth as i or many of you would like because the STL media just lobbed them soft ball pitches most of the time. but i highly recommend them to everyone if you have the time.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Jan 5, 2009 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It had been on the
Rec’d section for 2 weeks
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 5, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
:P
“I saw the post about Kawakami being shut down because it wasn’t in the catch all thread, but there wasn’t a catch-all thread in existence!”
Yeeeeah.. what IS up with that. To be honest though, I didn’t even look for a catch-all thread..
Yeeeeah.. what IS up with that. To be honest though, I didn’t even look for a catch-all thread..The reason I didn’t want to post in a catch-all thread is because I was citing an actual news article from MLBTR. That’s different than someone posting “Boy wouldn’t it be great if the Cardinals traded for Alex Rodriguez this offseason?” Put hypotheticals in the catch-all thread and let news be posted as regular posts.
Yeeeeah.. what IS up with that. To be honest though, I didn’t even look for a catch-all thread..The reason I didn’t want to post in a catch-all thread is because I was citing an actual news article from MLBTR. That’s different than someone posting “Boy wouldn’t it be great if the Cardinals traded for Alex Rodriguez this offseason?” Put hypotheticals in the catch-all thread and let news be posted as regular posts.I mean, whatever, I’m new here, just voicing my opinion. Not trying to make waves, but I go to this site everyday and never once have read any of the previous hot stove catch-all threads because you gotta sift through stuff that isn’t even close to being legitimate leads.
by Ghosty on Jan 5, 2009 1:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wow
What is wrong with my computer. Sorry guys. Wish there was an edit option. I’ll preview next time.
by Ghosty on Jan 5, 2009 1:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
“actual news article from MLBTR.”
This is an oxymoron. In any event, an explanation was provided as to why that thread was turned off. The community made the decision at the beginning of the off season. Instead of letting it degenerate into a thread about whether we should have those threads, it was turned off. Part of that’s a judgment call on the part of the moderators to make the site run smoothly. Sometimes it seems justified, sometimes not but it is what it is.
by azruavatar on Jan 5, 2009 1:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
most often, completely arbitrary is what it is
i have no objection to the rules and standards, just their completely subjective application. there are currently fanposts on barry bonds and brian roberts which fail to qualify yet are left intact and active. this is what makes it difficult for new folks. (and slightly less new folks, like me).
How depressing is it being you? Is it closer to being a lifelong cubs fan or being born without lips? - Janitor
by themanthemyth on Jan 5, 2009 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Those posts precipitated the Kawakami shut down.
At the beginning of the offseason, posts were getting closed left and right. Those largely stopped when people got the message. Some have trickled through since then because the problem went from being a mountain to a mole hill that wasn’t worth stamping out once a week.
Personally, when I see protracted discussions about whether posts should or should not have been in the catchall thread is when we’ve reached critical mass again. I can understand that that’s a frustrating line in the sand because it is largely subjective but I don’t know of any better way to keep things civil and not stifle legitimate discussion.
by azruavatar on Jan 5, 2009 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If we're going to have the post police
then put the rules and guidelines for FanPosts in the site guidelines and refer to them when you shut down a post so that people KNOW what is expected. This is half of the problem, because it has been subjective up to this point and new people don’t know what to post.
I, for one, am ok with people putting news or dedicated rumors (like from Olney, Jayson Stark, or MLBTR, which is kind of an aggregator for trade and signing rumors) in the FanPost section as long as they provide new news, links to the articles, and some type of write-up on the subject (a paragraph or two would suffice). this at least keeps things moving on the site and give those of us to have this site up in the corner of their office computer all day something to comment on. :-)
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 5, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
when you click "new fanpost"
I’m pretty sure you have to agree that your post meets the guidelines, which are linked to.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 5, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
just remember people that "Create a New FanPost " is just a suggestion, not a directive. Some of these FanPosts would actually be better off being in the FanShot section. If it is a substantive post, go ahead and put it in the FanPost section. If it is a one liner or just links with no real FanPost qualities, put it in the catch all or put it in the FanShot section.
Of course this is just one person’s read on the whole matter.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 5, 2009 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't take this the wrong way.
“I, for one, am ok with people putting news or dedicated rumors (like from Olney, Jayson Stark, or MLBTR, which is kind of an aggregator for trade and signing rumors) in the FanPost section”
Someone new to the site wanted an explanation of sorts. I provided one. The community decided this topic about 3 months ago and my intent was not to revisit it and find out who does or does not like the way things were running. The catchall thread has been functioning well with the exception of the occasional hiccup like this.
by azruavatar on Jan 5, 2009 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not arguing against the catch all thread
I like it. However, should the new people have to email you to find out the guidelines for FanPosts? And how would they know who to talk to about such things? When FanPosts on other SBNation sites are a free for all, how do they know that anything is different here?
I can’t find the “link” that SleepyCA is talking about. I’ve gone through Create a FanPost section about three different times now and nothing links to anything like your comment above, az. The people putting up some of these haven’t been here for any length of time, so how are they to know exactly what the community guidelines are regarding the FanPost section? I’ve also had a very hard time finding a link to the community guidelines on the front page of the site, so how are they even supposed to reference that without looking for it.
There is a simple solution to this: Put a link on the front page for the community guidelines, and put a bulleted list of FanPost guidelines in that list. How hard is that? It’s a whole lot simpler than playing PostPolice on new people and sounding like a cranky old fart telling the new kids in the neighborhood to get off his lawn all the time, when they really mean no harm and are just trying to be part of the community and give something back to it.
Also, there are things that belong in the Hot Stove thread, and there are things that don’t. I, personally, don’t like seeing a 2-4 paragraph topic posted in the Hot Stove thread and then I have to weave through all of the other posts in that thread JUST to get to the post I want to discuss. Those are the type of discussions that merit a FanPost. If you’re just linking to an article, posting a picture, or throwing up trade rumor or stat links then you should be using the FanShot section.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 6, 2009 9:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i was wrong
it’s not there anymore. It’s been a while since I did a fanpost- maybe even before they went to the new style, and apparently it’s been removed.
Sorry for the misinformation and for sending you on a wild goose chase.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 6, 2009 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You really should put together a fanpost
I bet you could come up with something at least mildly interesting ;~)
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 6, 2009 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it'd be terrible
I have a lot of fun looking stuff up to answer questions, etc, but taking the time to actually put together a well-written fanpost would make it feel like a job. And avoiding doing my job is the reason I hang out here in the first place.
I don’t see how chuckb and others do it, every single day.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 7, 2009 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know what you mean
I envy some of these people who come up with really good fanposts, and of course the main page guys too. I have made multiple efforts at making Fanposts and it seems like almost every damn time I am way too disappointed at the final results to ever post them.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 7, 2009 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know exactly what you mean.
For two years I was a music critic, and it took every little bit of fun out of going to concerts, trying out new albums, and really just listening to music in general. Something about plugging large amounts of energy into making what was once an enjoyable activity into a job . . . sucks.
On with the (good) youth movement!
by aet15 on Jan 8, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He links the rumors he gets to "actual news articles".
So, I guess it’s not really an oxymoron.
You’re trying to make it sound like he dreams shit up and posts it on the site as fact with no source which is completely untrue.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 5, 2009 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When I said “actual news article from MLBTR” I meant that in the MLBTR article there was a link to an actual news article from Japanese news sources..
You won’t catch me posting opinionated “rumors” such as “Wouldn’t it be great if the Cardinals traded for Brian Roberts?”
Not that I’m trying to call out the guy who posted that, it’s just the only example I could come up with off of the top of my head.
by Ghosty on Jan 5, 2009 9:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Per Bernie Micklasz
I would’ve preferred Dennys Reyes as another LHRP, but Ring would presumably come cheaper and could be kept around easier if he works out.
by liam on Jan 5, 2009 3:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Context
Per Pip’s search, he was the sixteenth most successful LOOGY during 2008.
I’m glad they signed another lefty, though, since Miller’s health is in question. Will Ohman’s still available, too, right?
by liam on Jan 5, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ian Ostlund is better than this guy. Hope he (Ost) makes the team out of Spring Training.
by Ghosty on Jan 5, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Villone was a fine LOOGY
he just sucked as an all around reliever.
hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit
by Alxfritz on Jan 7, 2009 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow...
That dude gives up a lot of walks.
by Anonymous Communist on Jan 5, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Starting to think
We’d’ve just been better off keeping Villone and doing something crazy like using him only against lefties instead of in the Cal Eldred role.
by liam on Jan 5, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
just building up glut for LOOGY looks.
It’s smart in context, don’t spend but let several battle out and take best in class into the season. I can’t complain even if this pitcher generally sucks
One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.
by AdjustedExpectations on Jan 5, 2009 11:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
We had zero depth from the left side of the organization last year and there isn’t a whole lot of help getting close to ready that’s already in the organization. Just building depth.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 6, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It looks like the Cardinals are not
It looks as if the Cardinals will not even try to bring back Tyler Johnson which seems like a huge shame to me. I figure he has to still have options to rehab.
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Jan 6, 2009 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With there current plan about LOOGY's
which is sign a lot of cheap guys. Bulk over quality. I could see them bringing back TJ on some minimum salary deal. TJ actually has some upside to be pretty dominant and he wouldn’t cost anything, so they really should bring him back.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 6, 2009 1:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with TJ ...
seemed to be his work ethic from the reports that I read in the Post-Dispatch leading in to last year. There was a least one significant article that attributed his injury problems to his lack of training and focus on baseball. Unless he has rededicated himself to the work that is necessary, then I’m not sure I would want him around.
Of course, that is all predicated on the fact that those reports were actually the cause of his demise.
by etp_stl on Jan 6, 2009 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pat Burrell
In the works with the Rayz:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3811501
Not Cards news, but I think it’s a pretty great signing by TB. Reportedly 16 Mil over 2 years.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.
by lunchboxbomb on Jan 5, 2009 3:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Really makes that Ibanez signing look all the more awful by the World Champs
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jan 5, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ibanez signing possibly the worst signing so far
Burrell signing possibly the best. Rays patch up their biggest hole, A Right Handed bat that is great against lefties for DH. Ibanez sucks so bad on so many levels.
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Jan 5, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oakland now looking at Giambi
What in the world is Adam Dunn going to actually get, and where is he going to end up? There are still a ton of teams looking for a DH that’s productive…
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 5, 2009 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd agree with that
Ibanez is an average bat for a corner outfielder and is an awful fielder. A tip of the cap to poster JI for posting this video that hilariously demonstrates Ibanez’s defensive ineptitude.
(NOTE: you’ll have to scroll down to the comment “Ibanez blows” but it is worth it!)
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 5, 2009 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or just
Ctrl+F and type in “Ibanez blows” instead.
by spants on Jan 6, 2009 12:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or that
I just figured out how to type on this keybox thing, give me a break!
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 6, 2009 2:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
woah
i missed those when they were posted before.
he is simply quite atrocious.
"I'm as nauseous as I've ever been. I have a terrible headache. My head is pounding. I feel like throwing up and I'm having trouble swallowing. And the beauty of it is, you want to feel like this every day." - Tony LaRussa
by adiueordie on Jan 6, 2009 3:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 5, 2009 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that Burrell signs for so little
makes me think we aren’t going to get jack in return for trading an outfielder. The free agent market is favorable towards them you might as well just sign one.
by TheBirds on Jan 5, 2009 3:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Cubs sign Milton Bradley
3 yr./30 M
I'll be the one overrating these Faberge' eggs, thank you very much!
Future Redbirds
by erik on Jan 5, 2009 4:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
how long
until he tears his ACL arguing with Lou in the dugout?
by STLRegalia on Jan 5, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the over/under is April 1st
i’ll take the under
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Jan 5, 2009 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With Sweet Lou
It might be sooner than later before there is a clubhouse altercation.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jan 5, 2009 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HAHAH!
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 5, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
does this mean that Dunn will cost more
or that the Cubs are clueless? or both?
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 5, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In Dunn's case
I think he and his agent are waiting until Manny signs somewhere. Either that, or it’s against his will. The Dodgers have Dunn as a backup plan if they don’t get Manny, so he won’t be signed for a while I think.
by Taskmaster on Jan 5, 2009 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dunn cannot play in the NL
His defense is so atrocious that almost negates any offensive value that he has. In other words Cesar Izturis (1.8 WAR) was nearly as valuable as Adam Dunn (1.9 WAR) last year.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 6, 2009 3:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And this is why I don't buy WAR all the time
There’s no conceivable way that those two players were all that close in total value last season. I Dunn’s case, I think the value of his defense is WAY overrated, considering that he plays LF best, and that LF is also one of the least damaging positions to put a player in. If defense is also rated at 10% and offense is rated at 50%, then why wouldn’t you want a 40 homer bomber who gets on base at a .380 clip in your lineup?
I know that Izturis was great defensively last season and that he was great at the defensive position of highest value, but he was damn near and automatic out with the bat, and that’s why he isn’t back this season. I think his defense is overvalued on the market (via WAR), and that makes him look attractive despite swinging a broomstick. Although they don’t play the same position, I’d much rather have Adam Dunn in left field than I would Cesar Izturis at SS, especially when I have two GG caliber players in CF to offset some of Dunn’s lack of range.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 6, 2009 9:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think "WAR" is the wrong word
In terms of measuring “value”, positional scarcity is izturis’ best friend, and it is Dunn’s great enemy. By virtue of being a LF/1B, adam dunn was penalized 8 “runs”. Izturis, OTOH, was given a free 6 “runs” because he plays SS. So right off the bat, because there are so many more guys like Skip Schumaker who can play LF well, Dunn has to be worth 14 runs more than Izturis to have the same “value”.
Rating defense at 10 percent and offense at 50 percent is arbitrary and incorrect. Defense can be as valuable or more valuable than offense; a run saved is as valuable as a run scored. Dunn produced a heck of a lot more runs offensively than izturis- 41.6 more runs, according to fangraphs- but he gave 22.8 of them back by being THAT much worse than average defensively, and Izturis saved 15 runs more on defense than the average SS.
Your logic applies fairly well if you were trying to decide who to sign to play in LF; it would be incorrect to sign izturis to play LF thinking he was as “valuable” as Dunn, since Izturis’ value comes from his position. of course, we don’t know how many runs Izturis would save in LF, but it’s probably not 70.6, which is how many he would need to be “more valuable” than Dunn while playing that position. But when trying to decide how to allocate payroll dollars, and you have replacement-level SS and LF players, giving izturis $3M to play SS well and hit poorly will cause your team to win as many games at the end of the year as giving Dunn $10M to play LF poorly and hit home runs.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 6, 2009 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
please note
I am not sure that I agree with the first paragraph I’ve written here, but I’ve been unable to do math or even create a convincing verbal argument to prove it wrong. For now it’s what seems to be the most accepted player valuation theory.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 6, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's where the fallacy is for me then
and it’s appropriate given your logic in the second paragraph.
There’s absolutely no way to measure, in an arbitrary and convincing way, how many runs Izturis, by himself, actually prevents over the course of a given season. You can come up with a regression analysis of defensive metrics all you want, but it doesn’t stand in for a truly quantitative analysis. I can tell you exactly how many runs Dunn accounted for in 2008 by adding his run total to his RBI total and subtracting home runs OR by looking at the runs created stat. Defensively preventing runs, to me, has as much to do with the players around you on your team than it does with your individual talent at whatever position you play. Very few teams would improve defensively simply by adding one player at the SS position if they have sub-par players everywhere else. That same team WOULD improve offensively by adding Dunn to their lineup in a quantitative and easily measurable way.
I also don’t think that you can weight defense as much as you do offense. If that was the case, then a GREAT defensive team regardless of pitching or runs scored would be able to win a lot of games. That simply isn’t true. Great offensive teams, while they may not win championships without pitching, usually are able to win better than 45% of their ballgames.
My logic actually does apply to which guy to choose, it just depends on how much I actually value Izturis’ defense over Dunn’s bat. When it comes to this analysis, I will choose the bat almost every time. The only time that I wouldn’t choose Dunn over Izturis is if I already had a left fielder as good as Dunn and I didn’t have a SS at all, or had enough offense that I didn’t need a good bat at that position.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 6, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“Defensively preventing runs, to me, has as much to do with the players around you on your team than it does with your individual talent at whatever position you play. Very few teams would improve defensively simply by adding one player at the SS position if they have sub-par players everywhere else.”
This is completely obtuse and wrong. You claim that adding a single player on offense increases run production but we can’t say the same for run prevention. False. Even in a very rudimentary way, if Izturis averages X more putouts than player Y and we have a basic idea of the run value of a single, than we can measure that run prevention. No regression, no advance metric.
“I also don’t think that you can weight defense as much as you do offense.”
The claim isn’t that players impact the game as much offensively as they do defensively. The claim is that a run on offense is the same as a run on defense. If you total up the runs contributed from offense and the runs prevented from defense they would NOT be equal because pitching is the other run prevention component. So yes you can’t just say arbitrarily that a player’s defense is as important as their offense. You can say that a 5 run offensive player who is worth 5 runs defensively contributes equal parts offense and defense.
“When it comes to this analysis, I will choose the bat almost every time.”
Sometimes you’d be right but sometimes you’d be wrong. That’s simply a poor assumption on your part.
by azruavatar on Jan 6, 2009 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if Izturis averages X more putouts than player Y and we have a basic idea of the run value of a single,
That’s the problem, you don’t have a basic idea of the run value of a single. You have a complicated set of data derived from statistical analysis to come up with the run value of a single. Furthermore, you also don’t have a run value of different kinds of singles either. I would venture to say that a single with no runners on is less damaging than a single with runners on, so you leave out the very real aspect of pitching, as you mentioned below.
I could probably prove his statistically, (I don’t have that kind of time right now) but I would venture to say that a team of above average defensive players who were average offensively would probably win fewer games than a team of above average offensive players who were average defensively, factoring in the exactly the same pitchers for each. It may be crude and obtuse, but I’m pretty sure that I’m right on this front. Obviously a good mix of both is needed for a successful ballclub, but I think a lot of these defensive metrics are much more flawed than the offensive metrics for individuals, and that throws off the value of a player in the WAR calculations.
Sometimes you’d be right but sometimes you’d be wrong.
That’s pretty much the case every time isn’t it? There’s no perfect decision making platform when it comes to this, no matter how much statistical measurement that you do. Obviously we try and make a decision based on as much information as possible, which is why people try and invent statistical metrics and rate stats to compare performance between players. My problem with the WAR statistic is that I feel that it overvalues the defense of a player because they are weighted exactly the same as what they produce offensively. I understand the position adjustment and I think that works properly, although, yet again, we’re deriving that value statistically based on perception of position (i.e. certain positions are more valuable than others based on scarcity also assumes a lot about defensive ability, etc.), not based on actual numbers. I’m not saying that it’s not a good exercise to do, I’m just saying that it should not be the only exercise that we use to determine player value, because there are subjective elements to the analysis that may be flawed.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 7, 2009 9:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“You have a complicated set of data derived from statistical analysis to come up with the run value of a single.”
The looked at the empirical value of a single based on lots of actual games played. So yes, in some instances a single is more valuable, on average they are worth X runs. Unless you can prove that pitchers or defenders save more of the “important” singles versus the unimportant ones, your argument has little validity.
“I could probably prove his statistically, (I don’t have that kind of time right now) but I would venture to say that a team of above average defensive players who were average offensively would probably win fewer games than a team of above average offensive players who were average defensively, factoring in the exactly the same pitchers for each. It may be crude and obtuse, but I’m pretty sure that I’m right on this front.”
They’ve already looked at runs saved on defense versus offense. They’re roughly equivalent. You offer little credible evidence other than “I’ll bet you you’re wrong” as to why this wouldn’t be the case. Until you have something substantive to say, I don’t know how you can hold this position and I certainly can’t argue it because you are arguing from pure opinion (even if you think it’s a logical one) against research.
What do you want me to reply with when you basically say “I’m right but I don’t have the time to prove it to you.” O, well ok, I’m suddenly convinced [/sarcasm]
“There’s no perfect decision making platform when it comes to this, no matter how much statistical measurement that you do.”
Of course there’s no perfect platform but your initial response (“I’ll take the bat almost everytime”) is going to make you wrong far more often than a nuanced position.
“My problem with the WAR statistic is that I feel that it overvalues the defense of a player because they are weighted exactly the same as what they produce offensively.”
Either stop saying this, or rephrase it because you are wrong. THERE IS NO WEIGHTING IN A WAR VALUATION. The defensive metric calculates the number of runs saved. The offensive metric calculates the number of runs produced. They aren’t weighted.
“I understand the position adjustment and I think that works properly, although, yet again, we’re deriving that value statistically based on perception of position (i.e. certain positions are more valuable than others based on scarcity also assumes a lot about defensive ability, etc.), not based on actual numbers.”
I don’t think you know where these actually came from then. They are derived from actual numbers. Go read up on how Tango produced them.
Your saying a lot of things that are either a) factually incorrect or b) opinion that bucks current empirical research. There are error bars around WAR valuations because no metric is perfect. There are larger error bars around defensive metrics than offensive ones (in general) but a run saved and a run earned are equivalents because the metrics develop their values with “runs” as a baseline. There’s no evidence to support your claim that run prevention is fundamentally less valuable than run scoring currently.
by azruavatar on Jan 7, 2009 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Who are you arguing with?
Obviously not me, because you’re arguing a different thing with me ENTIRELY, as evidenced by your linkage and counter-points.
I’m not arguing that a run saved is inequal to a run scored. They are equal. That is not my point. My point is that deriving the amount of runs saved by an individual is an inexact science to the point where I don’t by into the logic that develops these numbers.
You link me to an article that measures team runs scored for offense and team runs scored for defense to come up with a basis that they are fairly equal. Besides the fact that I agree that preventing runs is equal to creating runs, what the hell does that have to do with my argument that it’s difficult to measure individual defensive talent sabermetrically?
THERE IS NO WEIGHTING IN A WAR VALUATION.
There certainly is, because your evaluating the number of runs saved per individual as much as your valuing the number of runs created per individual and calling them the same thing. From what I’ve seen in most statistical models, the standard deviations for defensive metrics are larger than they are for offensive metrics. Therefore, if you calculate war by saying that saving 5 runs is the same as scoring 5 runs you are weighting both the same. But you can’t say that the metric for calculating runs saved is as good as the metric for calculating runs scored, because it isn’t. Link to studies of team defense all you want, az, but keep in mind that isn’t what I’m talking about. (Not to mention, but that analysis also doesn’t have anything to do with my argument of defensive team vs. offensive team, because that study you linked to doesn’t isolate the pitching aspect. So in a sense, I read that entire thing for no reason at all. Thanks.)
There’s no evidence to support your claim that run prevention is fundamentally less valuable than run scoring currently.
Once again, I don’t disagree with this at all. That is a theory that I agree with. What I disagree with is how it is broken down by individual player. For example, catchers. Historically, this position has been one of the more highly regarded defensive positions, but most sabermetric defensive stats are extremely poor at evaluating a catcher’s performance. I can calculate the offensive value of a catcher the same as I can calculate the offensive value of any other player by comparing all catchers as a group, over a long time or over a season, to the rest of the position players as a group, coming up with a positional adjustment and then applying that to whatever stat I want to use to measure offensive performance. Every time I see this done with defense I find it tough to rate individual players independent of the other players around them. That’s my problem with defensive metrics.
I realize Dunn isn’t a good outfielder; I also realize Izturis to be a great short stop. But to say that Izturis’ glove with no virtually no bat to speak of is nearly identical to Dunn’s bat because of his poor defense at a lower leverage defensive position I find to be highly suspect.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 7, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you know what weighting is? It would be like saying player X saved 5 runs and produced 5 runs so his WAR is .8*5+5 since we have to reduce the value of defensive runs. If you disagree with how defensive calcs are made that’s a separate argument from them being “weighted”. If you admit that a run saved is a run earned than they SHOULD be weighted the same (i.e. not weighted at all) . Your qualm is with the calculations of individual defensive runs saved.
Everyone acknowledges that defense is more difficult to measure but it’s pretty darn arrogant of you to say you think the individual metrics are all wrong when a) you’ve done no research in the area b) some of the metrics are proprietary so you really don’t know how the models are written and c) you offer no better alternative than individual opinion, which we know is highly unreliable in a single individual (Fan Scouting report is different).
“Every time I see this done with defense I find it tough to rate individual players independent of the other players around them.”
Have you read Tango’s WOWY method? That should help answer some of these concerns.
Again your qualms boil down to “I don’t like some of this on a subjective level” when multiple models arrive at very similar conclusions on defense. If you think you are smarter than Lichtman, Pinto, Fox, etc. just say it and you’ll save us all a lot of time.
by azruavatar on Jan 7, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Arrogance?
Arrogance would be saying that I’m right and they’re wrong without having evidence to back it up. I’m not saying that, I’m saying that I don’t think it’s possible to measure individual defensive value independent from pitching and team defense in a way that’s as intrinsically valuable as offensive ability measures. That’s not arrogant, that’s simply stating my view on the subject.
I’ve read Tango’s WOWY method, I have “The Book”. Stop trying to make me look like an asshole who hasn’t read any of this stuff. I have, I’m just not convinced that its “all that and a bag of potato chips” like you seem to be.
I’m not even saying I have a better way to do this. I’m simply saying that I find a lot of fallacies in the ways that it’s being done. Enough that I don’t believe it entirely and that I don’t put as much stock in it as I do offensive statistical analysis, and I’m certainly not alone in this belief, others on this board and the authors of the models themselves don’t blindly believe that they are right.
I would rather make decisions based more on the statistics that have a higher rate of estimating future performance. I believe offensive statistical metrics provide a greater certainty than the defensive statistics that I find suspect.
Do you know what weighting is? It would be like saying player X saved 5 runs and produced 5 runs so his WAR is .8*5+5 since we have to reduce the value of defensive runs. If you disagree with how defensive calcs are made that’s a separate argument from them being "weighted". If you admit that a run saved is a run earned than they SHOULD be weighted the same (i.e. not weighted at all) . Your qualm is with the calculations of individual defensive runs saved.
Um, YEAH!!! You just made my argument for me, via circular reasoning. Let’s break this down into parts so you can understand why part I of your rant doesn’t mesh with part II:
- if you believe that individual player defensive metrics are the same as individual player offensive metrics then you are “weighting” them equally: 50/50.
- I don’t believe that individual defensive metrics have the same level of predictability and certainty as offensive metrics, so therefore I don’t think they deserve equal “weight” when performing a WAR calculation.
- If my qualm is with the individual defensive runs saved, then having a defensive metric equal an offensive metric isn’t properly weighting their score
- Asking me if I know what weighting is and then fleshing out exactly what I’ve been talking about for two posts is a bit hypocritical.
Furthermore, I don’t believe that the measures for individual players preventing runs are independent from pitching, which is factored into run prevention. Thus, while a run saved = a run scored, offensive prowess is all that’s needed to score or create a run (i.e. it’s independent), while defensive prowess is only part of the equation for preventing a run (i.e. not independent), pitching must also be factored in. So when I say I don’t think it’s weighted equally, what I’m saying is that you either need to factor in pitching to the WAR equation somehow, or you need to degrade the defensive part of the formula for the amount of weight that pitching would have on preventing runs. We do this for pitchers with FIP, by removing all instances out of the pitchers control to determine whether that pitcher is effective at getting guys out independent of defense. It’s not a perfect stat either, but it does illustrate my point.
Again your qualms boil down to "I don’t like some of this on a subjective level" when multiple models arrive at very similar conclusions on defense. If you think you are smarter than Lichtman, Pinto, Fox, etc. just say it and you’ll save us all a lot of time.
I didn’t say I was smarter than any of these guys, nor am I. I’m simply pointing out that each and every one of them also has concerns about their model’s ability to measure individual defensive play consistently and effectively. Much more so than most of the metrics that have been established to measure offensive play. Do you read the footnotes to their analyses? That’s a very important part of the actual analysis, when you point out the model’s potential shortcomings.
What’s arrogant is believing that you are right in the face of disputable evidence simply because you have a method based on numbers and I don’t. Sometimes statistical evaluation can make things look far different from what they actually are.
“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” — Mark Twain.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 7, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This isn't going anywhere
We obviously disagree on a very fundamental level about the interpretation and predictability of defensive statistics and their models.
by azruavatar on Jan 7, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it's true that we don't know how to totally measure defense yet
none of the systems are perfect, etc, so the data used to make calculations has more margin for error. But that doesn’t mean that defense isn’t valuable, it just means that our calculations may have a large error margin (or they may not, we just don’t know. yet.)
Anyway, the “weight” factor you mention is accounted for by the “replacement” level setting. To make a bad example, imagine how many runs a team with 1968 Bob Gibson pitching would give up with your typical men’s softball league team playing defense behind him. We can’t even estimate it, because we have no frame of reference, although the predicted K rate could set a lower bound; still, it’s likely that a team of Babe Ruths couldn’t outscore that team, if the team they were playing against had average pitching and fielding. Your typical “horrible” big league defender is many, many runs better than your typical guy in the stands. It’s very very hard to be “average” defensively.
How hard, exactly, is the question, and we CAN measure what “average is”, within certain error bars, and then measure players against that. The variance of each individual player’s skill vs the average skill level tells us how hard it is to be average, among the elite community of people good enough to hit in MLB and play a given position. For someone to actually have “value”, offensively or defensively, he’s got to be “x” amount better than what you could find someone else for free. A team of replacement level talent would win around 50 games, so your “45 percent” figure is just arbitrary.
(this may not be a perfect explanation, but it’s close enough for the purposes of this conversation).
As far as your assertion that adding a single elite defensive SS not improving the overall defense of the team, that’s just bad logic. He won’t improve the OF, but he’ll certainly cause more outs to be made overall.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 6, 2009 8:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To use your own example...
If you have Gibson pitching and your beer softball league defensive players behind him, you’re telling me that replacing beer softball league SS with 1985 Ozzie Smith would improve their overall defense enough over a 162 game season to be worth, say, 4-5 wins? I don’t buy it. Yes, the SS has more balls hit his way that anyone else on field does, but he can’t make up for the below average play of everyone else.
Now, an above average offensive player can’t make up for the lack of teammates either, but it is much easier to measure his impact on run scoring on an individual basis because it’s easier to look at the individual impact of an offensive player than a defensive player. There’s just too much gray area in the measurement of individual defensive talent, and defense has a lot more correlation to the players around you than offense does, especially if you don’t buy the “protection theory” of batting order placement.
A team of replacement level talent would win around 50 games
Again, where does this figure come from? Do we just arbitrarily set the bar at 50 and work from there? If so, isn’t that a tremendous flaw in your thinking? Show me proof that this is that case and I’ll believe you, but there have been MLB teams that have won fewer that 50 games with better than replacement level talent and teams that have won more games than that with worse players. Intangibles obviously help the latter teams, and those are very difficult to measure, but I’ve yet to see a proof as to where the 50 games comes from. If we’re adding together individual talents of players and coming up with 50, then I don’t buy that logic either. That would mean that I could add up each individual player on each team in baseball, taking into account playing time, and come within one standard deviation of their win total for that season. From the models that I’ve seen, this generally doesn’t happen…
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 7, 2009 10:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
according to Tom Tango
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/how_to_calculate_war/
His calculations put “a replacement team at 47.4 wins, or 0.292 win%”
By the way, can anyone show me how put a link in a text form, not cumbersome URL form?
"Statistics mean nothing to the individual"
"You are what you eat and you clearly went out and devoured a big fat guy"
by jacksonian on Jan 7, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
just us the link button in the toolbar below the subject line after you’ve highlighted the text that you want to be your link.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 7, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
second word should be "use"
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 7, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes
having ozzie smith at ss, as opposed to having, say, me at SS, (and I’m a pretty good infielder for a beer leaguer), would save a ton of runs. It might not be exaggerating to say it would be on the order of 100 runs, in a 162 game season. In fact, 200 runs might not even be unbelievable (and yes, I understand how crazy that sounds, but 1-2 mistakes a game is well within the realm of possibility).
But again, this is an extreme example; no MLB team would ever consider me to be “replacement level” at defense. I’d be 100 runs or more below average. Letting 100 more runs score- which is what this means- over the course of a season will almost certainly cause a team to lose “x” more games than not letting those runs score.
OTOH, Ozzie is also an extreme example. He would get to probably 40+ balls that your average guy would not get to, making his pitchers look that much better. And yes, that many balls caught will cause his team to win more games even if 2B, 3B etc do not get better. In fact, it may have a synergistic effect, since stopping a ball on defense prevents the next hitter from having a chance to hit the ball to someone else (or to a place where no one is, or over the fence).
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 7, 2009 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That may very well be true...
but I don’t think that there’s a current defensive metric out there that could give you an accurate measure for that if indeed it is true. What I still have issue with is that I don’t think the metrics used for defense can capture individual defense well enough to be able to say that it’s a completely equal part to a players offensive ability.
As I’ve tried explaining to az (who, I’ve come to find out, really hates to be argued with about anything relating to sabermetrics), if you’re talking about runs created vs. runs prevented, and you can determine that they are equal in terms of creating wins, then an individual players defense can’t equal out his offense in that equation because pitching hasn’t been factored in, and pitching is just as important (if not more important) to preventing runs as defense is. Obviously they are not mutually exclusive and that they complement each other, but I’ve yet to see a WAR metric calculated that adjusts for an amount attributed to pitching within it’s defensive metric.
Like I said, I don’t quibble with the math at all, and I’m not saying that all the fine work done by guys like Tom Tango is worthless, it isn’t. The more info you have for player evaluation the better off you are. I just think that separating defense on an individual basis by making it independent from total team defense and pitching is a really, really difficult thing to do. Intuitively, if I have an known value (offensive ability) and a unknown or gray value (defensive ability) and the difference is less than half a run by WAR, I really have to go with my gut, and in my gut, Dunn is a much better upgrade for a team in need of both a SS and LF than Izturis is.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 7, 2009 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“who, I’ve come to find out, really hates to be argued with about anything relating to sabermetrics”
this is wrong. We were arguing in circles. I’d bring things up, you’d say you didn’t buy into it. You’d question the logic of some stats, I’d say it’s the best that’s out there. It was no longer a productive conversation. It had nothing to do with me not liking discussions about sabermetrics and it’s pretty backhanded to try and slide that in.
by azruavatar on Jan 7, 2009 9:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not cheapshotting you in any way...
You do this to just about everyone that challenges the validity of the sabermetric statistics. I’ve seen it before, and I’ve been part of those discussions, so I have come to find out that you don’t like arguing about their validity. That’s absolutely ok by me, but don’t call someone arrogant just because they don’t agree with you. I wasn’t being backhanded, I was simply stating this is what I’ve seen and been involved with for the past couple of days.
We were arguing in circles. I’d bring things up, you’d say you didn’t buy into it. You’d question the logic of some stats, I’d say it’s the best that’s out there.
We were not arguing in circles — you were arguing in circles with yourself, and implying that I was saying that the defensive metrics out there are worthless. They aren’t — they provide good information when comparing players of the same position and they do give genera information that can be used to evaluate players. My entire argument was based around the fact that I don’t think any specific individual defensive statistic can independently measure with a high degree of accuracy how much an individual defensive player impacts the prevention of runs, and therefore that those statistics should be discounted for outside factors like pitching and team defense when using them as part of a WAR calculation to determine player value, because they aren’t as accurate and independent as offensive statistics like wOBA. You’re not comparing apples to apples, you’re comparing apples to crabapples. I really don’t know what was so confusing to you about that idea or set of ideas, but you obviously didn’t understand what I was talking about.
You were the one trying to get me to come up with my own system or whatever, which I’m not interested in doing, because people much smarter than me have tried and haven’t come up with one that really is the cat’s ass. I think that doing this effectively is a very, very, very difficult thing to do, as I posted above, That said, I have the right to question the validity of these statistics, especially when they are being used to determine overall player value. Comparing the WAR of Dunn and Izturis against each other does not look right to me, so I said something about it. This isn’t the first time I’ve looked at two WAR values and been completely mystified, but this is the most egregious example that I’ve seen where two players are that close based solely on defense and positional adjustment, when one is an exceptionally better offensive player.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 8, 2009 12:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you're right
I often write protracted comments as part of conversations that can go on for days because I just hate discussing the validity of stats. Good catch.
We had fundamental disagreements on facts that neither was going to budge on. Where’s the value in dragging that conversation out. But, more to the current point, where the comment that I address to someone else that derides you? If you want to believe that I dislike these discusions, fine go ahead. There’s very few people on this site who seem to have taken issue with me so I’m not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.
by azruavatar on Jan 8, 2009 7:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
man
I couldn’t sleep very well last night, stupid insomnia
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 8, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WAR! What is it good for?!?
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
Say it again . . . .
by tom s. on Jan 9, 2009 1:31 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
yeah but
Dunn’s defense isn’t as bad as Milton Bradley’s or Manny’s, is it?
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 6, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Bradley actually plays pretty good defense.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 6, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ah
I’m figuring out that now, I had the wrong impression on his defensive abilities
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 6, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Although, it is kinda hard to get a read on a guys defense
when he never plays defense.
And when he does, he hurts himself.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 6, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dunn's defense
was only better than three regular LFs last year: Pat Burrell, Jason Bay, and Delmon Young. He was actually worse than Raul Ibanez, Carlos Quentin, and ManRam. At least according to UZR/150 anyway.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 6, 2009 7:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Delmon young was bad?
Interesting, I always htought he was one of the Tampa Bay uber-athletic players who was a great defender.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 6, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think at least part of Delmon's
problem on defense is a lack of enthusiasm.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 2:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
egh...
too many reasons not to trust him for 3 years. everytime he’s been asked to play the field he’s ended up with a truncated season. for one year perhaps you roll the dice, but 3 years seems excessive. on top of that you have all the other extra-curricular/sanity issues and i’m not sure that the cubs played this one right.
by trip mcneely2 on Jan 5, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
High risk, high reward
I’m not a big fan of the signing, but Milton Bradley was in the top 5 of the AL in BA, OBP (which he led), and SLG. He led the AL in OPS, topping even A-Rod by thirty-some points. Obviously, these are incredible offensive numbers. Another interesting stat, while putting up these numbers, he had 77 of his 414 ABs while playing in the outfield with the rest as DH. He’s topped 130 games played once, in 2004. If he can stay healthy playing the outfield every day, he will be a tremendous addition to their already daunting lineup. However, if he can’t, it’s going to be a long and expensive three years for Cubdom.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jan 5, 2009 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Furthermore
That 130 game season (138 actually) was the only time in his career he’s played more than 100 games in the field (i.e., not as a DH).
Games played as an outfielder:
2000: 40
2001: 74
2002: 94
2003: 93
2004: 138
2005: 73
2006: 94
2007: 58
2008: 20
Average (not counting 2000): 80.5 games per season as an outfielder.
Btw, I can’t find how many times he’s been placed on the DL, maybe someone can find that.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 5, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Bradely can stay healthy he is an excellent feilder
by vivaelpujols on Jan 5, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
also
if Bradley can stay healthy he is an excellent fielder.
Not trying to be an asshole**, I just couldn’t resist, plus we need some levity here every now and then
- I really am an asshole though, , unfortunately I don’t have to try
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 5, 2009 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Has he ever been heathy?
For a whole season? His high water mark is 138 games and that’s about 40 games above his average.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 5, 2009 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wow
cubs, heh
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 6, 2009 7:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They now have two outfielders who get hurt every year
Bradley and Soriano, and one that’s getting paid double what he should be, although Kosuke’s bat should play much better in centerfield than in right field.
At least Bradley can be a plus defender when he wants to be. Soriano’s never been that. He could be a great addition, but I don’t think his numbers are going to repeat those from last year playing in that bandbox and DHing all of the time.
I’m not sure that trading Derosa, signing Miles, and signing Bradley (which is what the other two moves were prefaced to do) is actually a net gain for the Cubs. I think it’s a net loss if Bradley plays 130 games, and a huge loss if he gets hurt and misses tons of time.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 5, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley and Miles or Fukudome and DeRosa?
Well, it’s not quite that simple, of course.
But, it looks to me that Bradley is replacing DeRosa’s bat, but he doesn’t plays much fewer games, so that’s not a good trade off.
Also, I think they plan on bringing Reed Johnson back (why, I have no idea) because they mentioned on the radio here in Chicago (The Score), that Fukudome would spell Bradley from time to time while Reed Johnson played center.
Now, I guess you could platoon Johnson and Fukudome, but when you sit Bradley, then you’ve got both guys in the lineup at the same time. Plus, they signed Joey Gathwright to play something which pushes Felix Pie pretty much out of the organization since he’s out of options. Btw, Pie (especially for the money) is probably a better option over Gathwright and Johnson.
If you went Soriano, Pie, Bradley with Fukudome and Johnson as backups, that’d be fine (although severely lacking in pop on the bench), but they apparently want nothing to do with Pie and they love Johnson (again, why I don’t know).
Btw, Milton Bradley has never played for the same team for more than 2 full seasons. Think there’s a reason?
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 5, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My version of the Cubs offseason...
“Hey, there’s a guy who looks interesting and might help our ballclub, lets sign him?”
then,
“Oh, shit, now we have too many of these "interesting and might help our ballclub” guys and don’t have money to spend on a free agent outfield bat. Hell, let’s trade our second best player from last year who was cheap and free up money to sign a guy to a three year deal who always wears out his welcome after 18 months."
then,
“Oh, f*** me, now we have too many f****** outfielders on the roster, I guess now we have to trade this guy who used to be our top prospect….”
I mean that’s just incredibly great General Managing from your 2008 GM of the year. And people here have the audacity to complain about Mo. If he had Jim Hendry’s payroll, we’d have Sheets AND Lowe AND a free agent second sacker, essentially filling all of the holes on the current club and still coming in under what the Cubs have already promised to pay in 2009.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 6, 2009 9:38 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
From what I've heard by a couple of guys on the radio
Terry Boers and Dan Bernstein (670 The Score, Chicago)
They’re speculating the cubs really didn’t want DeRosa anymore and made it a fairly high priority to trade him this offseason. Going the “Rather Trade A Guy A Year Early, as opposed to a Year Late” Philosophy.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 6, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that has to be the case
But they’re spinning it as if they needed the money to open up payroll to sign Bradley, which doesn’t make any sense at all. Had they not signed Gathright and Miles they could have kept DeRosa, made Pie or Hoffpauir the 4th outfielder (since DeRosa can fill in out there too), and still signed Bradley for about the same money.
Apparently they think their own fans are too drunk most of the time to do simple math. Either that or there’s another deal to be made for a second baseman that I haven’t heard any rumors about, or they think that Mike Fontenot is the second coming of Ryne Sandberg after 2008.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 6, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fontenot
I do think they think rather highly of Fontenot, but while he hit really well last year, it was strictly as a platoon player (259 PA vs. RHP, 25 PA vs. LHP).
Then again, there aren’t a whole hell of a lot of good lefty pitchers (starters, relievers or closers) in the National League Central Division so I guess who cares what he does against lefties.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 6, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Would they platoon him with Miles then?
Miles has a slightly higher career OPS+ against lefties, but he’s not near the offensive player that Fontenot is. Fontenot was also far above average with the glove last season, so he may be a good replacement there. I don’t see them replacing DeRosa’s bat at that position though, even as a platoon.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 6, 2009 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
they're replacing DeRosa's bat with Bradley's
I’m not saying it makes sense, but that’s essentially what has happened which is treading water at best.
The bat everyone forgets about is Jim Edmonds. They’ve yet to replace the 19 homeruns JEd hit for the cubs (and they were usually rather timely hrs if memory serves me correctly) and they’d be lucky to get half of those homeruns from the collection of suckatude they’re planning on playing in center this year.
Then again, they could have saved themselves some cash by not re-upping Johnson (3M) and not signing Gathwright (.8M). That way you’d platoon Pie and Fukudome in center and have an extra 4 million dollars which is exactly what they saved (well, actually 5 mil) with the Marquis/Vizcaino trade (by picking up 1 M of Marquis’ deal, they’ll essentially be paying Luis Vizcaino 5 million dollars to suck more than Marquis and he’s only a middle reliever).
Yup. That’s your Executive of the Year.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 6, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You and I just think differently
Bradley is effectively replacing Edmonds. The other two starters in the outfield will be the same and probably will hit in the same spots in the order. I think they’re hoping that Fontenot will replace 75% or more of DeRosa’s numbers, but I just don’t see that happening. The signing of Miles when you have Ronny Cedeno and two other serviceable players at AAA to be your utility man confounds the hell out of me.
I don’t understand the Marquis deal either. While he hasn’t been a great pitcher for them, he’s a nice option to have at the back-end of the rotation and spot starter when you have a couple of starters that have questionable injury histories. Seems like they’re trying to make a run at Peavy, but I just don’t think it happens unless they include Vitters, and it doesn’t seem like they’re willing to do that.
The Gathright and Johnson signings seem to preclude them trading Pie and Hoffpauir in a deal for someone. Felix Pie on his worst day isn’t a whole lot worse than Joey Gathwright and he’s half the price.
Again, I’m confounded by the moves they’ve made unless there’s a big splaxh coming that I haven’t seen yet.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 6, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Soriano's an underrated defender
UZR has him a 4.3 for his career in left field and that doesn’t take into account his arm.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 5, 2009 8:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
those are the kind of stats that make me wonder about UZR sometimes
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 5, 2009 8:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He just looks really bad doing it
He obviously is fast which tends to lead to good range. He makes a lot of really bad plays with that stupid leg kick thing, but overall he probably gets to more balls than the average left fielder.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 5, 2009 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, I can deal with that
I am just glad I don’t have to watch him out if LF every day. I can’t deal with that kind of stuff. What is with extremely high priced Cub OFers and their quirky shit?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 5, 2009 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
zone rating...
… i buy that. he’s much quicker than your average left-fielder (think: Burrell, Dunn). but zone rating is only one piece of the pie.
by kindred on Jan 5, 2009 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He always has a ton of assists
Which UZR doesn’t include.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 6, 2009 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's probably not something you want to quote when propping up a guys defense...
The reason he has a ton of assists is because teams run on him all the damn time. You didn’t see Ankiel get a whole lot of chances to throw people out after those two throws in Colorado, and Edmonds never led the league in assists and finished behind Juan Pierre twice during his tenure in St. Louis I believe. If you have a high number of assists you probably aren’t a very good defender.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 6, 2009 9:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the definition of a win now move.
One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.
by AdjustedExpectations on Jan 5, 2009 11:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lucky for us
it’s 3 years of a win now move
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 5, 2009 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley would be the perfect trade deadline acquisition
Unfortunately (well, fortunately), the cubs just over-paid on a three year deal for a trade deadline roster booster.
3 years to a guy that hasn’t lasted two years in a row with the same team in his career. And he wasn’t being moved because of the same reasons Reggie Sanders always moved. It was because teams had grown tired of him.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 6, 2009 12:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
3x$10M/year isn't an overpay, though
it’s actually quite cheap. This is a guy who could put up MVP-caliber numbers- his 2007 rate stats were better than albert, offensively- and he’s been worth more than $10M in 5 of his 6 seasons (and worth $7M in the other).
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 6, 2009 12:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
10 mil a year for a guy who only plays half the year isn't worth it
by vivaelpujols on Jan 6, 2009 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Even if he provides 3-4 wins over replacement in that half a season?
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 6, 2009 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If he's not healthy when it counts
No.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 6, 2009 5:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if he's healthy in april
and his performance in one month is enough to cause the team to make the playoffs by one game at the end of the season, then “he was healthy when it counts”.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 6, 2009 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1.
It only “doesn’t count” in spring training and the WBC and all the other exhibition type stuff.
That’s why the “Ryan Howard carried the Phillies into the playoffs on his back” stuff was crap. If he’d played like a league-average 1b for all the other months that don’t start with “S” the Phillies would have coasted into the playoffs.
by tom s. on Jan 9, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And if the cubs make the playoffs
and start and outfield of Soriano, Johnson, and Fukudome then they probably won’t win anything.
A teenage boy with a sprit inside
Of a Samurai warrior who long ago died.
Now he's O....O....O....O Oshikuru!
O....O....O....O Oshikuru!
My oh My he's a demon Samurai
Who's the guy who had to die.......Oshikuru!
by Tackle Box on Jan 9, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
bernie said on the radio
TLR/Dunc are combing over the list of FA starters and have id’d a guy they think could be the next Eckersley.
Anyone care to guess who that is?
Me? I have no idea…
I'll be the one overrating these Faberge' eggs, thank you very much!
Future Redbirds
by erik on Jan 5, 2009 5:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Adam Wainwright
just kidding….
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 5, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ben Sheets
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 5, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see him signing to be someone's closer.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 5, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We don't need the "next Eckersley"
We need the next Joe Nathan/K-Rod/Rivera. (Homegrown closers.)
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jan 5, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Twins traded for Nathan.
Although it was probably the greatest trade EVAR!
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 5, 2009 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't that a fleecing?
Sabean got ripped off in that deal.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jan 5, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And they didn't even take him out to dinner first!
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 5, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or breakfast the next morning!
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 5, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Walk of Shame....
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 5, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fleecing is an understatement
One year of Pierzynski for Liriano, Nathan, and Boof Bonser.
I’d say what really happened to Sabean, but it would be inappropriate for a PG-13 site.
by mojowo11 on Jan 5, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE GUYS ARE WORTH ONE YEAR OF PIERZYNSKI!
It was such a horrible trade that I have to type it in all caps.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 5, 2009 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you got that backwards
Or at least I hope you did
"Baseball is like Church, many attend, few understand" - Wes Westrum
by scoot on Jan 5, 2009 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
…when I think about that trade I tend to type irrationally. I blame Sabean for being himself.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 5, 2009 11:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
holy hell I hope it isn't Garland
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 5, 2009 6:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take a shot
Freddy Garcia.
Like Eck when he signed with Oaktown, he’s lost some velo on the fastball but has a wicked assortment of breaking pitches.
He also put up kinda poopy numbers in the VWL after missing almost two years of MLB due to injury, unlike Eckersley. I don’t see any other pitchers who profile much like Eckersley and would be available on the kind of contract it’d take.
I do think Juan Cruz would be an excellent candidate to be the next Braden Looper/Todd Wellemeyer candidate to make the switch back the other way, though…
by liam on Jan 5, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
According to the guys at BtB
Tony likes Juan Cruz too.
“I like Juan Cruz,” La Russa said. “But he is a [Type-A] guy and he’s looking for a lot of money … Lyon is a guy that we’ve talked about.”
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 5, 2009 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and the accompany article is fascinating
for the pitchFx analysis. I am assuming by now that most people who like that stuff have already devoured that information. If not, quit reading and click on Juan Cruz already!
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 5, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I knew they'd start talking about Lyon sooner or later
I'll be the one overrating these Faberge' eggs, thank you very much!
Future Redbirds
by erik on Jan 5, 2009 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradon Lyon as a starter is what Im talkig about
Seriously, lets get funky
www.salukihoops.com
by salukihoops on Jan 6, 2009 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They've talked about Saito, cruz, a starter moved to closer
anything and anyone to avoid using Perez and Motte.
by azruavatar on Jan 6, 2009 9:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if that were really true...
… then why wouldn’t they just re-sign Izzy? why not Hoffman?
imagine this scenario: the Cards don’t sign anybody, Perez still hasn’t learned control, Kinney gets hurt like he does every year, and Motte turns into Farnsworth since he’s only got one pitch. alluvasudden, Franklin is our best reliever again and Cardinal Nation is screaming for 6 months again.
Mo would not be doing due diligence if he wasn’t looking into Saito, Lyon, and Cruz.
by kindred on Jan 6, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully not Cruz
simply because of the Type A classification. I like that he’s a strikeout pitcher, but I think a 1st round pick usually has more pick than a reliever (as long as its power is only used for good).
by Toddius on Jan 6, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't mind if they Signed Cruz
to a 2 or 3 year deal. IHe has great stuff, and as Liam (I think ) pointed out, if Perez or Motte grab onto the closer’s role, you can move Cruz into the rotation.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 6, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing I like so much about Cruz is the way he’s so thoroughly embarrassed lefties over the past two years. He’d make a fine interim closer and I think he’s ready to return to starting.
If we could sign him to a 3yr/14M contract (about what I expect him to eventually sign for) and get 35 saves and 60 effective starts out of him, he’d be worth the ~$10M value you expect from a first round pick.
by liam on Jan 7, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“Mo would not be doing due diligence if he wasn’t looking into Saito, Lyon, and Cruz.”
Correct. But for a club that so often plays their cards close to the chest, TLR is making a lot of racket about not having a veteran closer. Imagine this — we sign a high profile guy and perez, motte and mcclellan are all capable of having handled the job next year. Now we’ve wasted resources because of a lack of faith in the farm system. And for all this talk about Perez not having control, his walk rates were only marginally worse than AAA and a definite improvement from 2007. He doesn’t need 100% command with his stuff.
by azruavatar on Jan 6, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
at least TLR is doing a nice job of building up the confidence of his rookie relievers.
[/end sarcasm]
I wish he would just keep his mouth shut and stop hurting the team.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 6, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Has anyone heard from Perez
And asked him about his confidence? I haven’t seen any recent interviews asking how he feels about the managers remarks. Hell, maybe he’s a “sticks and stones” guy. Maybe he is a true team player (and a fearful employee) and would go the old cliche route… I’ll do whatever is best for the team, and our skipper is paid good money to handle those decisions blah blah blah. For all I know he has picked out the perfect puppy and now is just deciding on using a steel-toed work boot or his trusty beach sandels (just so he can really feel it).
I don’t think management’s remarks should be confidence shattering for anyone. He still wants these kids to pitch and it seems to me like he would be geniunely happy to be the one handing them the ball. He hasn’t been critical of the young pitchers at all and maybe it would be best to find out how they are reacting to recent suggestions that they aren’t quite ready yet. If anything said so far can crack one or more of our bullpeners’ egos then I believe that would prove they aren’t ready.
One last maybe… Maybe someone should tell Perez to show up at the ARF banquet and pull TLR aside to convince him of his readiness/eagerness to be the closer. “Hey coach, great spread, got a minute? I understand and appreciate you wanting to protect my mental well-being and your desire for improvement on my slider but I am ready, I know I can do the job!” He then stares through Tony like Mike Singeltary reading blitz until the truth is conveyed (or the fabric of time is shredded whichever comes first).
by Beardsville Rockers on Jan 6, 2009 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No we haven't heard from Perez
but we have heard the manager say over and over again that he doesn’t want Perez to close, that not having Perez close is priority one, etc. You can assert whatever you like about Perez’ makeup, but if the likelihood is high that doubting a player’s ability will improve his performance then maybe he should doubt everyone’s. It is poor management, it makes players less likely to want to play for him, and it makes the cost of the coveted closer go up.
I don’t know if you have ever managed people or not, but the first rule of management is that you praise your people publicly and criticize them privately. No matter how you slice it saying a player is not ready for the job he has been groomed for and stating your number one priority is to find someone else to do his job, even if it means losing a draft pick and the ability to improve the team in other areas, is criticism.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 2:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're going a little overboard here.
Yes, he is criticizing Perez, but the guy has less than one year of Major League service. All of LaRussa’s comments have been aimed towards the guy’s development into that role. I haven’t heard him indicate that he believes that Perez WON’T be a closer. He has said that there are still a few things the guy needs to learn.
I understand your point. Typically, I consider it extremely bad form to criticize through the media, but I don’t see that as what LaRussa has really done. He is making a case for what gives his team the best chance to win THIS year. His statement was that the best thing for the development of both Motte and Perez is to have at least a full year in the Bigs as an understudy.
I can agree that coddling may not be the best approach for development, but I’m not sure that I would consider it poor management to say that a virtual rookie prospect should have to earn such an important team role.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 9:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think TLR
would be better off to say that he will give Perez and Motte a shot at the role, BUT he thinks that they are both young and they may need some more experience before they take over full time. That’s much better than saying “priority one is getting another closer so that I don’t have to use those two.”
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 7, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
giveml consolidated a couple of quotes there.
LaRussa never said it was priority one to get somebody to keep those two from closing.
In two statements, nearly a month apart, he said that Fuentes was priority #1; and the other day he said that it would be best for the long term development of Motte and Perez for them not to close this year.
He also said that it was not “optimal” to go with either of these guys, but that he would use one if that was the situation.
That is why I think giveml is being extremely harsh in his criticism of LaRussa. I’m no apologist for LaRussa, and I personally will be glad when he is gone. He has an history of criticizing his players in the press. I just don’t think that is really what is going on here. This isn’t a Kennedy-like situation, IMO.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait a minute
How can you not be an apologist for LaRussa and say that getting Fuentes was priority #1doesn’t mean “it was priority one to get somebody to keep those two from closing?” What else do you expect Fuentes to do besides close?
What possible value to the team, the fans, and the players involved do LaRussa’s public expressions of lack of faith in Perez/Motte have? None that I can see. He just needs to STFU. He should address his concerns to the front office and the players involved and that is it.
What he is doing amounts to publicly lobbying for his own agenda and trying to get the front office to address his personal insecurities. If MO publicly suggested how Tony make out the lineup card, handle pitchers, etc. would that be acceptable?
I have my own concerns about the young closers, but I have larger concerns about the rotation and the left side of the bullpen. You can’t have everything you want.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm gonna walk away from this one 'cuz ...
you are normally pretty level-headed in your arguments. It is obvious that this has hit some emotional nerve here. I’m sorry if I came off as insulting or condescending. That wasn’t my intention.
I haven’t read the same pretext into LaRussa’s comments that you obviously have. I believe that it is acceptable for LaRussa to discuss what he believes is the best way to develop young ballplayers, or what he sees as the strengths and weaknesses of his team. You obviously disagree with me, or you feel that he worked an additional agenda in at the expense of two of his ballplayers.
I respect your opinion, but i disagree with your conclusions. Sorry.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you are being fair
to call me emotional and not even answer my primary question: How can you not be an apologist for LaRussa and say that getting Fuentes was priority #1doesn’t mean "it was priority one to get somebody to keep those two from closing?" What else do you expect Fuentes to do besides close?
It is really a low trick to call someone else emotional, overboard and extremely harsh because they question your logic.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you 100%
in regard to the argument, Tony needs to keep his mouth shut sometimes. Naming Fuentes as priority #1 is a vote of unconfidence in Perez and Motte. It doesn’t do anyone any good. I don’t the etp_stl was trying to be offensive though, FWIW.
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 7, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the=think
damn
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 7, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't take personal offense
but I just thought it was a pretty non-sensical post and I don’t appreciate being called names.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't look at it as a vote of unconfidence
More of just making sure we aren’t last in the NL in blown saves….
by Taskmaster on Jan 7, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because obviously
We will be last in the NL in blown saves if Perez and Motte close.
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 7, 2009 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is a worthwhile goal
but if it means we will be last in the NL in quality starts then it really doesn’t buy us much. If it means we have to use Ian Oslund or Royce Ring to get Prince Fielder, Ryan Howard, etc. in high leverage situations then we may end up blowing the saves in the seventh anyway.
I would love to have had Fuentes and Lowe and Will Ohman, but whether we like it or not we are going to have to choose and will be lucky if we get a good solution for any of those needs. We have viable closer candidates that are a better solution than our SP candidates and our LH reliever candidates.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry, again.
I certainly wasn’t trying to “call you names,” in reference to your post below. I was trying my hardest to avoid this kind of response.
I’m not calling you emotional, in general, merely the tone of your posts on this subject lead me to that statement. Maybe spirited was a better word. I didn’t even mean that emotional meant irrational, though I can see my mistake by adding the “level-headed” remark. I’m sorry. That wasn’t how I meant it.
I was actually trying to back out of an argument that I didn’t feel equally as strong about, as I felt I wouldn’t give you a good discussion. That is why I didn’t respond to your questions, but I felt it was disrespectful to just leave you hanging.
I can see how you reached your conclusion, but the team was also in desparate need of help from the LH side of the bullpen. Fuentes gave the Cards a more seasoned option to close, yet he could still fill a valuable role in the bullpen if Motte or Perez were to overtake him for the closer’s role. LaRussa has always preferred competition at any position unless there is a sure-fire solution for that position (ala Pujols or Glaus). He also prefers players with versatility, and Fuentes would have done that for a team that was overloaded on the RH side of the bullpen.
Because I can understand a different line of reasoning, does not make me an apologist for LaRussa. I do not have an history of preferring to side with LaRussa’s argument, which is my definition of being an apologist. I certainly don’t side with him above my own beliefs on a topic.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
for what it's worth
I have read exactly the pretext that giveml has expressed, into TLR’s comments- as presented by the STL media. And then, when I went and listened to the mp3 of the interview that the quotes were taken from, (which was posted in the hot stove thread), it became readily apparent that the writers at the post dispatch were willfully taking sound bites out of context to distort what TLR was saying, in a way to make him look as bad as humanly possible.
It was clear from those interviews that TLR was not trying to undermine Mo or DeWitt (though bernie, i think, is); tlr makes it clear that he’s just the on-the-field guy, and he has no idea what the fiscal realities are etc. He was not denigrating the kids; he is motivated by a sincere interest in making them have the best careers they can have. And whether you and I (or anthony reyes) agree with him about what the way to do that is, it’s not a bad thing to have your manager looking out for his players, even if it’s only in his mind.
And I’m not a TLR fan, at all, as my thousands of posts this summer arguing with Soonerfan attest to.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 7, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that was my issue, too.
I didn’t really read the articles that referenced LaRussa’s interview with Bernie because I happened to be listening to his show on the radio that day. I guess that is why I wasn’t seeing the same thing the giveml was, as I certainly didn’t get the impression from LaRussa’s statements or tone that he was dissatisfied with the progress that Perez and Motte are making. He was definitely dissappointed that they failed to get Fuentes, but he said it was to protect their development.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Never listened to the interview
Most of my heartburn is over Fuentes being the number one priority. I believe that was accurately reported wasn’t it?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know, for sure.
I didn’t hear that interview. I simply read the reports, which would lead us back to the recent discussion. I’m sure he did say it was the #1 priority, but I don’t know the context in which it was brooched.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
stltoday.com link
a Hot Stove Q & A has “the priority” comment in one of the first paragraphs. It relates to the bullpen as a whole. Then later on is a series of questions on Fuentes specifically. This exchange was boiled down to “Fuentes is number one priority”
by ubeddie on Jan 7, 2009 8:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree that it is the ONLY reason...
Tony could be motivating his young closers to show that it is not a given that they will close. Some coaches/ managers use the media to drive or push players to varying success (it didn’t work with Rolen, but some players fuel on negative comments… look at Michael Jordan or Albert Pujols). While it might not be the way you would do it, pushing a player publicly can work (and he is NOT demeaning them at all).
LaRussa is not an idiot like a lot of people seem to believe. I think he knows the reprecussions of his comments and believes that they will help the young hurlers rather that hinder.
"Live like you are going to die tomorrow. Learn like you are going to live forever." John Wooden
by MRCARD on Jan 7, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Managing private companies
I’ll agree with your statement about business management, but have to disagree on using the same set of parameters to judge a manager’s performance. I have managed hundreds of professionals for close to twenty years, so imo managing within a private company is not comparable to managing a sports team.
by ubeddie on Jan 7, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously it is not the same thing
but does that make it good business practice to question the ability and competence of your staff in a public forum? Do you really think these comments will enhance Perez’ ability to throw strikes under pressure or Motte’s ability to develop a secondary pitch? Do you think it makes it more likely or less costly to actually acquire a closer?
Please explain what positive outcome you expect from his comments.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Positive outcome possibilities...
1. Work harder on conditioning in the offseason (expecially someone with weight issues like Perez).
2. LESSON expectations (a young player CAN lose confidence in his abilities if pushed in a role he is not ready for)
3. Push management (which you’ve already stated but can be a positive as well as a negative)
"Live like you are going to die tomorrow. Learn like you are going to live forever." John Wooden
by MRCARD on Jan 7, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Big head
4. Keep players from becoming overconfident
5. Give a goal for a player to shoot for instead of giving someone a job to lose (there is a difference, even in the business world). If you fall just short of your goal you are still pushing upward instead of regressing.
6. Create less expectations for a fan base (we all saw how fast the fans turned on Izzy, I’m not sure a young player could handle that). Thinking about it, this could be the number one reason.
"Live like you are going to die tomorrow. Learn like you are going to live forever." John Wooden
by MRCARD on Jan 7, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you have correctly
listed positive outcomes on numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5 if the message was delivered privately. The ONLY reason to deliver those type of messages publicly is if they have already been relayed privately and are not being heeded. I doubt anyone here knows what Chris Perez has been told privately, or whether he has even been spoken to.
Number three is the likely reason behind TLR’s public statements and it is a bad decision. I don’t follow other teams that closely, but I am not aware of Lou Piniella, or Joe Torre, or Jim Leyland publicly stating the teams first priority is to acquire a particular player because he doesn’t have any confidence in the in-house options. Maybe that happens more than I think, I don’t know.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
or maybe TLR knows Chris Perez and Jason Motte
and doesn’t worry that their delicate flowers will wilt under a little pressure.
OTOH, what is he supposed to say when asked what his #1 priority is? if he says 2B, he insults Brendan Ryan, or heaven forbid, adam kennedy. If he says “trade for a starting pitcher”, he insults KMC. If he says “pick up an interim closer, who was the 5th best reliever in baseball last year”, he insults a guy who wasn’t that good but might be in a year or two.
If he doesn’t say anything, 100,000 internet geeks will be on the p-d forums saying he’s holding back and a wuss because he’s afraid to insult people…
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 7, 2009 6:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome to 24 hr sports coverage.
The sports journalist’s job is to stick a microphone in somebody’s face often enough to get that person to say something offensive. If they can’t get it, then they’ll twist what he did say (which I believe is what you accused Bernie of above, and I whole-heartedly agree with).
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good points all
but I still don’t think his comments are appropriate. Personally, I would prefer he and MO don’t tip their hands and all of us internet geeks just have to wait it out. It is hard enough to put together a competitive roster as it is.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
for sure
at the very least, saying “fuentes is our #1 priority” made fuentes more expensive to us. Although the fact that there was another bidder willing to pay more than us made this irrelevant in this case, it might have caused us to overpay.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 7, 2009 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re read my comment
I did not make any judgment on TLR’s comments (positiveor negative, attacking or defending) so I am unsure of the point you are attempting to make in responding to my opinion.
by ubeddie on Jan 7, 2009 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Confused...
Was this comment for me? I was responding to giveml, and not your comment (see the spacing above).
"Live like you are going to die tomorrow. Learn like you are going to live forever." John Wooden
by MRCARD on Jan 7, 2009 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think its for me
So, ubeddie, were you trying to make a point or not? It sure sounded like you were “disagree(ing) on using the same set of parameters to judge a manager’s performance.” It sure seems like the point you were attempting to make, in the context of the discussion, was that it was OK for a manager to publicly criticize his players.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Point is cannot apply same rules
Your statement that I disagree with was
I don’t know if you have ever managed people or not, but the first rule of management is that you praise your people publicly and criticize them privately.
I agree with the statement when managing in a private company but disagree with applying it to sports management.
Sports management is not a black & white process and is a very public process. Any statement is dissected and analyzed to the nth degree. This doesn’t happen in the real business world. Your statement which I disagreed with was that standard business management methods are the defacto sports management methods and TLR is an idiot for not knowing that.
The rest of the thread has plenty of discussion on the publicly criticize issue so I won’t go into that.
by ubeddie on Jan 7, 2009 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Report I was reading ...
on Foxsports.com’s rumors thread had an article relaying that doctors have told the Dodgers that Saito could pitch this year, but that his elbow won’t handle the grind of closing. It sounds like the best he could be is a fill-in guy, or maybe he could be part of a closer-by-committee guy.
I was wondering why the Cards weren’t looking at him as an option. That would seem to be a pretty good reason to run from him, based on what the Cards need.
by etp_stl on Jan 6, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like he's going to have to be coddled
Closers often have to get warm in a hurry, get up once or twice a game, and then pitch on consecutive days. Sounds likes he’s going to need regular time off and when he gets up, you’ve got to bring him in or lose him for the game.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 6, 2009 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sounds like the perfect match
FWIW, he turned down a 1Y, 2M offer from the red sox already.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 6, 2009 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
-sigh-
I hope that doesn’t happen.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 6, 2009 2:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't laugh
Carl Pavano. Minor league deal, of course.
by IA Card on Jan 5, 2009 6:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
whew
looks like it won’t be Pavano. He just signed with the Tribe
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 7, 2009 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Could be anyone, really
This just goes to show how little faith the coaching staff has in Perez to close right now — they’d rather sign a starter and make him the closer.
Not that it’s necessarily a bad idea, depending on the player.
by mojowo11 on Jan 5, 2009 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Anthony Reyes, Part Deux?
I haven’t seen a clarification anywhere, from either the coaching staff’s or the front office’s point of view, but I wonder where Perez is going to end up (Motte too, to a degree, but mostly Perez). Will he end up in the bullpen on the ML roster, just not in the closer’s role, or will he be back in AAA?
The more I read comments made by Tony, the more I get the feeling that he’d prefer to have Perez closing in AAA to “grow into the role” as opposed to using him in the latter innings (6th-8th) in the big league games.
I just wonder if this will turn into another situation where Mo gets to dictate who’s on the roster, but Tony retorts with publicly stating “it’s up to me as to which role to use him in.”
I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but the more comments that are made like that, the more uneasy I get.
by A1R3Z on Jan 5, 2009 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
YAARA
For what it’s worth I think it’s a hell of a lot closer to Ank than it is anyone else. Letting him grow into the role vs having it all on his shoulders. Tony’s quotes lean that way citing pressure and sustainability concerns going forward. I haven’t seen anything saying Perez is wanted in AAA. At all, by GM or Coach.
Personally, I’m just fine not having Perez close for a year or two. Keep him in a lesser role as he heads towards his arb years, get better on his command/arm slot (which still has issues FWIW).
Perez could be our Ryan Madson for example. That’s not a bad thing.
One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.
by AdjustedExpectations on Jan 5, 2009 11:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
that’s a great thing. Remember when the Astros had Lidge, Dotel, and Wagner? That was a nasty pen. Lidge was actually pitching the most high leverage situations then. Perez can come in and get big strikeouts in the 7th or 8th, in some very high leverage situations.
by Toddius on Jan 6, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is why we should just trade our prospects for veterans.
On with the (good) youth movement!
by aet15 on Jan 6, 2009 1:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see it that way
Perez is doing everything they’ve asked of him and he’s improved over the past year. I don’t blame them for looking for a guy on a one-year contract who could close games and take a little pressure off Chris to give him another year to develop as a big-league pitcher.
Pedro Martinez sounds like a real nice fit, if he’d be willing to make the career change.
by liam on Jan 6, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't blame them for looking
But I certainly hope they’re not looking at the expense of the rotation.
by mojowo11 on Jan 6, 2009 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't sound like it from what I've heard.
Listening to LaRussa’s comments to Miklasz, it doesn’t sound like either LaRussa or Duncan question what Perez is capable of. It just seems like they believe that Motte and Perez need to learn the right approach to closing at the big league level. It sounds to me like LaRussa and Duncan have both been scared away from “rushing” young guys into pressure situations. I think it is the Ankiel-effect.
by etp_stl on Jan 6, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
with you, not Tony and Dunc. If it is true, they need to get the hell over it. Not everyone is gonna be as fragile as Ank was.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 6, 2009 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you.
I agree with more of a trial-by-fire approach myself, but I guess I have to trust in their ability to judge whether or not either of those guys are being put into a position to succeed. I’ve seen many discussions on here about the needs of secondary pitch for either guy to really be successful. I don’t know if having either or them learn that pitch in a closer’s role will be successful.
by etp_stl on Jan 6, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Remaining FA Starters
I eliminated those who wouldn’t switch (Garland/Lowe/Sheets/Wolf) and injury/retirement guys (Mulder/Clements/Smoltz). No one jumps out at me.
Matt Belisle (29)
Bartolo Colon (36)
Shawn Estes (36)
Josh Fogg (32)
Freddy Garcia (33)
Charlie Haeger (25)
Livan Hernandez (34)
Orlando Hernandez (43)
Chuck James (27)
Jason Jennings (30)
Kenshin Kawakami (34)
Jon Lieber (39)
Braden Looper (34) – Type B, not offered arb
Rodrigo Lopez (33)
Pedro Martinez (37)
John Parrish (31)
Carl Pavano (33)
Odalis Perez (32)
Tim Redding (31)
Kenny Rogers (44)
Koji Uehara (34)
by ubeddie on Jan 5, 2009 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if it is Livan Hernandez...
I will see you all in 2010.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 5, 2009 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I pulled him based on injury but he has closer experience
1990-1992 for Orioles and 2005 for RedSox. Fully rested and only 42 yrs old
by ubeddie on Jan 5, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
based on what TLR said:
my guess is Schilling too
One of the things you look at is … a starter that’s a veteran [who has] pitched in the ninth inning with a one-run lead before
by STLRegalia on Jan 6, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
bartolo colon
you heard it here first
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Jan 6, 2009 3:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This was a misunderstanding
They thought Carp was a free agent already. I keed, I keed…
by mattybobo on Jan 6, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Add the Phillies
to the Now Looking for a Free Agent LOOGY List.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 5, 2009 11:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Union Seriously F$#%ed him over
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Jan 6, 2009 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's what is sounds like.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 6, 2009 12:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That...
…is awful. If a player calls The Union, and The Union isn’t up to date with their information, then The Union needs to be smacked upside the head or something. That’s inexcusable.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 6, 2009 2:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stuff like this makes me wonder...
Why in the hell aren’t these over-the-counter supplements required to list everything that’s in them? Are they classified as herbal remedies and therefore aren’t subject to FDA regulation?
Considering what happened to 5 NFL players regarding a supplement just a couple of months ago, Congress seriously needs to look at mandating that all the contents of these “supplements” are required to be on the outside label.
Romero didn’t do anything wrong, yet still is punished for it. There’s probably high school kids taking this supplement right now as well. Something is definitely wrong with the system…
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 6, 2009 9:57 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
+1
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 6, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Please sign Kenshin Kawakami...
so that I can watch some games of the cardinals here in Philippines via Japanese channel (BS1)… because they only televised the game that has a Japanese player
ESPN channel here in Philippines only broadcast the game of Yankees…
I only look at the games of our cardinals in the Gameday of mlb.com…
by Elpot on Jan 6, 2009 6:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Kawakami with Dodgers?
This is really strange and not exactly a reliable source, but I was checking Wikipedia to read about this guy and his page says : “On January 5, 2009, it was reported that Kawakami and the Los Angeles Dodgers came to a 3 year 30 million dollar deal.”
Does anyone know if this actually happened? Or is someone going Stephen Colbert on Wikipedia?
On with the (good) youth movement!
by aet15 on Jan 6, 2009 1:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Um...no
The footnote links back to an MLBTR report that he had signed, and that posting has been removed on MLBTR.
How is MLBTR a reliable source for information when surely a more credible source would also have confirmed this (ESPN, CBSSportsline, the LA Dodgers website). Whatever happened to getting more than one source?
I love Wikipedia… :-)
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 6, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Shelley Duncan DFA'd by Yanks...
… go get him Mo! brother-brother platoon in LF! Chris could be the late-inning defensive replacement!
by kindred on Jan 6, 2009 4:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Spikes high into Miles in Spring Training.
Anybody else see that coming? He seems to have a propensity for such moves.
by etp_stl on Jan 6, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ummm..
That’d be one hell of a slide from Florida to Arizona.
The boys are all here for ya...we'll back you up...we'll be there...cause, Billy, we don't stink right now. We're the best team in baseball right now...right this minute...because of you. You're the reason. We're not gonna screw that up, we're gonna be awesome for you right now. Just throw.
by Tackle Box on Jan 6, 2009 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Best case scenario...
for a pitcher who likes to throw inside is to get him some protection on the field by signing Duncan and Johnny Gomes. Those guys would be in front of the mound before the batter even turned to look back at the pitcher. They could probably provide a little pop in the lineup too.
by Jumsy on Jan 6, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Marquis is now a Rockie
The Marquis for Vizcaino. Rockies also get nearly $1 mil in cash as well.
by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jan 6, 2009 5:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Please, Please, Please
Let him start one of the games at Coors this year so I can watch Ryan Ludwick’s already ridiculous Coors Field OPS rise even higher….
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 6, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That belt-high sinker is going to go a LOOOONG way!
I can’t wait to hear his explanation of how neither the humidor nor the altitude had any effect on his last worthless outing. I’m sure it will simply be a few bad locations, just like everywhere else. Good luck to the Rockies pitching coach. We should send him a supply of Tums.
by etp_stl on Jan 6, 2009 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"supply of Tums"
maybe that’s why they got the $1 mil for? over/under for homers he’ll give up in Coors Field? 20?
by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jan 6, 2009 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean just in Coors?
Hell, it still may be over. I think you’re right about the $1M.
by etp_stl on Jan 6, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Koji Uehara is now an Oriole
does that mean we get Kawakami?
I'll be the one overrating these Faberge' eggs, thank you very much!
Future Redbirds
by erik on Jan 6, 2009 5:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
us and the twins
uehara signed a 2 year/$10 mil deal with incentives and kawakami should come cheaper so we should have the funds. hopefully Mo can pull it off.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
by FutureMan on Jan 7, 2009 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
why would Kawakami come cheaper?
From what I’ve heard and seen he’s the better pitcher of the two and is a starter, wheras Uehara is projected to be a set up man or closer.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 7, 2009 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it sort of depends on who you ask
I’ve heard that both are better than the other, which would be pretty unlikely. I think we can only be certain that, at most, one of them is better than the other.
In seriousness, I think I vaguely have gotten the jist that Uehara’s track record looks better but that maybe Kawakami’s stuff could translate better to the MLB? Does that sound remotely resonable to anybody?
by mattybobo on Jan 7, 2009 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I voted for him, his health chart is aloooooot better then Sheets. last i read that he had a strained back not to bad
by Wstorie44 on Jan 6, 2009 5:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You can use the 'reply' button
to the right of your time stamp to respond directly to someone’s comments.
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...
by RunninRedbird on Jan 6, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
like so
With the O’s rumored to be in the Teixeira derby, maybe they have more $ to play then we do. Signing Uehara could make the O’s more interesting to Kawakami, being he wouldn’t feel like an island in the clubhouse.
I'll be the one overrating these Faberge' eggs, thank you very much!
Future Redbirds
by erik on Jan 6, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So's not signed.
We can bring him back as a cultural liason.
by etp_stl on Jan 6, 2009 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When will the Yankee spending stop???
They just signed John Rodriguez for 450K. No one is able to get any of the Great Free Agents anymore… J-Rod and A-Rod…
by Jumsy on Jan 6, 2009 7:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
J-Rod was...
a Type A FA, if I’m right, but I think the Yanks have signed so many of them, we will get their 18th round pick in the draft? (all sarcasm)
by Jumsy on Jan 6, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever happen to J-Rod
I seem to remember he was a pretty good player for us in limited playing time.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 6, 2009 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Per Goold, in the latest BirdLand blog entry.
It appears that the reports of Kawakami’s impending signing were greatly exaggerated.
Apparently there is a great deal of misinformation being circulated. The Cardinals inquired about him in Las Vegas, as have roughly a dozen other teams. Both the Twins and the Cardinals have denied any information that would include them on a finalists’ list, yet. There was a report that the Red Sox had offered him 3/$21M, but again, they deny that the offer was ever made.
The entry indicates that the Cardinals are not moving any more quickly on this guy than any other potential SP target.
It does have a nice video of the guy pitching, though. That might be worth checking out.
by etp_stl on Jan 6, 2009 9:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
3/21?
geez. i thought uehara was considered better than kawakami and he sigend for 2/10.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
by FutureMan on Jan 7, 2009 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kawakami I think is more highly sought after.
Uehara was getting a lot of looks as a reliever.
I can’t really say who is better though.
by TheBirds on Jan 7, 2009 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The market is set
They are both similar pitchers so Kawakami should be in the 10-15 million range over 2 maybe 3 years.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 7, 2009 12:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently all Of CAN play 2B
Buried deep in this article, Mather possibly auditioning for the super utility man role this spring.
Just Hummel speculation, or is this an informed statement?
"Baseball is like Church, many attend, few understand" - Wes Westrum
by scoot on Jan 7, 2009 9:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
You may notice
A certain Crabman gets no love when referring to the potential big league OF group
"Baseball is like Church, many attend, few understand" - Wes Westrum
by scoot on Jan 7, 2009 9:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't be surprised if we never see Barton in an STL uniform again.
Beyond being right handed, there are a lot of OF in the minors that could be better than him. He needs to establish himself quickly or he’ll be an organizational player.
by azruavatar on Jan 7, 2009 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mostly agree
but I have some concerns about how the roster lineup will be constructed absent Barton unless our player mix changes. I doubt Rasmus will be the opening day leadoff hitter (although I hope so), so if Skip is still here and still batting leadoff then who bats leadoff vs. LHPs? I don’t see a right-handed solution in sight unless you think maybe Shane Robinson could make the team.
I hope they move a couple of OFs fairly soon so this mess sorts itself out.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My growing feeling
is that we won’t move an OF until the trade deadline. This could mean that Rasmus won’t be on the big league roster until then. Ankiel would seem the likely choice to ship to a contender mid season.
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 7, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Any thoughts
on how to handle the leadoff position with the current roster?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
gotta be skippy right?
mo said in strauss’ article that he saw a scenario where six of our outfielders make the team. so what?
ankiel – CF
ludwick – RF
skip – LF
duncan – bench LF/1B
mather – utility
Barton – bench OF
Is that what we are looking at?
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
by FutureMan on Jan 7, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
i have no clue. hope skip can start hitting them? barton wasn’t awful against lefties last year. he did have a .374 OBP last year though its a small sample size.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
by FutureMan on Jan 7, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that having a protypical leadoff hitter
is really something worth getting too concerned over.
by TheBirds on Jan 7, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i'd agree
but having someone that can get on base is.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
by FutureMan on Jan 7, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's pretty optimistic to expect that of Rasmus.
1) He is LH, and I’m not convinced that LaRussa will give him the opportunity to hit much against LHP. His splits from last year would indicate that he doesn’t seem to mind it, though, as he hit roughly the same against pitchers from either side.
2) He was awful in the leadoff spot last year at AAA. .195/.280/.331 in 154 PA. His OPS went up nearly .300 points when moved to the #2 spot.
3) Colby has struggled every time that he has jumped to the next level. I don’t know that you can count on him as a table-setter next year.
Info brought to you from this link
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well
1) Well, you said it yourself, he’s not a platoon player. He doesn’t have pronounced splits. Any fault in that department rests squarely on TLR’s shoulders.
2) I don’t think you can look at that as justification that the leadoff spot caused him to hit worse. I’m guessing he just batted leadoff early in the year when he struggled and they were just moving him around in the order later to try and jumpstart him somehow and he happened to come out of it while batting in another slot. I can’t find much logic in thinking that batting leadoff would really hurt a player’s production. I mean, how psychologically fragile would Colby have to be?!?!
3) It’s like ripping off a band-aid, gotta do it sometime.
by TheBirds on Jan 7, 2009 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Longterm...
Longterm it would be better to have Colby cheaply from 23-29 than 22-28. Especially, when we have a lot of options that would do roughly what he would (next year only). Say he is a 2 WAR player in 2009 and we can get 2 from a combination of Duncan/ Skip/ Mather. Logically, wouldn’t it be better for Colby to start the season in the minors?
Why is everyone so up in arms for Colby to be in the majors RIGHT NOW? Is it because we want to see him right away or is it because we think he will make that much of a difference in 2009? The only other possibility is if you think being in the minors stunts his growth, but I’ve seen no evidence to support this.
"Live like you are going to die tomorrow. Learn like you are going to live forever." John Wooden
by MRCARD on Jan 7, 2009 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Holding his rights is important, but how long do you play that game. Then, does having his rights from 24-30 trump having them from 23-39?
The original question here was whether or not he could fill the leadoff spot against LHP. Right now, I don’t think that any of us has a good answer for who will do that on the team as it is currently constructed.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The answer could be...
I’d say the answer could be, “until Rasmus is projected to be better than the player(s) he is replacing”. That is, unless the Cardinals can convert some OF assets into something else of need. The market doesn’t look very good for outfielders right now though.
As for the original question, I really can’t add to what has already been discussed.
"Live like you are going to die tomorrow. Learn like you are going to live forever." John Wooden
by MRCARD on Jan 7, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
bravo
That is the correct answer, imho, although I’d add “or you feel colby cannot develop further in the minors”. It’s just not fair to Mather or Skip or Barton to promote a guy who hasn’t performed in the minors over them, because “he’s projected to be better” in the future.
Doesn’t make sense from a baseball perspective, or a business perspective, so why do it?
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 7, 2009 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a little confused.
I’m not trying to be a smart-ass. Your response seems to be that he needs to outperform the other options on the field (I whole-heartedly agree), but MRCARD seems to be saying until Rasmus is “projected” to be better than the guys on the field. Are you guys saying different things, or am I missing something.
I wasn’t really shooting at MRCARD’s comment about rushing Rasmus to the Big’s this year, but more to the general idea of cost-controlling his rights. His first statement said it was better to control his rights at a later age. Then, he added especially if he was providing roughly the same value. That would indicate that it is always better to keep the guy in the minors longer. My objection was that I don’t want to see him spend an extra year in the minors if his play indicates he is ready for the Big Leagues just to gain an extra year of rights.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no, you ask a good question
and it’s not fair to uber-prospects to keep them in the minors until they are 24 if they are able to outperform the guys in the majors.
I think MR_Card and I are saying the same thing, or close to it. Regardless, I am talking philosophy, not dogma, so there should be room for interpretation. If management thinks Rasmus can put up an higher OPS and play better defense than Skip, then he should leave camp with the team, even if he hasn’t shown he is ready in AAA. But if he is expected to be less than or equal to Skip, and having him on the minor league team doesn’t hurt his development, then it doesn’t make sense to bring him up just because they feel like they owe him a promotion.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 7, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So are we back to the notorious
spring training competitions then?
I don’t think I have seen anyone present an opinion that says Rasmus should be promoted because they “owe him a promotion.” It sounds to me like you are saying that we should just do whatever Tony’s gut tells him to do – say it ain’t so!
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Rasmus plays himself into one of the best 3 OFers in ST, he's pretty much gotta make the MLB club
because I’m worried that he may gain a resentment for the organization that he will never get over. He really didn’t like missing out last year when he was a long shot, he certainly has to feel more entitled this year, whether it’s true or not.
by TheBirds on Jan 7, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, I really hope MO is trying to trade Skip or Ankiel
for this reason.
by TheBirds on Jan 7, 2009 8:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
giveml,
that’s what MRCARD asked.
Why is everyone so up in arms for Colby to be in the majors RIGHT NOW?
I do believe that the decision on who gets put on the 25 man should be delegated to LaRussa and Duncan. They are the coaches. I believe it is the GM’s job to supply the system with talent, and it is the coaching staff’s job to select who plays where and when. The chain of command is important to me. How would you do it?
BTW, l still reserve the right to disagree with his selections. That’s what this blogging thing is all about. I just don’t really expect the Cardinals to listen to me.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ideally
it would be a consensus between the front office and the field management as to who made the roster and up to the field management how each player was utilized.
I am not confident that TLR will make the right call. After all, nothing has changed regarding Rasmus “earning it” since the end of the season, his pre-season 1.000+ OPS wasn’t good enough last year, and, unless some more moves are made, he will be competing against two of TLR’s favorites in Ank and Schu.
I think the only way Rasmus makes the opening day roster is if TLR has already made up his mind that he will. He made up his mind before spring training last year that Skip Schumaker was an everyday player. I hope he doesn’t still think so. He is still the same guy that thought Albert wasn’t ready in 2001 when the entire rest of the organization thought he was.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 8:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I firmly believe ...
that LaRussa will be too reticent when determining when to turn over responsibility to a young player. I don’t disagree with you there.
That said, the only solution to your issue is to remove the coaching staff for one that is more open to allowing young players to be put into positions of responsibility.
I’m not sure that Schumaker is really one of LaRussa’s favorite. This guy was sent back to Memphis several times before he stuck, and at least one of those he was hitting better than .400 when he was sent back.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 9:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I am wrong
but I think most professional sports franchises have their front office and their field management work together when deciding who makes the team and who is cut. Do you think it is typical, or even true in the Cardinals’ case, that the general manager has no involvement in spring training cuts?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 8, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We aren't talking about ...
Rasmus, or any other prospect, being cut. We are talking about who gives the team the best chance to win, and who needs additional development time.
If the front office doesn’t respect the ability of the manager to make decisions based on on the field performance, then why would it employ that manager? If John Mozeliak has a better ability to make decisions about on the field performance, then he is in the wrong position. A good manager delegates authority, and relies on his ability to put the right people in charge under him. I’m not much of a fan of micro-managing.
by etp_stl on Jan 8, 2009 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well why not?
Being cut just means going to AAA or whatever. So do you believe that no GMs in baseball have input to who makes the 25 man roster out of ST?
I don’t think your delegation example is apt since a general manager’s job is to identify talent and obtain/retain players. You could easily argue that GMs and the front office in general are better judges of talent than field personnel.
Coaches/managers in other sports who have tried to wear the GM hat have mostly failed and, other than Whitey, I can’t think of anyone in baseball who has done it.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 8, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We differ on the term "cut."
The Cards still maintain control over a player in the minors. Cut, to me, means released. Those are different. I’m not saying that NO GMs have input, but instead I’m talking about the way I would expect an organization to be run.
There is a difference between identifying talent and identifying readiness. We are talking about which players are most ready to contribute right now. I believe that is best evaluated by the field management.
In addition, there is more to the GM’s position than simply deciding who is performing the best on the field, right now. I personally believe that most coaches/managers fail wearing both hats because trying to perform both jobs is overwhelming, especially in the modern era of sports.
by etp_stl on Jan 8, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
so are you saying that TLR/Dunc should have total control of roster decisions out of spring training and the GM is a passive bystander?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 8, 2009 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm confused.
Do you mean 25 man, 40 man, AAA, High A? What roster do you mean? If you mean the 25 man roster, short of trades or free agency signings, then yes. I believe that it is the field management’s job to identify who has won position, rotation, bullpen, and bench competitions. I believe that if the field management determines that there is a requirement for an upgrade, then they should inform the GM. I believe that if the GM identifies a way to improve the overall talent of the organization, even during Spring Training, through trades or free agency, then it is his job to make those deals.
The argument I have would be presented if the GM/front office begins to overrule the decisions of the field management regarding those competitions that are played out on the field during Spring Training. It seems as though that occurred last season when, based on the reports, Mozeliak put Reyes on the roster against the wishes of the field management. That creates an hostile environment, and I believe that it was done more so Mozeliak could establish his position of authority over a strong manager. A lot of people lauded it at the time, but a repeat with respect to Rasmus this year will certainly issue the swan song for LaRussa and Duncan in St. Louis. I can’t blame them. If my boss lost that much faith in my abilities, then I would be looking for work, too.
As I stated earlier, your issue on Rasmus seems to have more to do with your lack of trust in LaRussa and Duncan to make good roster decisions with respect to young players. Consequently, as I stated before, the only way to resolve your issue with the way those situations will be handled in the future is for the organization to show LaRussa and Duncan the door. If Mozeliak feels the same way you do about their decisions, then he should do that immediately, as this organization will not progress that way.
by etp_stl on Jan 8, 2009 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand your position
and I think it has a lot of merit, but I don’t really think that is how it works. Of course, they don’t really consult me. I know it doesn’t work that way in football, but not sure in baseball.
My earlier statement about Rasmus was just a reflection of my assessment that TLR’s spring competitions are usually pre-ordained. If TLR has made up his mind that he wants Rasmus on the roster then he’ll be there. Otherwise, it really doesn’t matter what he shows in the spring.
I mean, we are talking about the guy that didn’t want Pujols on the team in 2001 out of spring training and the guy that thought Royce Clayton outplayed Ozzie in the spring. I am sure there are other more recent examples.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 8, 2009 8:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well...
…. given Raz’s performance in AAA last year, i think TLR was correct in determining that he wasn’t ready for the show yet. plus, you had the Barton factor last year.
i can’t wait to see Raz play, but i don’t think he should be given a spot until it’s clear that he’s an upgrade over other options. as of now, i don’t think it is clear.
by kindred on Jan 8, 2009 1:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just curious
and not trying to be a smart ass in any way, but what do you think he would have to do make it clear? I am not saying he has made it clear, but it seems the central problem in making this decision is to figure out how you know when the kids are actually ready?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 8, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OPS over .750 in the high minors would be a good start
the projection systems don’t like him much for ’09 either.
he might be ready. but that’s something to be shown, not assumed.
by kindred on Jan 9, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Schumaker is not a prototypical
leadoff hitter. I just don’t want to get stuck with the functional equivalent of Cesar Izturis batting leadoff against LHPs.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, no
I’m fairly confident that it will be Schumaker against righties, but as for lefties…. It will likely be some sort of mix and match combination of Kennedy, Barton, and Rasmus.
My choice is Pujols.
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 7, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is there some Kennedy
not named Adam that you are referring to? ;~)
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His name is Ian
The Yankees are sending him to us for Nick Stavinoha as long as we agree to bat him leadoff on Thursdays against lefties (when it’s overcast, of course).
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 7, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can he turn a double play?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good question
I doubt it, but as long as he looks like he’s trying his hardest, it’ll all be okay.
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 7, 2009 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was trying to answer the same question.
Ryan was the best I could come up with to leadoff against LHP, but he’ll have to show a lot more this year in the OBP department.
It’s also depressing how poorly the Cardinals’ LHB have done against LHP in the past three seasons. I did a little homework, and while we were close to NL average in 2007, we were just awful in 2006 and 2008. I wonder what causes that. I have a theory that LaRussa’s incessant platooning with young LHBs causes them not to see enough LHP. I haven’t gotten any further researching that, though.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You could
lead off Mather against lefties.
by Toddius on Jan 7, 2009 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just our luck.
He pulled a Ludwick last year with reverse splits. He hit significantly worse against LHP .219/.292/.391/.683 in 72 PA. Against RHP, he hit .261/.320/.551/.871 in 75 PA. Why can’t we get a RH OF that can hit LHP?
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Could just be
because of the small sample size, but I can’t find minor league splits anywhere.
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 7, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah.
I tried that minorleaguesplits.com site, but that only works for last year. I would love for somebody to point us to a better place for researching those things.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no, minorleague splits has his whole career
complete with a nifty calculator that does MLE’s, including park effects and adjusting for luck (although the methodology is suspect). Click the link in the upper-left corner to change years or add effects.
Mather, OPS vs {L, R}, 2005-2008
year level OPS_L OPS_R 2005 A/A+ .887 .735 2006 A+ .988 .736 2007 AA/AAA .917 .871 2008 AAA .998 1.058
Looks like a guy that can hit LHP, to me.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 7, 2009 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
upper-right corner, i mean
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 7, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks.
I figured it was more of a sample size thing. I was being a little facetious. I just found it interesting that he had roughly the same number of PAs against RHs and LHs. I was pretty shocked to see that he had nearly .100 point difference in OPS between the two. I’m sure he’ll right the ship this year.
by etp_stl on Jan 7, 2009 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm starting to doubt we will sign another pitcher unless Carp can't pitch in Spring Training
I think it’s a pretty terrible assumption to make that Carp can be counted on based on a handful of spring training starts.
If we just add 1 more starting pitcher, I’d feel much better. Right now any starting pitcher injury (which i think it’s basically a certainty someone will miss time) would be a major blow. If Kawakami will sign at 6-7mil per + incentives, I think you’ve got to do it.
by TheBirds on Jan 7, 2009 3:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe not ST
But I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t hear anything on the SP front until Carp starts his throwing program.
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 7, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought I read
somewhere that he was going to start throwing next week – can anybody confirm that?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 7, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that I did too
I can’t remember where, but I’m pretty sure I read something to the effect of “Carp is close to starting a throwing program.”
I know it’s in quotes, but don’t quote me on that. ;)
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 7, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that's what TLR said
in his recent interview with bernie.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 7, 2009 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is this the quote
from cbssports.com article from Jan 5th wire reports
Reports on Carpenter have been positive so far.
“He still hasn’t thrown, and that’s next,” La Russa said.
A timetable for a throwing program will be determined after a checkup next week. General manager John Mozeliak said doctors are undecided about which role suits Carpenter best. The Cardinals also considered Carpenter for a bullpen role last August after he was slow to recover from his starts.
by ubeddie on Jan 7, 2009 8:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is no point in rushing a signing of a starting pitcher
Let’s take a look at the notable remaining starters on the market
Derek Lowe- out of our price range
Ben Sheets- injury prone and will cost us a draft pick. A guy that we should wait the price to go down into our range as many other teams would have the same concerns.
Oliver Perez- 100 walks, but a guy who was pretty solid last year despite that, he is young and he is a guy who Dunc could “fix”. He might cost too much though.
Kawikami- He makes the most sense as is probably the best pitcher out there with the exception of Sheets and Lowe and he wouldn’t cost as much. However, you really don’t know what to expect from him in terms of performance and injuries.
Randy Wolf/Braden Looper/John Garland- Decent last resort options, solid number 4 starters, but guys who we shouldn’t rush to sign to a multi-year deal if we don’t have too.
Pedro/Smoltz- Old guys who could be very good on a 1 year incentive laden deal. Pedro’s lost his fastball but he is one of the best pitchers of all time and he should be able to make the transition to the Jaime Moyer type pitcher with more strikeouts. Also Smoltz is out for the first half of the season.
So unless we decide to go for Lowe, there isn’t any point of rushing to sign a starter until we know what’s up with Carp. There are plenty of options that could fill out our rotation nicely. We could take a risk and go for a pitcher with upside, but injury problems. Or we could with an innings eater type starter. Either way, we don’t have to rush and give multiple years to a guy who might not be worth it. Waiting is probably the best option now.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 7, 2009 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
once one goes
i think the rest will follow. i think that may be what is creating the unrest. there is talk of waiting till we know about carp which is hopefully soon but maybe not and waiting till ST to see what we have in our OF’s. i’m not saying that can’t work out and there won’t be people available then (see Lohse, Kyle), it just seems that teams are waiting for the secondary market to be set and then the pieces will start falling.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
by FutureMan on Jan 7, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right, I'm just soooooo bored!
Curse you offseason! The cold stove is really getting to me, and I thought I could be patient.
by TheBirds on Jan 7, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure why people think this about Pedro...
Pedro’s lost his fastball but he is one of the best pitchers of all time and he should be able to make the transition to the Jaime Moyer type pitcher with more strikeouts.
He was a fastball/change power pitcher with fairly good breaking stuff when he was at his best, and since losing his fastball he can’t fool people as much anymore with the change. If you’re only throwing one inning, like Trevor Hoffman, you can get away with this, but over the course of a start there just isn’t enough difference between the two pitches to allow him to get away with a below average fastball.
Moyer never threw very hard, so he didn’t have to make a transition, he’s just been doing the same thing for the last 15 years. Lefties also seem to be able to get away with being soft-tossing more than righties do, just from the history that I’ve seen.
I think that this would make Martinez and interesting candidate for a closer position if he would take a pay cut and a job change — I’m just not sure that his ego would allow him to do that.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 8, 2009 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pedro wasn't just a power pitcher
He did and still does have excellent control and very good offspeed pitches. He could very well make the transition to that type of pitcher, just like Orlando hernandez had some good years when he had no fastball.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 8, 2009 1:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
cmon..
Please sign a big name… Please remember that we will host the All Star this upcoming season….
by Elpot on Jan 7, 2009 11:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
that
is a fantastic reason to waste money
hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit
by Alxfritz on Jan 8, 2009 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They already wasted it
renting a soil-grading machine and some grass seed, right? Or is that hole still there?
by liam on Jan 8, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The hole has been filled...
with dirt and green grass. It actually looks like a nice place to throw down some blankets and watch a game (or at least that’s the view I got from the arch last week).
by Jumsy on Jan 8, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Surprising they got away with that for so long
Every city’s building codes requires you to regrade the lot so water runs off properly after you tear down a structure.
I didn’t go by there when I was in town for New Year’s.
by liam on Jan 8, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so can Barton play in AAA next year?
I’m assuming he can, and it will probably be for the best, unless he rakes in ST… he deserves a year to develop further
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 7, 2009 11:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I think that Duncan and Rasmus should play in AAA, so they can each get a healthy, productive season to either enhance there trade value or be better able to perform later in the year. I think that Barton and Schu should platoon, same with Ankiel and Mather, while Luddy should play all the time. We use some combination of Barden/Hoffpauir/Ryan/Greene to fill out the bench.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 7, 2009 11:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I gotta agree...
I might be the only one, but Barton impressed me last year. He seems like a perfect complement to Skip, in terms of a platoon.
And really, he’s far more of leadoff hitter to my mind than Skip is. Faster (at least in pure speed) and takes more walks
Felipe Lopez - next year's Joel Pineiro (on another team, thank you Mo!)
by DiscoJer on Jan 8, 2009 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be fine with that
I like Barton quite a bit, and he has already played as opposed to razzle dazzle
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 8, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Barton can play in AAA next year
I believe that he still has all his options left, but he only had to stay on the active roster for one season to avoid being sent back under the Rule 5 rules.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 8, 2009 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't he getting a little old?
I mean, in the baseball, AAA, majors sense of the word? I’d like to see him have a shot somewhere, but I don’t know that another year in AAA is going to do him any great service (aside from AB’s). Maybe trade Ankiel (it would hurt, but I’m being a realist) and Skip(totally indifferent here) and give him a shot in left? I think I remember reading somewhere that Ludwick is avg at least in right.
I’m of the opinion that there will be a bargain pitching-wise for the Cards to find come early Feb.—better than Lohse was in March last year.
http://overzealousfan.blogspot.com
by asufan550 on Jan 8, 2009 1:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying he should
I’m just saying that he can.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 8, 2009 9:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right. He has three option years left. I expect his luggage will have quite a few tags marked STL and MEM by September, 2009.
by liam on Jan 8, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hoffman signs with Brewers
I hope he is as washed up as the Cardinals think he is. Because we may be seeing him a lot next year…
by JWO on Jan 8, 2009 10:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
He still has that
great change. The problem is that his fastball has slowed down to the point that the disparity isn’t as pronounced as it once was. I wish him luck, but hope he blows all of his saves against us.
by Toddius on Jan 8, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
back to back years the brewers sign an over the hill closer?
How did Gagne work out for them last year? I forget…
http://overzealousfan.blogspot.com
by asufan550 on Jan 9, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't call Gagne
over the hil as he’s only 32. He’s just not enhanced anymore.
by spants on Jan 9, 2009 1:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Smoltz to Boston?
It sounds like he’s agreed to a $5 million deal with another $5 million in incentives. Atlanta wouldn’t give him more than $3 million, so he left. I don’t know when he’s supposed to be ready to pitch (not ready for spring training though…?), but this seems like a pretty good deal for Boston.
by BTown Birds fan on Jan 8, 2009 1:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Seems like a pretty fair price with lots of upside.
I like it a lot more than the Penny signing, which wasn’t terrible.
by TheBirds on Jan 8, 2009 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh. I wish we could've gotten in on this.
Screw you, Aaron Miles. "Hope you tear your ACL, jackass!!" - Carl
by Zoop on Jan 8, 2009 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We don't have enough money to pay 5mil +incentives for a guy who will only pitch half the year
by vivaelpujols on Jan 8, 2009 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nor does it help us.
He won’t protect Motte/Perez/Kinney from overexposure at the backend of the bullpen, as they will still have to cover the first half of the year. He won’t provide insurance in case of Carpenter suffering a setback, either. The Cards are not in a good position to take this kind of a flier on a guy, regardless of how good he might be in the second half.
by etp_stl on Jan 8, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The last 2 years, Cards teams very similar to this one have stumbled down the stretch.
A guy with Smoltz’s experience and competitive nature could really be a guy we could rally around and help us get over that hump.
How does that not help us?
by TheBirds on Jan 8, 2009 7:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We've been here before, though.
Last year, it was Carpenter and Mulder that were given plenty of cash to come back in the second half to save us. The year before that, it was Mulder. I don’t think that Cards can afford to pay $5-$10M for a guy that “may” pitch half of a season.
The Cards have a big hole in the starting rotation, and they can’t wait until June to possibly fill that. There are far better ways to spend $5M than to an aging, recovering pitcher that will only give them half of a year.
by etp_stl on Jan 8, 2009 8:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Signing Looper (or some other low hanging fruit) + Smoltz
gives you upside potential this year w/o commiting to anyone longterm. There is no better way to achieve this in the current FA market.
If the Cards are willing to sign someone to a multiyear contract like Lowe, Sheets, or Kawakami, that is preferable. I don’t think they will though.
by TheBirds on Jan 8, 2009 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is that his expected return time? Mid-season?
Or are you predicting that he’ll break down and miss significant time due to injury? I’ve been unclear about his return time, which would obviously have a big effect on how good this deal turns out to be.
I assume a lot of the incentives are related to how much he plays, so that would help mitigate the risk. $5 million is obviously something of a risk, but even in the past couple years as he’s passed 40, when he’s been healthy he’s been very, very good.
by BTown Birds fan on Jan 8, 2009 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Better than no move at all.
Screw you, Aaron Miles. "Hope you tear your ACL, jackass!!" - Carl
by Zoop on Jan 8, 2009 8:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
really?
I don’t understand how giving 5M to a pitcher that might be able to pitch half a season is better than no move at all. This team does have payroll restrictions, it can’t afford to give that kind of money to a pitcher who has no chance to pitch from the get-go. He doesn’t exactly have the best injury history, and he is coming off shoulder surgery. This could very well be the same kind of waste of money as Mulder’s contract last season.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 8, 2009 8:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL, I'm glad even though you think this would've been an unwise deal
you realize how cruel it is to compare a pitcher to Mark Mulder.
by TheBirds on Jan 8, 2009 10:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know Smoltz is no Mulder
Geez, Mulder was pretty damn good pitcher before his shoulder went all wonky on him. I suppose throwing 5M on a pitcher coming off shoulder surgery is a good thing. Carry on
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 8, 2009 10:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This isn't about who is a better pitcher when healthy
Mulder has a dead arm and never really instilled any confidence that he would be able to come back (to me at least).
Smoltz on the other hand is like the Rocky Balboa of pitchers IMO.
by TheBirds on Jan 8, 2009 10:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont see how I was making the better pitcher argument
and I guess we just see this differently. I look at it as Smoltz being a 41 YO pitcher who missed most of last season, and he had the shoulder surgery. With a team with admitted limited resources this season, I just don’t see spending 5M on Smoltz as a good risk. I guess we are just going to disagree on this matter.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 8, 2009 10:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Geez, Mulder was pretty damn good pitcher before his shoulder went all wonky on him."
I interpret this as you getting irked that I might be insinuating that Smoltz > Mulder because of who they are when healthy.
If not, I guess it was just fluff.
by TheBirds on Jan 8, 2009 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i was just saying Mulder wasn't crap when healthy
I think Smoltz is a HOFer. My whole point was that I wasn’t comparing Smoltz to Mulder as pitchers in the first place, I was just talking about the shoulder surgery. I thought that was pretty clear in my reply to Zoop.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 8, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
to which i retorted "This isn't about who is a better pitcher when healthy"
to tell you that I wasn’t saying that “Smoltz shouldn’t be compared to Mulder” isn’t a slight to Mulder’s pitching ability. It was a health based issue, which you clearly weren’t 100% sure on what I meant or else you wouldn’t have brought up the “mulder wasn’t crap when healthy”. I was just clarifying for you so we could get to the point.
Savvy? If not, there is nothing more I can say.
by TheBirds on Jan 8, 2009 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
btw, you may be right about Smoltz
once we get passed the semantics issues, you make a half decent point.
still I heart Smoltz.
by TheBirds on Jan 8, 2009 11:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
all the fun is in the semantics though, right?
and yeah, I would love a healthy Smoltz
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 8, 2009 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a very Lloyd Benson type of thing to say.
I bet Mulder and Smoltz both start the same number of games this April and May, though. He was comparing the two situations, though it’s probably more tantamount to the situation with Carpenter last year. There is no guarantee that he is going to come back healthy from this injury, even if it looks good right now. If you spend $5M on a dream, then sometimes it turns in to a nightmare. The Cards have one cross-your-fingers-and-say-3-hail-marys guy, why would they invest $5M into another one? Mozeliak got vilified for taking a $1M gamble on Clement last year. Don’t you think it would be equally as demoralizing this year to wait for Smoltz and have him flame out as it was last year with Carpenter? Then, the Cards are once again handcuffed financially, and they wouldn’t be able to upgrade during the season.
Frankly, the Cards can’t afford this gamble this year. Too much risk, not enough reward.
by etp_stl on Jan 8, 2009 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This sounds to me like insurance
Beckett gets hurt nearly every year, and Bucholz and Masterson haven’t thrown a full year in the big leagues yet, so getting someone of Smoltz’s caliber, even at the midseason mark, makes sense for the money the Sox are spending.
I still can’t figure out why they aren’t a (rumored) player for Ben Sheets, even if it’s just to keep up with the Joneses in their division. Seems like they could get him on a 2Y or 3Y deal for around $40M-$50M and with all the pitching depth they have they could easily afford having him injured some of that time. You could put Masterson or Wakefield in the bullpen, or trade Masterson or Bucholz for a bat, and your rotation would have a top four of Beckett, Sheets, Dice-K, and Lester and a fifth of Bucholz or Wakefield. That’s as good, if not better, than what the Yankees have after signing $250M worth of contracts for 2 pitchers.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 9, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Intersting article by Goold
La Russa is saying that he would want to trade an outfielder to “push” Rasmus into the majors. I’m not so sure that this is a good idea because Schu/Duncan/Ankiel would probably each be better than Raz next year, but I like to see that La Russa is open to letting young guys prove themselves. Now all you have to do is replace Rasmus with Perez/Motte and Schu/Duncan/Ankiel with whatever crappy veteran starter La Russa wants to close and that would really be great.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 8, 2009 7:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
After listening to that LaRussa audio interview
I’m actually pretty convinced he’s becoming more of a youth oriented manager.
Rasmus might be an upgrade over Schu, Dunc, and Ankiel because of his defense alone. 2 of those guys aren’t even everyday players.
by TheBirds on Jan 8, 2009 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Anybody think
it would make sense to swap Ankiel for X. Nady? MLBTR says they are willing to move him, so it would be 2009 free agent for 2009 free agent. We get a RH impact bat that plays an average corner OF and lose one of a zillion LH OFers. Not sure what I think, but we need to do something to get better vs. LHPs.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 8, 2009 9:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ankiel is better than Nady
Plus he is The Cardinal. We shouldn’t trade him for a crappy outfielder like Nady because that really doesn’t fill any of our needs. We need a right handed outfielder who could hit leadoff and platoon with Skip. I think that Barton would be very good for that role, though. Trading Ankiel makes sense, but only if it actually improves our team. Ankiel for stater, Ankiel for 2nd baseman, Ankiel for utility infielder.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 8, 2009 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
first off
Ankiel is not The Cardinal, I think we can all say that title belongs to the guy playing first.
Nady is not a crappy OF. I just would like to see the justification behind that.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 8, 2009 9:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
This year Nady was a 3.6 WAR player, that is very good. However this year was Nady’s 4 year with at least 400 PA and it was the first year he was over 1 WAR. He plays a mediocre outfield and doesn’t draw a lot of walks. He isn’t a crappy outfielder, but he isn’t anything special and he won’t help our team much.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 8, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Nady was a free agent right now
he would be a Type A. Rick is nowhere close and would need a monster year to become one. I think I would trade an injured Ank for Nady plus a 2010 first round pick. Let Mather be the supersub in 2009 and play full-time in 2010. Plus, I can’t back this up, but I think Rasmus in CF and Nady in LF is better than Ank in CF and Skip+ in LF.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 8, 2009 10:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How do you know he would be a type A?
I’m not disputing your claim, but could you link to the Elias rankings that indicate this?
by Toddius on Jan 9, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am link challenged
but maybe this will actually work.
AL: http://tinyurl.com/a4uj7a
NL: http://tinyurl.com/a3dtaf
It would really help my rather shaky self esteem if someone would show me how to do the cool links that everyone except me seems to know how to do.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 9, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, the shame
Doesn’t seem to work. All you have to is go to Cot’s Contracts – if you don’t have a bookmark then just google it. There are links to Elias Rankings on the left hand side for both leagues.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 9, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Linking to articles...
On the Post a Comment section when you click “reply”, in the bar below the subject line there is a little icon that looks like a chain link — it’s between the quotation mark and the picture icon.
Select (highlight) the characters you want to highlight as a link, then click the icon. You’ll get a box that asks for the link address. Go to the page in a different tab (or window) in your browser, copy the full address bar, and paste it into the line that’s asking for the address.
Also make sure, for my sanity at least, that you check the “open link in a new window” box so I don’t get navigated away from VEB when I click you link.
Any questions, email me at fourstick@gmail.com and I’ll try to help you as best I can.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 9, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nady could've been a Cardinal
We drafted him in 1997, after all… That would’ve been an incredible draft if he’d signed.
by liam on Jan 8, 2009 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think mather is better than Nady, too.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 8, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
what kind of numbers do you think JBombs would put up next year with 500 PAs?
If he really is better than Nady, then I sure hope he isn’t playing behind Skippy or sharing time with him.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 8, 2009 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it's more that I'm low on Nady
I think his true talent is closer to the 92, 92, 104, 102, 107 OPS+ he had over 1826 PA’s from 2003-2007 than the 144 OPS+ he had over the first 360 PA’s (with the pirates) in 2008. The 105 OPS+ he had over his last 247 PA’s in 2008 (with the yankees) does nothing to dispel this notion.
Mather could easily put up the .800 or so OPS that it would take to equal those numbers, and he’s RHB, a better fielder, and under control for 5-6 years.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 8, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say
The same kind of numbers Ankiel will put up with 500 PAs.
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 9, 2009 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, I expect Joey Bombs to play his way into a lot of ABs in 09
Why would we trade Ankiel for ANOTHER OFer. I’m not saying we must trade Ank, but if we do, lets get another need and go into the season w/ Joey Bombs/Skip, Rasmus, and Ludwick in the OF.
by TheBirds on Jan 8, 2009 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said earlier
I’m not necessarily advocating this, but I think it worth considering. The need that would be addressed is we would be better vs. LHPs. Plus, Nady has a good chance of being a Type A after next year. We could let him walk and take the two picks.
Barring injury to a corner IF/OF, Mather would probably only start about 60-70 games.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 8, 2009 10:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that is exactly what I think
you make a damn good point. Of course Rick could all of a sudden be great against LHP this season, but I wouldn’t count on it.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 8, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
I think Ank is probably a hair better than Nady anyway
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 9, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it is the worst trade proposal on here ever
That is a pretty damn nice career line against LHP. A .383 career OBP against lefties, I am okay with that. You also get to trade one Boras guy for another, for whatever that is worth. I am pretty sure both of these guys are gonna hit what is going to be a pretty weak market next offseason. Plus can you imagine the nickname possibilities?
Seriously though, trade for Xavier, put Rasmus in center, and Luddy in left. I like that OF.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 8, 2009 9:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Three everyday OFs
what a concept! I know it won’t happen and I am not sure I even want it to, but is a deal that might actually be doable. About the only chance we are any better next year vs. LHPs is if Glaus returns to his former status as a lefty masher.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jan 8, 2009 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It only seems like forever since it happened- 3 everyday outfielders
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jan 8, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Nady
He’s a solid player. I just don’t like trading and outfielder for an outfielder, especially since we really haven’t seen what Rick can do over a full season. If we’re swapping for an outfielder that’s going to be a free agent next year, I’d just rather keep Rick.
I think the only reason to trade an outfielder in our current starting outfield would be to acquire a second baseman that upgrades the position, or acquiring a young, cost-controlled starting pitcher. I would also be ok with trading Ankiel, but not any other outfielders, for a above average starting pitcher who will also be a free agent next season or in two years. Looking at the crop of free agent pitchers for next season, there really isn’t one out there that would help us a whole lot, and nobody that’s worth giving up an .850 OPS guy who plays + defense in centerfield for. I didn’t look at the 2010-2011 FA candidates though.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jan 9, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But when two numbers appear
next to each other without anything between them, in this case a plus sign, you usually multiply. For example, xy is x times y, not x + y. So it’s actually =.098404.
;)
The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.
by thegodfather on Jan 9, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you guys are all wrong...
3+3+7=13
2+9+2=13
13+13=26
the date i posted it was Jan 8, 2009
1+8+2+0+0+9=20
20+26=46
There are 2 numbers in my 1st post
46/2= 23!!!!
by TheBirds on Jan 9, 2009 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mindboggling!
It was Michael Jordan on the grassy knoll!
by liam on Jan 9, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
had it added up to 42
i would have been very impressed.
still cannot accept that Rachael was Chani.
by SleepyCA on Jan 9, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tim Redding to Mets for 1/2.5M?
saw that on MLBTR…was he discussed as a possible Duncan project? I don’t think I would have been offended if the Cardinals signed him for that.
by STLRegalia on Jan 9, 2009 2:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
