More Halladay

halladay

if we keep wallace.

really not liking how serious this is getting.

imagine 2012 with an unsigned albert pujols. no wallace to take his place, no halladay to show for it and half the rest of the farm gone too.

awful, awful trade idea.

mo, it’s okay. derosa got hurt. no way to see that coming. i still believe that you are a man. don’t trade the walrus. just no

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 9, 2009 1:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why does a Halladay trade equal Pujols not signing an extension at any point

As someone said in a different thread, I would go to Pujols and ask him whether he wants to go broke trying to win the WS these next two years or, instead, if he would want to keep Wallace, Jones, and Kozma and hope they pan out to be the players that the Cards are hoping. And I would ask him to in good faith agree to work out the dollars and cents of an extension after the season. But the reason why I would do this is because I see our chances of winning a WS, which should be the ultimate goal not just being fringe playoff contenders each year, with Halladay as roughly equal to keeping the proposed prospects.

by AWolfAtTheDoor on Jul 9, 2009 3:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am not convinced that we should be consulting one of our players on player acquisition matters.

Just the way I feel about it. Plus, you don’t know whether basically saying “will you sign for cheap if we give the money from your contract to roy halladay” will piss him off.

Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 9, 2009 3:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here is my premise for a Pujols decision being a good idea.

For the going to Pujols for a decision my three assumptions must be considered true by the FO.
1)World Series championships are the ultimate goal, not fringe playoff contention
2) I consider Halladay to be an acquisition that will put the Cardinals up there along with the Red Sox, Rays, and Yankees in terms of serious WS contention. A rotation in the playoffs of Halladay, Carp, Wainwright, and Pineiro with Lohse available from the bullpen would be the best rotation in MLB. I’m going to preface my next statement by saying I am too young to remember anything before the 1998 season, and I didn’t begin to be a serious fan, as in following the team and MLB in general very closely, until 2003, but Halladay, Carp, Wainwright, and Pineiro, according to how he is performing so far this year, would be the best top 4 I can remember. I don’t think that good of a rotation can be underestimated. I realize the playoffs are a somewhat of a crapshoot, but I have full faith that Halladay, Carp, and Waino can win at least 2/3 of the playoff starts they make. And that, imo of course, would put the Cardinals as the top NL team.
3) I think if we don’t get Halladay the chances of us winning a WS with DJ, Kozma, and Wallace as cost-controlled players are roughly equal. Halladay, of course imo again, would make us the best team in the NL, but that in no way guarantees us a WS win.
4)DJ, Kozma, and Wallace would fill in holes over the long term possibly making us a great team over the long-haul, but there is no way to tell that any of them will be sure-fire great players in STL. Wallace is the best bet out of the group of becoming a offensive juggernaut, the ceiling some people on here are projecting is ~.900-.950 OPS. But Wallace may somewhat cancel out his offense with his defense in the field at 3B or most certainly cancel some of the runs gained on offense in LF. If the Cardinals had a hole at 1B or DH they should definitely keep Wallace, but there is a major thing in the way of both of those. With Kozma and Jones they may become major league producers, but there is more of a risk involved with them than with Wallace. So this is why I’m assuming my #2.

If all of this is true, which once again I is what I believe but may or may not be true, and I’m Mo I bring these two scenarios to Pujols. I would ask Pujols which he would scenario he would rather go with and attach to that a good faith promise of a contract extension in the offseason. I don’t want Pujols worrying about dollars and cents during the season so this is why I would delay extension talks until the offseason. I see the hurdle of signing Pujols as more of a contender than of money. There is no way if Pujols wants to remain in the STL, DeWallet won’t open up, or at least I’m telling myself that due to the fact that losing Pujols would severely damage the perception of the Cardinals in St. Louis and the entire nation. So I would attach a number of years to a Pujols decision and money would be decided after the season. I don’t see why this is ridiculous, if the acquiring Halladay and “going for it” option and the saving top prospects option are roughly equal in the chances that the Cards win the same amount of WS.

Remember this is all in my very humble opinion. I am by no means an expert this is just my take on the situation. Sorry for the overly verbose nature of my post I’m just passionate on this subject. Any thoughts?

by AWolfAtTheDoor on Jul 9, 2009 4:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why wouldn't Lohse be in that rotation?

That would give us the best 5

Got DeRosa. Thurston still sucks.

by JoeyBombs on Jul 9, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was talking about in the playoffs.

by AWolfAtTheDoor on Jul 9, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why wouldn't he be in the rotation in the playoffs?

Got DeRosa. Thurston still sucks.

by JoeyBombs on Jul 9, 2009 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He probably wouldnt start in the playoffs.

My avatar is 3 years into the future for sure...

by Taskmaster on Jul 10, 2009 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait, why?

Got DeRosa. Thurston still sucks.

by JoeyBombs on Jul 10, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

even if a series goes all 5 or 7 games,

with the travel breaks and decreased emphasis on rest a team can get by with only 3 starters.

"I'll be glad to have Ryan [Braun] help if he wants to. I'll give him a badge and he can be my deputy." - Doug Melvin

by all4tookie on Jul 10, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but I'm wondering why Pineiro over Lohse.

I realize as I’m saying this Pineiro is doing great and Lohse just gave up a 3-run homer to the cubs. But I think Lohse may still be a better option. But if Pineiro keeps this up then I say put him in, but if not Lohse should be used IMO

The poster formerly known as JoeyBombs.

by RasRoY on Jul 12, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know Piniero is having a great year so far

but it is Piniero we are talking about. It might be a little too soon to think he is still going to be this good come Sept/Oct. I still say you count your blessings that you are getting such production out of a 5th starter.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jul 9, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

one of the things that gives me pause is the notion that we could retain the prospects

and resign pineiro who could be — and this is speculative — a 3-4 win pitcher from here on out. i would be open to a 2-3 yr deal. now the gulf between a 3-4 win pitcher and a 6-7 win pitcher is pretty huge, but it would probably take less money and certainly no prospects. a top five through 2011 of carp/waino/pineiro/lohse/[one of boggs/garcia/mortensen] would be great.

obviously, if you don’t think pineiro will sustain anything close to current production, this makes no sense.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 9, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about

creating a three way deal—Cards get Halladay, send Jays some prospects (Walrus, Todd) and send Pineiro to a third club who chips in a few prospects to the Jays. JP has been great this year but he seems like a player we should sell high on—get rid of him before the clock hits midnight and he turns into a pumpkin

"I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.’" ~Shannon

by sprfldcard on Jul 9, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who's going to trade anything

for half a season of a pitcher having a career year? Especially when that pitcher could turn into the replacement level pitcher he was last year with the drop of a hat because his stuff really isn’t any better and his approach could easily regress on a team that doesn’t have Dave Duncan.

"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 Jul 9, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe the Angels...

did it a while back and shipped us Jim Edmonds for Kent Bottenfield.

by Jumsy on Jul 10, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was a completely different deal

They had tried to re-sign Edmonds and were not successful, so they traded him to dump his salary and tried to get a good major league pitcher in return. Bottenfield was coming off of a career year, not in the middle of one, and was still signed for the next season.

That’s entirely different from a team trading prospects for half a season of Joel Piniero, who they could have had for free 2 seasons ago.

"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 Jul 12, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

a ahallady trade

doesn’t necessarily equal pujols not signing. i’m saying that if pujols doesn’t sign, wallace is our best replacement for him. if pujols, wallace and half the farm are gone, we’re in a bad situation

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 9, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In fact, there might be an argument that the team making a serious effort to win might make Pujols more likely to sign

we’re not going to be able to outbid the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers no matter what. We have to give him ANOTHER reason to sign with us. Tradition, winning in a non-media insane midwestern city might be the ticket there.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Jul 9, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

like a bare bones farm system and no money?

sounds great

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 9, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Miller,

Mateo,
Descalso,
De la Cruz,
Hernandez,
Reifer,
half a dozen RH starting prospects.

If our system was bare behind Jones/Wallace it wouldn’t be much of a system anyway.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 9, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if wallace/jones were all it took

i still say no

but it takes wallace

no trade walrus

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 9, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the first time in a while

The Cardinals are letting their talent develop and make it to the bigs. Rasmus survived the gauntlet. We all need to breathe deeply, think long-term, and let Wallace do the same.

The Walrus will be in St. Louis in 2010, batting .300, and providing Pujols / Ludwick with protection in the five-spot. You DON’T throw that away.

by JWO on Jul 10, 2009 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

we've worked with barebones in the past

in fact, we had barebones about 3 years ago. Something else very special happened 3 years ago. And beside that, we’ve had one of the best NL teams of the past decade . . . all with very little farm. As much as we’d trade away for Halladay, there will be opportunities to bring prospects in.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jul 9, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

this

is such poor reasoning.

yeah, the cards had barebones threes years ago, barely squeaked into the playoffs and the a bunch of guys played over their heads. it was great, but to say it’s likely to happen again or that shit farms create WS winners is retarded.

and wait, what happened the next two years?

and how many opportunities will we have to bring in wallace’s bat?

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 9, 2009 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We won't have any

Our defense in the infield is terrible when you account skip(Still love ya man). Adding Wallace, who is defensively a huge liability without a SS who can cover a lot of ground is a very bad idea.

Last year, the Phillies and the Rays had the best Defense in the league, sense a correlation?

My avatar is 3 years into the future for sure...

by Taskmaster on Jul 10, 2009 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

they also had

good hitting and pitching

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 2:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you spent too much money.

It’s been calculated a few times in other places that (I think) we have about 20-25m to spend in the close season (if payroll stays much the same). We need at least one SP, probably a right-handed OF, a 3B (if we don’t promote wallce), at least one LOOGY, a backup catcher and probably one more righty reliever. And that’s all assuming that we keep our current fairly craptacular middle infield.

If we sign Halladay, gutting much of the high-end of the farm, we’re going to have to fill the rest of the lineup with half a dozen or so Joe Thurstons (i.e. freely available talent) – not necessarily a terrible thing but given how badly we’ve struggled this year with a couple of black holes in the lineup, we’ll only get worse (especially if we trade some of the better AAA talent that might be able to step in).

Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 9, 2009 3:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What black holes?

Rasmus
DeRosa
Pujols
Ludwick
Glaus
Ankiel
K. Greene
Molina
Pitcher

Oh wait.

Man, the offense really did not go as planned this season (even if you put Schu in for DeRo).

by mojowo11 on Jul 9, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Meh...

I think this team has a lot of holes. Trading away two of your most promising position players who can contribute to fixing those holes doesn’t seem like a good move in the long run.

by DiscoJer on Jul 9, 2009 4:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But you're doing so in order to fill one of those holes

(i.e., Wellemeyer’s rotation spot), which takes strain off of the bullpen, helping to fix that (not that I remember too many bullpen explosions this year)

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Jul 9, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A "lot" of holes?

Solid pen, 1B, C, CF, RF, SS locked down. 2B with lots of candidates yet to shake out. LF lots of candidates yet to shake out. There is basically one hole- 3B, which one of those prospects can’t play and one of them can’t play well enough.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 9, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think second ranks with third as a hole, as well as LF.

i don’t see how you can look at brett wallace and david freese (and joe mather and allen craig) and say that’s not a better cast of candidates than skip schumaker and joe thurston and daniel descalso and . . . i don’t even know — brian barden? tyler greene?

skip has a bat, but is pretty steeply defensively handicapped. joe is joe, and would be better at 2b than 3b, but might be a 1 win player there. descalso is not clearly going to be ready for the majors next year. both the other guys have serious bat issues.

i’m more anxious about LF than i was — jon jay and mather and daryl jones and chris duncan will be our main contenders (i suppose, skippy if we find a 2b). mather and duncan will have big health/effectiveness questions. jay is not clearly a starter in the OF. and daryl jones is in the same spot as descalso — still pretty raw, hasn’t yet made it to AAA.

that’s not saying that we won’t fill all those slots and fill them well, but i don’t see a foolproof replacement at any of those three places.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 9, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Despite the mismanagement of 2B,

if 3B was taken care of, a Thurston alone or Thurston/Hoff platoon and Skip in LF would mean average production from both of those spots. That leaves 3B to be taken care of, but if any of the candidates in the minors were the answer now they would be in that spot.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 9, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

freese isn't going to be injured forever. and wallace will start hitting better,

and his defense could — though i’m not betting money — improve. saying we have no real 3b options now does not mean we will never have any. i don’t see thurston as a league average 2b going forward. replacement level, maybe replacement level+. I don’t think hoffpauir is seriously in contention for the 2b role next year.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 9, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

3B seems to be our strength in the upper Minors with 3 3B's.

Don’t you always deal from your strength?

by Schnurdog on Jul 9, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who are you talking about?

Allen Craig and David Freese? I’m not going to say that they are our answer, but they each have a legitimate chance of being a respectable 3B, IMO.

by Schnurdog on Jul 9, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pen isn't solid

Not at all. Also, I’m not convinced that Ryan is for real at short yet.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 10, 2009 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

pen is decent

i’m also unconvinced about ryan, but he is becoming pretty fun to watch. at first i didn’t think he had a change to maintain a .300 BA, but if he can make the free swinging thing work for him and maintain the gold glove defense (which i’m sold on) he could be a very valuable SS

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pen has a 4.39 FIP and nobody, with the exception of Motte and maybe Kinney, who figures to improve

But a lot of guys who could regress.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 10, 2009 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

mainly inflated

because of a few complete meltdowns. lots of really dominant outings, too

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 2:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

FIP, by nature, isn't nearly as subject to inflation as ERA

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 10, 2009 3:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's probably true

OTOH, the formula is 13*HR+… so intuitively, it seems sensitive over small sample sizes.

i wish Hittrackeronline measured pitchers HR allowed; it would be cool to see how many “lucky” home runs a guy gives up. Seems like something that could be added pretty easily.

the end of every half inning IS a turning point. -Evilfrog

by SleepyCA on Jul 10, 2009 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who needs a bullpen

when they’re only really needed when Wellemeyer starts?

"I usually don’t read other peoples sigs." -Cuttah

by Alxfritz on Jul 10, 2009 7:06 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

i like hawksworth to improve

Actually. I think he’ll be a pretty valid reliever. And we have more depth to dig into going forward.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 10, 2009 12:02 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Pen has a 4.39 FIP and nobody, with the exception of Motte and maybe Kinney, who figures to improve

I agree with the overall statement, but I think Reyes could improve in the 2nd half. Not that that’ll be worth more than half a win, absolute tops, though…

Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 13, 2009 5:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the M word

Nuff said.

"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Jul 9, 2009 8:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My only thought

is that maybe this is being done to show Albert they’re serious about fielding a contending team so he doesn’t hit the door at the end of his contract.

by JShell73 on Jul 9, 2009 9:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

and good.

I’ll take a career of Albert over Wallace and Jones. Would much rather see them go than see Albert in pinstripes.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jul 9, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Think he would more likely be with the R-sox right?

After they are done signing Mauer ofcourse.

My avatar is 3 years into the future for sure...

by Taskmaster on Jul 10, 2009 2:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You'd have to give up too much

for Halladay. My dad and I were talking about possible deals last night, and he thought that a deal like Jones, Wallace, Boggs, Todd would not be good enough to get him.

Frankly, I think the team should stand pat. We’ve been down the road of trading for an ace before, and it was not a good result. I think we should learn the lesson and stand where we are.

Giving up a bunch of minor league talent, something Mo believes in, for 1 1/2 years of Halladay is too much. Besides, Halladay would probably be a temporary fix like DeRo. Since we’d have to sign Albert after his deal’s up, that would take a good amount of money, and Halladay would want a good chunk himself. It would most likely be next to impossible to have both Pujols and Halladay on the books.

Stand pat, Birdos. You don’t need to go down a road we’ve been down before.

TLR: Please bench DunKan and AnKiel!

by zoomzoomj88 on Jul 9, 2009 9:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If that's not enough to get him, fine

If that does get him, though, it’s the sort of risk that’s worth taking, IMO.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Jul 9, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I totally agree

and I agree with most of the comments you’ve made here.

This is Roy Halladay. And if this is what convinces Pujols to stay, I think most Cards fans can agree that Pujols staying in red his whole career means much more to this organization than Wallace and Jones. They could both turn out to be great players, but if we reel in Halladay, finally take the Central back and go on to better things, retaining Pujols will almost be a lock. And if Pujols is a lock, that’s worth it in itself. And if we manage to put out a winning team with Halladay, then it’s VERY worth it.

We can’t be a slightly above average team forever if we want to sign Pujols. No man in his right mind is going to take less money to play for an annually slightly above average team.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jul 9, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I'm in the camp that....

Wallace and Kozma should be the two main pieces.

I’d ideally rather keep Wallace, a sentiment echoed by everyone else, but I feel that Jones and Wallace are important parts and that the catch-22 of a trade for Halladay is that in order to afford picking up his contract and filling out the rest of the roster in a respectable fashion for next year, we need at least one more piece that we project to get real production from for cheap.

I think DeRosa could be resigned and could fill in a gap at either left, 3b or 2b and we could try out Craig and Freese for next year at 3b if Wallace is gone, but if we have, let’s just pick people: Schu at 2b, Ryan at SS, Freese at 3b and Duncan in left, there are too many pitfalls. I see all of those guys as potential question marks in one way or another, whether it’s defensively or offensively. With Jones and the flexibility of DeRosa, I’d feel very good.

by mtalken on Jul 9, 2009 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a classic example of the "Winner's Curse"

The only way that you win is by overvaluing the auction, or in this case, Halladay

by mysterui on Jul 9, 2009 9:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The other extreme is overvaluing our minor league talent.

We are all assuming that the players mentioned as trade bait would develop into nice MLB players. I too believe that some like Wallace will…however there is always a chance that they will not.

If pitching wins in post season a stacked staff of Halladay, Carpenter, Wainright would be downright ridiculous and incredibly hard to beat…even with an anemic offence.

by Schnurdog on Jul 9, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

true.

If it turns out that Wallace truly can not perform defensively at an MLB level, we will end up dealing him for much less value than we could now. The FO needs to figure out whether they see him as their 3B of the future or a security plan for a Pujols exodus. If its the former: great, keep him. If its the latter, as most seem to suspect, deal him now while his value is high. Get a piece to bring home another WS or two and more importantly, KEEP THE MANG HAPPY.

by mopack on Jul 14, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

how much more to expand the potential deal to include Rios?

not advocating, just speculating, but Rios could be a HUGE Risk, HUGE Reward type player to get back as well as Halladay, and imo, could soften a potential blow of losing a combo of Wallace/Kozma/Jones/etc. in an uber package. Joe Strauss’ tweet mentioning that Ricciardi could circle any five names from our minors’ rosters seems steep, but I’d entertain that thought if we could put Rios in the deal.

Biggest problem would be financials:

Rios’ contract, according to cot’s:

09:$5.9M (prorated),10:$9.7M, 11:$12M, 12:$12M, 13:$12.5M, 14:$12.5M, 15:$13.5M club option ($1M buyout).

Obviously Rios is not having the best year, but I think I’d be enticed to get a 20/20, potentially 25/25 or even 30/30 kind of guy with +defense in left field. the salary averages out to just under 10M a year for the life of the contract (buying out the last year and including a prorated 3M for the remainder of 09).

At first i liked the idea, but as I’ve dug into the particulars, it’s only worth it, if he returns to true All-Star form. who knows. a potentiall outfield of Rios/Rasmus, and Luddy/Skip/Jay/Jones(if still here) for the next few years looks very decent to me if the financials added up, but adding both Rios and Halladay would be HUGE financial commitments. Would an inclusion of Rios actually help the Blue Jays more, in turn lessening the package sent back from St. Louis? If that could keep a Jones, for example, under our control, then maybe it’s worth it there as well.

A potential package:

w/ Jones:
Wallace, Jones, Kozma, Mortenson, +1

w/out Jones:
Wallace, Kozma, Mortenson, Hill, +1

**disclaimer, I have no idea what a package would look like.

All very unlikely I know.

If accepted, Toronto would have Wells plus Snider, Lind, Wallace (more likely 1B), (maybe Jones) in their outfield under control for many years, and that is a scary thought to other AL East teams.

obviously, if anything complicates keeping Pujols playing first for the St. Louis Mustachioes, then I’m not interested, but if could be done with cheap alternatives on the Infield to balance the team for 2010 and beyond, I’m all for it.

Stupid Sexy Flanders!!!

by timmycardinals on Jul 9, 2009 9:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

it's unlikely there's room for just halladay in our budget,

much less a $10M+ player signed through 2014 AND halladay.

no, no, and a million times no.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 9, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

just watch

we’ll get Ryan with Halladay. That’ll be part of the deal. We take Ryan’s salary so that we don’t have to give up as much.

But yeah, I’d love Rios.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jul 9, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If....

the FO was willing to take on that kind of money and still thought they could resign Albert, fine by me. I would think Wallace would be pulled from the deal and we might not really need to sign anyone to fill holes (other than maybe resigning DeRosa assuming he gets healthy and produces)

by mtalken on Jul 9, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They already flat out release Ryan so they don’t control him any more. They still have to pay him though

by JShell73 on Jul 10, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought

they sent him through waivers . . .

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jul 10, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the Jays would rather get rid of Wells

than Rios, as he is a big inflated contract who isn’t worth what hes being paid.

My avatar is 3 years into the future for sure...

by Taskmaster on Jul 10, 2009 2:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Money is the problem

This offseason showed us that financially, the Cards are going to be much more conservative until the economic climate rebounds (or at least that’s the reason I thought was given for the cutback on payroll. Right?). With only Carp, Waino, Yadi, and Lohse signed past 2011, the team is giving itself fiscal flexibility to maneuver not only the volatile times, but the change in organizational philosophy that is well on its way but not nearly complete. Halladay’s salary would be a hit that would extend the payroll obligations this year past any previous year’s, an idea I would find running counter to all the moves made this year, along with the occasional explanation these actions by the FO (Mo chats).

The other problem I see with the Halladay trade is that it does not seem to fit the business model that the Cardinals are seemingly trying to follow. From this fan’s perspective, it seems the Cards are trying build a playoff team, not a championship team. The talk from Mo and Dewitt and others this season and offseason was all about remaining competitve. Some take that as cutting costs, the organization in my eyes is trying to be fiscally efficient. The plan seems to be to build the best team that can have a better than average chance of making the playoffs. Sort of a “how little can we spend and still make the playoffs” kind of attitude. Because the playoffs are universally described as a crapshoot, it does not make a lot of sense to build an expensive team that is sure to make the playoffs, when teams with substantially lower payrolls and even fewer regular season wins have as good a chance as you do of winning the big prize, if they are fortunate enough to qualify.

I personally do not have a problem with this line of thinking but can see how people would. Having a goal that does not include “winning the championship” seems odd and noncompetitive. As a fan, teams should strive to be the best team, not just the team good enough. I measure the best team as the team that wins the world series, although it is sometimes argued that the best team doesn’t always win the world series. I don’t really find a point in saying Team X was the best because their players had the best seasons compared to the other teams, if Team X doesn’t win the championship. The team that wins the world series is the team that is the best, according to the rules by which baseball and the postseason is played. Because you do not have to be the best team in the regular season to be the best team, and because the odds of winning the world series once in the playoffs seem so even to all teams that qualify, to be fiscally efficient, a concern of the owners but of no consequence to the fans, it makes sense to just squeak into the playoffs as opposed to charging in as a powerhouse.

(I made a lot of assumptions and used some weak language like seems and personally. If the assumptions are wrong or my opinions have some data to refute them, please do bring it to the table, especially in my assumption that the odds of winning the Series is the same for all teams in the playoffs. I really just pulled that outta nowhere, based on random facts I have absorbed. Also, should this have been a separate FanPost?)

If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea... does that mean that one enjoys it?

by jacksonian on Jul 9, 2009 9:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Gammons on XM radio

said that rumors say top 5 cards prospects and calls it “doubtful” Halladay would probably love to play in Stl who wouldnt. Says maybe hypothetically a three way could happen wallace to Bo Sox, Bucholz to Jays again hypothetical.

also says that an immediate extension would probably help, and calls Philly the most likely, but doubts he’ll even be moved.

I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2

by punchinjudy on Jul 9, 2009 3:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

gammons is just recycling

the joe strauss tweet.

i don’t think it’d require our top 5 guys, but i do think it’d take at least 3 of the top 10 in our system - maybe 4 of the top 10.

by lboros on Jul 9, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

do you think it's a good idea for the Cards should trade for Halladay?

if they were to give up Wallace or Jones + some mid level guys in your opinion is it a good idea?

It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan

by gdm426 on Jul 9, 2009 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the more i think about it

the more it comes down to one question: can wallace field 3b at the MLB level?

if you think he can stick at 3b, then you should be against this trade because wallace, rasmus, and albert could become the next version of MV3, and play together in st louis for 6 seasons or more. that’s too much to give up for 1.5 years of anybody, even a guy as great as halladay. but if you think wallace can’t handle 3b, then the cards don’t have a position for him until 2012 at the earliest (ie, he’d play 1b if albert signs elsewhere), which would diminish wallace’s value significantly. so if you only think he’s a 1b/dh, you should probably be in favor of the trade.

my other knee-jerk way of assessing a trade is like this: which player is more likely to be a key member of a cardinal pennant winner? if wallace is able to play 3b and can anchor a lineup w/ colby and albert for 5 or 6 years, then i can easily see him helping to bring a pennant to st louis. but if wallace can’t play 3b, i’d rather take my chances on halladay for 2 octobers.

in my opinion, wallace is the only player under discussion whom the cards can’t replace from within the system. if kozma’s bat develops then he’s a very valuable prospect, but brendan ryan looks like he might be able to hold down the position for a few years, which gives the organization time to develop another youngster and/or find a veteran via trade or free agency. the same goes for daniel descalso -- the cards don’t have a similar player in the farm system, but the schumaker conversion appears to be enough of a success that the cards can pencil skip in at 2b for another 3 yrs if they want to, which buys them some time to develop a replacement.

daryl jones is a nifty prospect, but i think tyler henley, shane peterson, and john jay are all roughly equivalent in value; the cards can afford to trade any one of that quartet. as for the pitchers (lynn boggs mort et al), they’re all replaceable except for jaime garcia, and (to a lesser extent) jess todd . . . .

so if the cards were to package up wallace, kozma, jones, mortensen, and todd for 1.5 years of halladay, i would only regret the trade if wallace became a regular at 3b for the jays. if he can only play 1b or dh, then the cards should be commended for cashing him in at the right time - and getting back one of the best pitchers in baseball.

by lboros on Jul 9, 2009 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs

This is my read as well

I haven’t seen enough to have an informed opinion on whether Wallace is able to stick. I do think he looks a bit unnatural, but I’m not sure it costs him many plays. Haven’t seen much of him and reports seem mixed.

Of course, who cares what I/we think anyway. Since trade decisions are on the line, the only opinion that matters is the org’s, meaning this isn’t a situation where they get to wait to see the answer reveal itself. Jim Hayes asked Mozeliak about it today, and Mo’s response struck me as something less than a ringing endorsement. Of course, he isn’t going to dog his top prospect/tradechip and he obviously shouldn’t. He didn’t go into propaganda mode though either – that’s for sure. I get the sense that this is, at the very least, still an unanswered question for them as it is for us.

As the bat gets closer and closer, being unsure becomes more and more of a problem. If the answer becomes clear, and it isn’t what we hope, we lose a lot of leverage. He may lose some value to other clubs, first of all. Just as importantly, even if they always wanted to use him at 1st anyway, we’ll still lose all leverage on the deal if they ever know WE cannot use him at third.

I agree that Ryan is taking a lot of the pressure off at SS, but I still think Schumaker at 2nd is an open question. I agree the strength in OF and pitching is generally more in numbers than in top talent, but Daryl Jones definitely seems to be a cut above for OF. If Wallace and Kozma are in the deal, then I’d have to draw the line at Jones. If Wallace and Jones are in the deal, then I think they need to go easy on the supplementary pieces. Since we’ll have committed a huge percentage of our payroll to rotation already, I’d rather we give up multiple numbers of the close to mature arms (Mortensen, Boggs, Todd, Lynn, Walters) than our prefered choice for LF. We’ve got to go cheap somewhere. Descalso and Ryan could be a big help in the MI, as will Rasmus, but that won’t be enough. We’ll have one of the most expensive rotations in the NL, and one of the most expensive 1B. You’d like to keep your top rated choice for LF in tact.

by Merry CRasmus on Jul 9, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're right Merry C

re-reading my post above, i’d have to back off slightly. the package i named has 3 of our top 4 position players (with descalso arguably now in the mix), plus our top rotation guy and our top reliever. . . . . . that’s too many eggs in one basket. let’s say the deal goes like this:

wallace
pick any 3 of kozzy, descalso, jones, mortensen, lynn, or todd
a throw-in, C- prospect (e.g. shane robinson)

by lboros on Jul 9, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we're throwing in prospects

I’d rather throw in pitching prospects that are near the big leagues, preferably ones that don’t have a future and are on the 40 man roster. Robinson is a nice pick, but I think that Walters is a better one. I’d leave Jones out of the deal entirely and I’d definitely see if they’d be interested in Chris Duncan even though they probably wouldn’t be.

Wallace
1 of Kozma or Descalso and 1 of Mortenson or Boggs
2 of Robinson, Stavinoha, Walters, and Hawksworth.

"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 Jul 9, 2009 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d like to direct them to only one of the 3 2nd level bats you mentioned. If we are to believe they wanted to draft Kozma, I’d think he’d be their choice. He’d probably be mine, if I were in their shoes. Which is nice, because I think it coincides best with our needs.

I’m pretty sold on Ryan – I don’t think his hitting is sustainable but I am convinced his glove leaves him a lot of leeway on that end, and if we are investing 50-60 million into a rotation then that’s exactly the type of guy I want there.

I would not be hesitant to direct them to a couple of your 2nd level arms though. You’ve already pretty much sealed their fate with this organization anyway by making the move. If you have Mortensen, Boggs, Lynn, Walters, Todd competing for multiple spots that’s one thing. We’ll have them competing for one rotation spot at best, so you may be able to thin the herd if that makes the deal happen. But if you make the deal happen, you’ll need to preserve as many options for the lineup as you possibly can.

I guess that is a long way of saying that if we are giving them 3 bats I don’t think I could make the deal. They’re going to have to like a couple of our arms to make the deal happen IMO.

by Merry CRasmus on Jul 10, 2009 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And then draft

As many fast moving low ceiling/high floor college starters as you can get next June.

by Merry CRasmus on Jul 10, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

why is it that stark?

suppose that Wallace is the second coming of Ryan Braun: terrible at 3B, and pretty bad in LF too but you can hide him there and get away with it. in that case, Wallace is probably a 4-5 WAR player who is cost-controlled for 6 years. that sort of player is practically priceless in this market. if Halladay is a 6-7 WAR player, then the marginal gain is (let’s say) 2 WAR this year and 2 WAR next year, which you are paying ~ $20mn for. that’s about the going rate, but then you lose the deal for the next four years of Wallace plus anything that the other 3-4 prospects gives. it’s hard to come out on top in the long run. in other words, Wallace doesn’t have to stick at 3B; he can still be an extremely valuable player in the OF.

we don’t have an obvious LF choice who is assured of being league-average over the next few seasons. even if Jones does pan out, he can replace Ludwick in two years when Luddy becomes a FA. so Wallace could slide into LF, and if he can manage to be only as good defensively as Duncan then he’ll be an All-Star.

plus, if the difference between Wallace and Halladay is 2 WAR per season, we can easily use Halladay’s money to buy those couple of wins. Orlando Hudson would do it. Or a Doug Davis-type starting pitcher. or Chone Figgins. there are a lot of ways to get 2 WAR for one or two years without having to give up a franchise-type player like Wallace, plus 3 or 4 other near-MLB-ready top prospects.

for me, Wallace should be about as immovable as Rasmus.

by kindred on Jul 10, 2009 3:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'd agree with you about wallace being immovable

if he was a great defender. Rasmus is immovable because of the combination of hitting, speed, and defense. If Rasmus was Chris Duncan in the field then he wouldn’t be untouchable.

The cardinals only lose the last 4 years of that deal if they don’t win a world series in ’08 or ’09. I cannot imagine anyone beating the cardinals with the 4 man rotation of Halladay/Carpenter/Wainwright/Pineiro.

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 10, 2009 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

'09 or '10*

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 10, 2009 3:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you can't bank on that...

… everybody thought the Cubs were unbeatable last year with Harden/Zambrano/Lilly, and the Brewers with Sabathia/Sheets/Gallardo. it obviously didn’t work out.

Wallace is a much better offensive player than Rasmus. the latter gets a lot of his value from his defense. like i said, if he can manage even Duncan-like defense in LF he’d probably be worth as much as Rasmus. of course, maybe he can’t manage Duncan-like defense.

by kindred on Jul 10, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i dunno about much better

he’ll definitely be a better avg/abp guy, but i think raz will have more power. i don’t see walrus fully recognizing his power potential for a few more years. and then, i don’t think his power ceiling is as high as colby’s

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can't agree with this...

Wallace is a much better offensive player than Rasmus

Colby put up a .275/.381/.551 in his first full season at AA at the age of 20. Wallace hasn’t been that good yet at AAA and he has a couple of years on Colby at that level as well. I think he’s going to be a very good hitter as well, but to say he’s a “much better offensive player” just isn’t true.

"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 Jul 12, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

kindred, if you think wallace

can play LF, then it changes the calculus of the trade and, as you say, it’d be a bad deal for the cards. i don’t share your opinion that he can play out there, but we’re both really just guessing - who’s to say? it’s certainly not impossible.

i do share your opinion of wallace’s value - he has tremendous value as a cheap, high-impact hitter. but the reports of his D are pretty discouraging, so if he can’t play anywhere but 1b -- i’m not saying that’s an established fact, but it’s the opinion of many people -- then the inevitable conclusion is that cards have to trade him and try to get the best return they can. either that, or use him to replace albert, which obviously would not improve the team.

i also would disagree that wallace plus a generic 2 WAR player is equal to a 7 WAR pitcher like halladay -- especially where the postseason is concerned. dominant SP make a huge difference, which is why the cost for them is off the charts in dollars and in prospects.

numerous teams have made deals of this type recently, with mixed results. the red sox traded a boatload of young cheap talent (including hanley ramirez) for 1 year of josh beckett plus a pricey extension, and that clearly worked out in the favor. the jury is still out on the mets’ trade for santana - it certainly hasn’t hurt them so far. the dbacks’ trade for dan haren looks like a bust - the gambled a lot of chips looking for a second ace to pair up w/ brandon webb, and now they’re in for a rough few years. the brew crew took a shot on 1/2 a year of sabathia - didn’t cash in, but the loss of laporta doesn’t look like it will kill them, so that’s a wash.

i’d still come back to this: which player is more difficult to acquire (either by developing him in-house, or buying him on the open market) - a 4- to 5-win 1B, or a 6- to 7-win SP? obviously the latter is more difficult to find - by an order of magnitude. ergo he’s more valuable to me, and i’d be willing to trade the one (plus some add’l talent) for the other.

by lboros on Jul 10, 2009 7:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This may not matter at all but

The Jays currently have a 1B in AA who is raking. IF we know Wallace’s D is suspect it is fair to awsome the Jays know this as well. Does that and the fact they have this kid Brian Dopirak deminsh Wallace’s value to the Jays?

http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?pos=&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=460590

by nybirdfan on Jul 10, 2009 7:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

DUH

Assume not awsome. In my defense it was early.

by nybirdfan on Jul 10, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

just a glance at his B-R page

which is at

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=dopira001bri

suggests that he isn’t really a prospect. dopirak already 25 years old — it took him 6 years to get out of A ball. there’s still time for him to have an MLB career, but even if he does it seems unlikely he’ll ever amount to more than a jack cust knockoff — guys who languish in the minors this long almost never become big league stars. his ceiling would appear to be much lower than wallace’s, hence his value much lower.

by lboros on Jul 10, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

I could have jecked his age but didn’t even think too.

by nybirdfan on Jul 10, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree with the substantive point...

… that if Wallace has to play 1B then we should trade him. but i’m not sure the best way to maximize his value is to package him with 3 or 4 other of our top-10 prospects to get an expensive 32 year-old pitcher who is at or near the top of the Pitcher Abuse Points stats every year and has been on the DL once this year already. if we have to trade him, i’d rather trade him for a similar player at a different position: a high-value, high-end prospect that will be under team control for years but is blocked by a star at the same position.

we’ve had this discussion about marginal WAR before and i don’t want to rehash it except to say that i fundamentally disagree: marginal WAR is marginal WAR. it doesn’t matter where you get it. and i also don’t buy the playoffs argument. as we’ve seen so many times, the playoffs are essentially unpredictable. yes, i’d rather have Roy Halladay start in the playoffs than Kyle Lohse, but in recent years the Cards have gotten their best playoff performances from guys like Jeff Suppan, Anthony Reyes, and Jeff Weaver, while Carpenter was somewhat pedestrian (for him). in 2005 the best offense in the NL got shut down by Brandon freaking Backe. so i think the playoffs argument is oversold.

i would say that the BoSox lost on the Beckett/Ramirez deal: yes, they won a WS but not the year they made the trade. they could have just waited a year, signed him as a FA, kept Ramirez, and still won the ’07 Series. Ramirez has been more valuable than Beckett every year since the trade and has cost a fraction. meanwhile, the BoSox are paying Julio Lugo $8mn/year because they traded away Ramirez.

moreover, the last time the Cardinals made this sort of trade we lived to regret it. and Ricciardi’s no dummy… he’s one of Beane’s acolytes. he’ll get his pound of flesh for Halladay.

as to your last paragraph… how many 4-5 WAR 1B under cheap team control for 6 years do you know of on the market? last year the only guy who came close to that description was Joey Votto, and he wasn’t available for trade (and wasn’t quite worth 4 WAR). those guys usually aren’t for trade at any price. an ace-type starting pitcher or two hits the trading block seemingly every season.

by kindred on Jul 10, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to be fair to boston

hanley wasn’t quite the can’t miss hitting prospect that walrus is. i bet they’re kicking themselves now like we are with haren

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're wrong about that...

… Ramirez was Boston’s #1 ranked prospect in 2004 when he was in A-ball. BA said then that his MLB talent-level was .300/.370/.500. in 2005, Baseball America ranked him as the #3 prospect in the Eastern League, ahead of Lester, Zimmerman, Markakis, and Papelbon. he was 22 years old then, or a year younger than Wallace is now.

Ramirez was always a premium prospect, and the Marlins wouldn’t have made the trade without him.

by kindred on Jul 10, 2009 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

looking at

his MiL stats, i don’t think he was quite the sure thing that wallace is, but he was better than i thought

he’s also no nearly as good a defender as i thought he was

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ramirez was not expected to be the player he is.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2005/11/22/10425/502

of the 5 Red Sox top prospects, he would be the one I wouldn’t mind losing.

He’s a pretty good fielder with a nice arm.

Dan: What’s his ceiling?

Marc: .300/.360/.480 with great defense

Considering Ramirez has only once posted a season OPS as low as his “ceiling” I’d say he has been a bit of a surprise.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 10, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

a handful of lines below that...

… you’ll notice that all three of those commentators thought the Marlins won the trade even though they were under-estimating Ramirez. and at the time, Ramirez was a 21 year-old holding his own in AA.

plus, an .850 OPS SS with “great defense” (as they projected) for 6 cost-controlled seasons is a pretty valuable commodity. as it turns out, he’s a .950 OPS SS with “meh” defense, so on net the projections were fairly close to right.

the point is that Ramirez was always a very highly regarded prospect, rated #1 in the BoSox system for several years. the Marlins knew they were getting somebody good, and they were right.

by kindred on Jul 11, 2009 6:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

kindred, i agree w/ you on hanely ramirez

the year he was traded (2005), he was ranked the #10 prospect in all of baseball according to baseball america. he was in the top 20 as early as 2003, when he was in rookie ball. he had been very highly regarded for a number of years when the sox traded him away.

re your statement above -- “marginal WAR is marginal WAR. it doesn’t matter where you get it” -- we don’t disagree on that at all. i completely agree w/ that point - it’s why i think trading for halladay might be worth considering. the reason is because halladay might offer more marginal WAR to the st louis organization than the four or five minor leaguers they would deal away.

wallace as a 1b = 0 marginal WAR for st louis, as long as they re-sign pujols

daryl jones’ marginal WAR is diminished by presence of similar outfielders in the system. shane peterson, john jay, and tyler henley all project to be within 1 WAR of jones at the big-league level; they are all better defenders and have more well-rounded games. jones might be worth 1 marginal WAR a year over the next-best option(s), although that’s highly debatable; there’s a realistic chance that one of the others might actually prove to be more valuable than jones.

as individuals, mortensen / boggs / lynn / walters are each worth 0 marginal WAR to the cardinals -- trading any one of them is no loss to our organization, because there aren’t enough roster spots for all of those guys. at least one of them (and probably more) is going to be wasting his WAR on a minor-league roster, and eventually lost to Rule 5 or 6-year minor-league free agency. the cards can get a better return by converting those WAR into some other resource.

the biggest marginal WAR hit might be pete kozma, and even that is a highly questionable propostion - he’s got a .650ish OPS in double A, and there’s no guarantee his bat will develop to the point that he’s a viable big-league regular. if his bat does develop, then he’s got a lot of value to the cardinals, and would be missed.

against all of that, you have the very immediate and large WAR gain represented by doc halladay. he is at least 5 WAR better than the starting pitcher he would replace (wellemeyer), extrapolated over 2 seasons.

i have a final question for you. i agree w/ your general philosophy regarding cost-control -- ie, a cost-controlled 4 WAR player (such as wallace) has more intrinsic value than a $15m a year 6 WAR player (such as halladay), because if you keep wallace you in essence gain $10m to $15m a year, which you can use to buy 3 to 5 WAR on the free-agent market. the cost-controlled player offers maximum payroll leverage and, hence, maximum overall WAR. we agree on that in general principle.

the question is -- are there any cases in which you would suspend the general principle? i’m asking specifically where pujols is concerned. because if we take the payroll-leverage principle to its logical conclusion, the cardinals probably should pencil wallace in as their new 1bman after 2012, and allow pujols to walk. pujols is an 8 or 9 WAR player who will cost $25m a year (and that’s with the home-team discount) -- but for $25m, you can buy 6 WAR on the open market, and keep the 4 or 5 WAR that wallace will provide, and come out ahead on the WAR calculation. in your opinion, would the cards be best served by letting pujols walk, giving his job to wallace, and redistributing albert’s $25m a year to fill other needs?

this is not a pejorative question -- i think a rational argument can be made in favor of giving albert’s job to wallace in 2012. personally i would not make that argument, but i don’t think it’s crazy talk. where do you come down on that issue?

by lboros on Jul 11, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree that Marginal WAR distribution is irrelevant

While it’s probably true (within the margin of measurement error) that MW = MW at the end of the season in the win column, having a 8-9 WAR player at one position opens up multiple paths for improvement at other positions. It’s a lot harder to improve 3x 3 WAR players to 4 or 5 WAR players, than it is to improve 2x replacement level and 1x Albert.

If you have your 8-9 WAR player at 1B, and your 5 WAR pitcher, you might get a breakout season from a “replacement level” guy like boggs or hawksworth or boog or ludwick (before his breakout last year) and pick up 4-5 wins (making it 12-14 total, instead of 8-9) at a couple of cost controlled positions- and if you don’t get a breakout, you can always pick up a win or two at the deadline trading to replace one of those players. It’s tougher to efficiently replace a 3 WAR guy with a 4 WAR guy at the deadline.

OTOH, putting all your eggs in one basket adds significant risk.

the end of every half inning IS a turning point. -Evilfrog

by SleepyCA on Jul 11, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i have been operating...

… under the assumption that Wallace could be passable at either 3B or LF, and thus be 4-5 WAR there for the Cards. if he can’t — if he truly must be a 1B/DH type — then trade him. i don’t think it’s been established yet that he can’t hack a position in his youth (i.e. while he’s under team control) before transitioning to 1B/DH after 30. last year, in admittedly small samples, Wallace’s TotalZone rating was a touch below average at 3B (i don’t think TotalZone has been updated for this year), and reports are that he is improving some in AAA. if he can be – 10 runs defensively at 3B/LF, or even -15, then maybe that puts him at 3-4 WAR rather than 4-5, but that’s still a $12-15mn player we’re getting essentially for free.

as i said before, if we do have to trade him i would rather trade him for another young top-prospect position player that is blocked on another team, but that is merely my preference. if the Braves had signed Furcal, then Escobar would’ve been my preferred type of target. somebody like that.

i agree that some players are redundant and thus worth little or nothing to the org but i’m not sure i’d say that Jones is worth the same as Peterson or Jay, and i don’t think the Blue Jays would think that either; they’d demand Jones over the other two because he has a chance at being much, much better than Peterson or Jay. similarly, i think that Mort and Lynn are worth a good bit more than Boggs and Walters. even if the top tier guys are only 1 WAR over the middle-tier guys, that 1 WAR is worth $5mn… nothing to sneeze at.

as you say, Halladay is a big jump over Welly, probably 5 WAR or more over the year and a half he’d be in the BoB. but there are a number of pitchers on the FA market that can get us 3-4 WAR at a lower salary. even with atrocious defense Wallace will be worth 2 WAR. and if we go that route then we also get to keep Wallace for the next 5 years at below-market rates. under this scenario if we get anything at all from Jones, Kozma, and whoever else would go in a trade (or whoever we signed with Halladay’s money) then we’re way ahead.

i think it’s appropriate to pay a lot for premium talent. but i don’t think it’s appropriate to pay a lot in salary and talent. the calculus usually doesn’t work in your favor when you do that.

as to your hypothetical… a lot of teams do operate that way, and with some success (Minnesota, Cleveland, Oakland, Florida). but Pujols at $25mn is still probably something of a bargain: he’s been worth more than that 6 times already in his career. this year he might be worth twice that. and if i keep Pujols i don’t just lose Wallace’s 4-5 WAR: i can still keep Wallace or trade him for something else. so i’m not choosing between 8-9 WAR for $25mn or 4-5 WAR for free: if i re-sign Pujols and keep Wallace then i’m paying $25mn for 12-14 WAR, and that’s a helluva deal.

but if the math were exactly equal then i would re-sign Pujols for sentimental and pragmatic reasons: i would like Pujols to be a lifetime Cardinal, and it’s worth it (to me) to pay some extra amount of money to see that happen. he’s got a chance to be the best right-handed hitter of all time, and he’s still in his prime. i also think the fan backlash from letting Pujols walk would have some real costs, so the savings would be much less than $25mn because of lost ticket and merch sales.

so yeah: i would break the general principle for Pujols. i wouldn’t do it for Halladay.

by kindred on Jul 11, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The other calculation with "rare" talent like Pujols

Is the effect they have on putting fans in seats. Paying him 25-30m is not the same as paying two less marketable payers 12-15m each. You may get the same wins, but you probably don’t have the same income.

by DriverZn on Jul 11, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Was going to mention that too

There is definitely a significant revenue side cost to not resigning Pujols, at least in the short term. Having Pujols around gives the ownership some financial strength, should they choose to use it, that they wouldn’t have otherwise. At least for the first 2-3 years, until fans (hopefully) would see that the org’s plan is working.

Some of that stuff gets a little lost in WAR, and similar measures.

by Merry CRasmus on Jul 11, 2009 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

at least in terms in how wins = $$$'s

by Merry CRasmus on Jul 11, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not to be short...

… but i said exactly that in my 2nd-to-last graph. that is definitely a major factor for paying Pujols whatever it takes to keep him, for me at least. payroll depends on revenue, and revenue depends on keeping Pujols.

by kindred on Jul 12, 2009 2:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the fact that Boston won the world series

in ‘07 largely due to Beckett’s contributions makes the red sox winners of this trade….if you ask me…but you didn’t.

Boston knew they were trading a potential superstar, but it worked out and they have the ring to prove it.

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 11, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh yea...and they got a guy named Mike Lowell

in that deal as well, who was also instumental in that title run

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 11, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The deal basically annhilated all predictions.

Anibal Sanchez and Hanley both were starters in a year, Anibal got hurt and Hanley became an MVP candidate, Lowell, who was considered dead weight, became a good contributor, while Beckett was not good his first season, he overcame his injury-prone label and has been a better pitcher than expected, posting FIPs much better than projected.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 11, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In fact, every single year after the trade, Hanley has been more valuable than Beckett.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 11, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

in theory yes...

but the idea is to win championships and Beckett and Lowell helped Boston win a championship.

I think some of you get caught up in all this extra-curricular crap and forget its about winning rings. Even if its only 1 ring the deal was worth it.

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 11, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agreed w/ your last paragraph Ghost

all of the advanced stats and metrics are wonderful additions to baseball analysis, but they are merely tools in the service of the actual objective, which is to field a winning team. it’s easy to lose sight of that. the objective isn’t to accumulate the most WAR -- the objective is to build a winning organization. the sox have built a dominant organization in the late 2000s, using josh beckett as a central building block.

by lboros on Jul 11, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks lboros,

that was exactly my point…and I don’t really think its all “crap”, I was just using it as a for “stuff”

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 11, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

fail...

*synonym for “stuff”

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 11, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

Would the Marlins have won a World Series if they didn’t make the trade? Especially given their payroll limitations?

Would the Red Sox have been LESS likely to win the WS in 2006, 2007, 2008 etc if they had a 5-8 WAR player at SS and an extra $33M to spend? They picked up a net 3.7 WAR over those 3 years at SS, instead of the 18.1 which Hanley was worth.

the end of every half inning IS a turning point. -Evilfrog

by SleepyCA on Jul 11, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it was a good deal for the Marlins, too.

But the Red Sox should have ZERO regrets. and I doubt that they do.

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 11, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It seems to me that Hanley+Sanchez+50M

would have netted them a larger number of wins than Beckett+Lowell have. I don’t consider this totally theoretical extra-curricular stuff, but a better way of valuing players. Teams that have better players win more games.

My original point was that the traded players defied all expectations to the point that it’s useless as a starting point to base any new trades on (Hanley MVP, Lowell contributing, Beckett ace).

To wit: Aaron Miles, Jeff Weaver, Jeff Suppan, and Anthony Reyes all “brought this team a championship.” I don’t see anyone clamoring to get them back. Some things are impossible to predict.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 13, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no it doesn't...

… they made the trade in the ‘05/’06 off-season, and they didn’t win the WS in ‘06. they could have just signed Beckett as a FA in the ’06/’07 off-season, kept Ramirez, won the ‘07 World Series, spent Julio Lugo’s $8mn/year on somebody else, and been better off in every single season.

by kindred on Jul 11, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's easy to say they could have signed him as an FA

but he never became an FA, because they signed him to an extension before he hit the market. the trade gave them exclusive negotiating rights to him, and they exploited that advantage to lock him up for a below-market deal: 4 years, $42 million.

if he had hit the FA market, they might never have signed him - or, at the very least, they would have had to pay a lot more for him. or maybe they wouldn’t have signed him at all - he had an off-year in 2006, so maybe they would have gone after one of the three “aces” on the market that winter (barry zito, jason schmidt, and i can’t remember the 3d guy) . . . .

the point is, it’s really difficult for anyone to fault the decisions the red sox made in the ramirez / beckett trade. it’s difficult for anyone to say that, if the sox had only done things differently, they’d have accomplished more in 2006-09 and be in a better position moving forward. i think you can only say they’ve made very good decisions, which have produced outstanding results.

by lboros on Jul 11, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

jeff suppan? ;)

the end of every half inning IS a turning point. -Evilfrog

by SleepyCA on Jul 11, 2009 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no, that's not the guy

kip wells -- that’s who i meant

by lboros on Jul 12, 2009 8:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i don't know...

… BoSox had the money to sign Beckett as a FA if they wanted to. perhaps they would have paid more than they did, but because they made the trade they basically are paying Beckett + Lugo $78mn total for 4 years. they could have signed Beckett for 4/$65 instead of 4/$42, kept Ramirez, and still come out on top on that deal in dollars and performance even if they only expected Ramirez to equal Lugo’s production for 4 years.

true: hindsight is 20/20, and Lugo had been a good player before they signed him. but he was 32 when they signed him to a 4 year deal, and already starting his decline phase. it wouldn’t’ve taken much analysis to think that Ramirez would out-perform Lugo over the next 4 years at a fraction of the cost. so even if they had to out-bid another team for Beckett it would have been worth it.

it could have been expected that Ramirez would be worth at least 1 WAR per season or more over Lugo on average over those 4 seasons, and at essentially zero cost. so the BoSox could’ve spent $5mn more per year on Beckett than they did — e.g. 4/$62mn — and still been far better off. nobody was going to match 4/$62 for Beckett. (the year before, AJ Burnett got 5/$55.)

you’re right: it’s hard to question the BoSox’s overall philosophy. they do a very good job. but i think they lost this one, and i don’t it takes hindsight to realize that. as the BtB link that Hazel provided above indicates, a lot of people thought the BoSox lost the trade at the time. part of that was Anibal Sanchez, who has had some injury/inconsistently problems. but a lot of it was that Ramirez was expected to be better than league-average at a premium position at low cost for 6 years.

now, to get back on track: is Wallace + pieces for Halladay equivalent to Ramirez/Sanchez + pieces + money for Beckett/Lowell?

i honestly don’t know. it’s a tough call. but even though i think that Halladay would essentially guarantee the Cards a playoff spot this year and maybe next, i’d still hesitate to make that trade. i think they can get there this year without Halladay, and next year i think they could spend Halladay’s $16mn well enough that that signing + Wallace makes up the difference. and if that’s true, then any benefit from Wallace (plus the others that would be included in a trade) over the next 5-6 years would tip me towards not making the deal.

if we were the Yankees, i’d say go for it. but we’re not. so when we have superstar-type talent locked up at cheap rates for the next half-decade we need to take advantage of it.

by kindred on Jul 12, 2009 3:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed --- not an easy call

extremely risky move, if you do make it -- you better be sure you know your own talent, because if you’ve misjudged just one of the players that you’re giving up, you might end up having major regrets about the deal.

enjoyable discussion.

for what it’s worth, in this morning’s paper, chris mahoney projects that wallace will be “adequate to above adequate” as a fielder at 3b. it’s not the most objective opinion, but it does provide a window into the organization’s thinking -- ie, they still see him as a 3b. and that being the case (to go back to my initial thought on this), they probably won’t be making wallace available at all. i imagine they’ll try to interest toronto in a package of lesser prospects, and i would guess riccardi will say no thanks.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/B7075B12FBE6619C862575EF008188B9?OpenDocument

by lboros on Jul 12, 2009 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gentlemen

Thank you for that conversation. I learned a lot reading through it. Pardon me for poking my nose into it, but there is another value in making a trade like this that is very hard to equate. Winning Championships has value. Increase ticket sales, and team gear sales have a dollar value placed on them. Player satisfaction and fan loyality maybe harder to determine.

As far as Pujols goes he has said that winning was more important than money. So would he be willing to take say Teixeira money instead of A-Rod money to help pay Halladay’s extension? Even if Albert wants more money I would not let him walk and replace him with Wallace. The fan loyalty quotient will be seriously hit.

Last winter there was talk on this site that Craig might be an option at third, and there is Freese. Do either of you view them as a viable second choice at third if Wallace were to be moved?

Once again gentlemen thank you for that conversation it is the main reason this is the number one Cards blog.

by nybirdfan on Jul 12, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

freese

is definitely a solid option at 3b if he recovers from his injury. i’m still kinda mad that thurston and barden got off to such hot starts that freese didn’t even get a chance to prove himself. of course, it wouldn’t have matter since he’s on the dl now

and if we were to get halladay, it’s strictly for him to fulfill his current contract. even if we could pay albert less money, it’s not enough less to take on $18-20MM for a 32-year old halladay. don’t get me wrong, he might be worth every cent of that money, but we simply can’t afford it. and we could fill so many holes with that kind of money. i’d also like to leave a little aside for a mid-season need based acquisition

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 12, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

34*

he’s 32 now. he would be 34 shortly after the ’11 season starts

not worth it

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 12, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought

I read somewhere that Halladay wants an extension in order to lift his no trade clause. It is all moot really cause I don’t think he will be traded, and if by some chance he is we will not get him.

by nybirdfan on Jul 12, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

another, quite minor, factor that we don't always consider

is the money that teams make directly by making the playoffs. If we assume that, on average, you play 5 games at home every time you make the post-season (probably an understatement) and each post-season game brings in ~2m in gate receipts and concessions (each attendee only needs to pay $45, total, in entry fees and concessions, so that’s probably a massive under-estimate – I’m guessing the real total is $4-5m, and then there’s merchandising, TV money etc etc), you’re making a LOT of money ($10m+, I could easily believe over $20m) on just making the playoffs once.

That value must seriously offset the costs of adding a player who increases your chances of winning the division each of two years by perhaps as much as 20%.

Personally, I’m against adding Halladay as I think it could cripple us next year unless we raise the team’s payroll, but the whole “value added in the postseason” factor is often not taken into account in these discussions…

Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 13, 2009 6:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yep...

… good conversation.

the org has been consistent on their opinion of Wallace: he’s “better than advertised,” “improving all the time,” etc. he might not stick at 3B forever, but it looks like they are going to give him every opportunity there. i agree with that decision: if he can be even mediocre there, then he’s an extremely value player.

by kindred on Jul 12, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so if they think Walrus is a 3rdbaseman

then they better hold on to him. is that what everyone is saying?

It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan

by gdm426 on Jul 13, 2009 2:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that's the prevailing sentiment.

Even among those more pessimistic about Wallace it’s sort of “despite the fact that it seems unlikely that he will stick, if he can he should be held onto.”

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 13, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the Philly comment needs to be disected

because that means the hangup really isn’t on the prospects. The Cardinals can offer a better prospect package if they want to. It’s about $$$ in 2009 & 2010 and an extension for Halladay. So, as lboros says, the prospects, while there will be several of them, aren’t the hangup and likely aren’t the “top 5”.

Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation

by azruavatar on Jul 9, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope he isn't moved.

Right now we could, IMO, make a run for the WS with our rotation, but if someone like the Phillies grab him I think it would be pretty hard to top Halladay, Hamels, and their offence.

by Schnurdog on Jul 9, 2009 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

our pitching

without welley is fine. Its the up and down feeble O that i worry about

I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2

by punchinjudy on Jul 9, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it is fine.

I don’t disagree with that. I’m only saying that a trade to bring in Halladay SIGNIFICANTLY increases our chances of winning another WS. There is a HUGE difference between the following:

Phils ( Halladay, Hamels, Moyer) vs Cards (Carpenter, Wainright, not Welly)
and
Phils (Hamels, Moyer, Blanton) vs Cards (Halladay, Carpenter, Wainright)

Also, I have not figured it out statistically, but it seems to me that the Card’s O is heading in the right direction…even without anyone named DeRosa or Glaus. Also not saying Cards couldn’t use picking up Durham or Grudz for a cool mil or two.

If we could afford this trade, and sign a true 2B for 1.5yrs, we would make a strong case to bring two straight WS Championships to St. Louis, assuming we stay healthy.
Durham, Rasmus, Pujols, Ludwick, DeRosa, Molina, Schumaker, B.Ryan,
Halladay, Carpenter, Wainright, Lohse, Pineira/Garcia

by Schnurdog on Jul 9, 2009 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually...

… i think the Cards’ rotation is best in either scenario.

Carp/Waino/Lohse/Piniero is better than Halladay/Hamels/Blanton/Moyer. the top two are basically equivalent, and our 3-4 are far better.

by kindred on Jul 10, 2009 3:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do too...

but I don’t think there is anyone on the trade market right now who could improve our offense as much as Halladay improves our rotation when you look at it marginally. Our offense is going to be up and down as long as we don’t get production from Ludwick, our LF of choice, and whoever is at 3B. Now, if Ludwick repeats his second half from 2008, Glaus comes back in August and plays well at 3B, Derosa comes back and hits like last year while manning 2B or LF, and Skip plays whatever position that Derosa isn’t playing, our offense will be much improved. Unless Ludwick gets going, I don’t think any trade for offense really helps that much, but a rotation of Halladay, Carp, WW, Lohse, and JP could help us win this division running away even with a below average offense.

"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 Jul 9, 2009 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mo's gamemanship

I think this is just a head feint.

Just win

by The Duke on Jul 9, 2009 5:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you.

I don’t think he is serious. It is however very intriguing.

by Schnurdog on Jul 9, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

whoops

I think Mo is just driving up the price of Halladay to keep anyone from getting him cheaply. I don’t see the Cards gutting their carefully crafted strategy for Halladay. Too much top end talent out the door. I still think Peavy is a better buy. He’s hurt now so value has dropped, but signed for longer term. I don’t think you lose wallace and Jones in that deal. In fact you might not lose either.

Just win

by The Duke on Jul 9, 2009 5:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's still going to come down to the same thing for the Cards though...money.

by Schnurdog on Jul 9, 2009 5:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

P.Gammons on Boston sportsradio

Listening this afternoon, Gammons said that the Cardinals were serious contenders. However, he also seemed to imply that even this “take any 5 prospects” deal wouldn’t be enough for the Blue Jays and it would likely take a third team to get something done.
Interestingly, Gammons mentioned the Red Sox as a potential 3rd team involved with the principals of the trade being Halliday to St Louis, the Walrus to Boston (to be Ortiz’s eventual replacement), and Clay Bucholz to Toronto. St Louis would obviously have to give up more than the Walrus, but this was a structure he said could work.

Curt Schilling, calling into the program, disagreed with Gammons and said that the Red Sox front office wouldn’t get involved unless they were getting Halladay.

by olddomination on Jul 9, 2009 5:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

take anything Pete says with a grain of salt

he’s been trying to get MO to trade Walrus to the sawx since the day they drafted him

It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan

by gdm426 on Jul 9, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gammons seems to think the BoSox are in on virtually every deal.

Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation

by azruavatar on Jul 9, 2009 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They are

But I agree with Schilling that they’d first be going after Halliday for themselves. They have what Toronto would want (young pitching) and more of it than anyone in baseball.

I think the only way they go into a 3-way trade (even though Sox management is known for them) where they don’t get Halliday is if its to keep him away from the Yankees.

by olddomination on Jul 9, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

they are involved on virtually every deal?

ummm. . . I’m going to think some things happen without the RedSox input.

Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation

by azruavatar on Jul 9, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think he's implying that they always seem to be candidates for any trade

which as far as halfway decent players go, doesn’t seem to be too far off of a guess.

But then again, so do we. But nothing ever happens. Rumors, rumors, rumors.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jul 9, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A three way trade with the BoSox might be worth it

Just so we can say, in an exaggerated Japanese accent, “You not Big PAH-pi!!!” every time we see Wallace with a Boston hat on.

Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.

by mattybobo on Jul 10, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

rec'd

very nice

by mopack on Jul 14, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Buchholz

How good is this guy anyway? It seems like we’ve heard how he’s going to be just an awesome force in the Boston rotation for 3 years now, and he’s in his third stint at AAA. The kid is already 25, which is still plenty young, but you’d think a “phenom” like Buchholz would have at least broken into the Boston pen by now.

by flipthebird on Jul 9, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

he's their Bud Smith.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jul 9, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i mentioned this above

appaernetly gammons was making all the stops that day

I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2

by punchinjudy on Jul 10, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and like that, the mets are out of the running.

fernando martinez on the dl with a sore knee.

seems like the teams that need halladay (mets, phillies) aren’t going to have the pieces, and the teams that can afford him won’t likely think he’s where they want to spend their prospects (boston, dodgers).

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 9, 2009 5:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

he won't be traded to Boston

I don’t see Toronto trading him within the division.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jul 9, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think they easily could do that exactly that...

but the Sox would have to give up quite a bit of their young pitching. I don’t think that Boston would want to trade both Masterson and Bucholz only to see them come back in a Toronto uniform for the next 5 years.

If the Jays want young pitching they are really only dealing with three teams: Boston, L.A. Dodgers, and Texas. That’s pretty much it.

"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 Jul 9, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But

They don’t need pitching, despite having almost their entire rotation injured, their pitchers have done really well. It’s their offense that’s anemic. They would probably be more willing to deal with a team with hitting prospects (Cardinals) rather than teams with pitching prospects (Boston, Yanks).

My avatar is 3 years into the future for sure...

by Taskmaster on Jul 10, 2009 2:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They have been incredible at that.

Their whole rotation, except Halladay, has been on the disabled list, for the entire year. Heck, even Halladay hit the DL for the first time something anyone trading for him should consider too I know it wasn’t his arm, but pitchers need their whole body to be in sync to perform. Seriously, what other organization says “no problem, we’ll bring up this minor league pitcher” and have it work out? I would suggest if you make any kind of deal, ever, with the Jays, make them throw in a pitcher. They know pitching.

I agree that they need hitting more than they need pitching. Pitching, they’ll figure it out-hitting, well, they have a clear need there.

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Jul 10, 2009 3:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

While that's true...

They need pitching talent more. Look at their roster: They have bona-fide 3 WAR players at each outfield position, 3B, DH, and 2B. They only really have holes at C, 1B, and SS once Scutaro is gone, hence their request for young pitching and middle infield talent.

"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 Jul 12, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oakland

Not to nitpick, but they have scads of young pitching talent.

by siddfynch on Jul 10, 2009 2:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

which they will use for 2-3 years and trade away for more pitching talent

by Schnurdog on Jul 10, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oakland

would have no interest at all in bringing in Roy Halladay at $25M for a season and a half. You don’t make the trade unless you’re in contention to win it all this year, and the A’s aren’t.

"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 Jul 12, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

other random dribs and drabs from around the majors:

chris narveson dfa’d by the brewers — anybody want a 3rd crack at him?

kip wells signed by the reds to minor league contract — simply too funny for words. i guess jock wants a second try with kip.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 9, 2009 6:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

sometimes, joe strauss,

you make me so happy

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 9, 2009 10:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This should surprise no one.

It should also surprise no one that it’s not an obstacle for others in the organization.

Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation

by azruavatar on Jul 9, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

depends on who in the FO

sees it as a deal breaker

i bet one of them is luhnow

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 9, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since we don't know who it is,

Strauss’s tweet is nearly meaningless.

Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation

by azruavatar on Jul 10, 2009 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but

it gives hope to a worried minority of cardinal nation

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Positives of twitter

Joe can only babble non-news in less than 140 characters.

by ubeddie on Jul 9, 2009 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My Serious 2 cents

OK,

Lets say we have the juice to get Halladay. (I am not sure we do. If Toronto wants MI help I am not sure we have what it takes. Unless Ryan interests them, but I digress.) Lets also say that Wallace is in the mix. Now lets jump ahead to September 1 our 25 man roster COULD look like this.

Duncan LF
Rasmus CF
Ludwick RF
Schumaker LF/2B
Ankiel CF/LF

Pujols 1b
DeRosa 2B/LF
Ryan SS
Glaus 3B
TGreen/Hoffpauir
Thurston/Bardon Take your pick for Infield bench

Molina
LaRue

Carp
Halladay
Wainman
Pineiro
Loshe

Franklin
Motte
Kinney
Reyes
Miller
McClellan
Wellemeyer/Thompson

This team could take on LA, SF, Philly, Boston, or NYY! What about 2010? Well, why not offer arbitration to Glaus, and sign Pineiro and DeRosa. Ankiel will be a FA. The team repeats!

by nybirdfan on Jul 9, 2009 10:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I am not if favor of having both...

Duncan AND Ankiel on the roster on september 1….or even Aug. 1.

If the cards get Halladay they really need to go all in and get another bat if Glaus can’t contribute.

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 9, 2009 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Get another bat with what

not much would be left in the cupboard for another rental.

by ubeddie on Jul 9, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well..

uh…can’t we just make the blue jays throw in scott rolen?….oh wait…damnit

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 9, 2009 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ray Durham or Mark Grudz would help

by Schnurdog on Jul 10, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm..

a lineup of

Ryan – SS
Rasmus – CF
Pujols – 1B
Ludwick – RF
Glaus – 3B
DeRosa – 2B
Molina – C
Schumaker – LF

with that rotation….go ahead and crown ’em

I’d like to see that bench completely overhauled though.

The more I think about it………..I don’t want Duncan OR Ankiel on the roster at all. It just leaves too much temptation for Tony to bench DeRosa and Ludwick vs. righties

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 9, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

how about...

shumaker in the 2 spot and rasmus in the middle of the order

by cardsforever on Jul 10, 2009 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i like him in cleanup

if ludwick is finally turning it around though you can platoon raz and lud between 4 and 5 according to the pitcher. colby is for real and luddy is starting to look like he’s serious again

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

whatever...

as long as its these eight players consistently and no dunc/ankiel/thursty i don’t care where you hit em

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 10, 2009 2:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i saw we resigin pinero

hes been great. and under duncan i see no reason for him to change. the thing that needs change is our offense and deffense
lf, 3b, and 2b need help defensively and offensivly (shumaker should play outfield for the billionth time)

by cardsforever on Jul 10, 2009 1:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm afraid he's pitching himself out of the cardinals price range...

He’d be due a raise from 7.5 Million. He’ll land a fat multi-year free-agent deal from a team desperate for pitching and after a half-season of bad-pineiro on his new team, it will look like a stroke of genius that we didn’t meet his contract demands.

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 10, 2009 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

definitely agree

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if we

could wind up getting a compensation pick for losing him…

"Greene over to Schumaker, on to first! Double Play!!"

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 10, 2009 2:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if he continues to pitch out of his mind this season,

he might be able to bring himself up type b status

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just calculated this

According to my models, he can counterweight his past couple years by throwing 15 more shutouts this season, clubbing 6 homeruns, and mowing Jose Uquendo’s yard. That will get him up to B status, barely.

I also did this for Kip Wells, but the performance requirements start to get pretty unrealistic. For example, he’s got to earn the Save in several of the games he starts, and he’s got to throw out a lot of baserunners every time he doesn’t pitch a perfect game. But, it would be fun to see him make a run at it.

by siddfynch on Jul 10, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i dunno

if this changes anything, but the free agency is only based on the last two years. i might be wrong (and don’t how to calculate it) but i think it’s possible that a stellar year plus a mediocre/poor year might be able to level out around type b. regardless of his free agent type, we need to offer arb

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he's worth 6 wins this year

not saying he will be, but IF he somehow continues to not allow homeruns at an unprecedented rate, it’s hard to see how he can’t end up a type B. That said, I think they use a variety of slightly outdated stats (pretty sure W/L record comes into it) which are currently under-valuing him, so I wouldn’t hold your breath…

Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 13, 2009 6:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

W, W/L, K's, GS, CG, ERA, etc

The sites with the exact formula re all blocked, but google “detroit tiger thoughts elias type a” and you should be able to find it.

WAR isn’t one of the stats used ;)

the end of every half inning IS a turning point. -Evilfrog

by SleepyCA on Jul 13, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

dumb...

… it really pisses me off that Elias, who has access to the most stats of anybody and keeps them all proprietary, is so stupid about this stuff. it really screws up the market.

by kindred on Jul 14, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

say*

by cardsforever on Jul 10, 2009 1:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This team is one AP elbow ligament from being a Pirates' wanna be. Keep Wallace for as long as possible

An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.

HL Mencken

by akaitori on Jul 10, 2009 7:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's fixed!

n/t

by guayzimi on Jul 10, 2009 7:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is there a possible Matt LaPorta thing going on here?

Could it be that the Cards drafted Wallace for the purpose of trading him for someone down the line? The Brewers did it with LaPorta and it landed them Sabathia for a playoff run. Is this a possibility?

www.diamond-theory.com

by thinkbluebleedblue on Jul 10, 2009 6:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

several people

have posited the same thing. if they did, i think it’s silly. that’s like drafting a LHSP because your current big league club is missing one. just draft the best available talent and see what happens

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

XM radio

Kennedy said the phils had scouts at Roys game yesterday, and they were mentioning the contracts of Wells and Rios and made them think he may be moved..

not huge info but hey

I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2

by punchinjudy on Jul 10, 2009 7:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Wells and Hallday for little or nothing would be a good deal for Jays

Don’t think anyone would actually take on that much salary but if another team would bite — they might pull the trigger

Just win

by The Duke on Jul 11, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The front office needs to tell Memphis to start getting Wallace some time in left field and after a few weeks bring him up to replace Dunc/Ank as starters. You’d have to think that he would hit better than either of them right now, his defense can’t be much worse than Duncan (he has both arms and legs, right?) and you can stick Rick in left for late “D” if you need him. Move Duncan to the gift shop.

"I don't take no anesthetic. Did Lincoln ask for any girlie gas when they blowed his head off?"

by boba schrute on Jul 12, 2009 8:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

what?

why not stick with a position that he has a chance at playing and not being as bad as duncan at? not like third is a position of strength relative to third

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 12, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

relative to left

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 12, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

xm 175 rumors yesterday

say the phils angels cards and forgot the other team are the most serious contenders…

phils might be offering doug dreybecks(sp)son.

offer from angels…how do you top this..LIL Weava, kendrick,wood. But to refer to brandon wood still as a prospect i dont thinks right.

no word on what STL would give…at least nothing contrary or new from other blubs..

I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2

by punchinjudy on Jul 14, 2009 8:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Calling bullshit on that Angels offer.

Two of those are basically already league-average position players with considerable upside, and one is a 3-4 win pitcher. No way in hell we should even be talking about the Cards and Blue Jays hooking up if this is the case. We can match that but we shouldn’t gut our farm to try.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 14, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Instead of Halladay, what do you all think it would take to get

Luke Scott from the O’s and Doug Davis from D-Backs?
Do you think we could keep both Wallace and DJ?

The poster formerly known as JoeyBombs.

by RasRoY on Jul 14, 2009 2:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Probably,

but I think we’d get stuck overpaying for Scott at this point. I’d rather pick up Kearns for basically his salary to come platoon in LF. Davis definitely wouldn’t cost us one of our top two, and probably not one of our top 10. Much of his performance this season is a mirage, but as a cheap replacement for Wellemeyer he could net us a win or two over the remainder of the season. It depends once again on whether the team wants us to pay for his 3.4 ERA or his 4.20 FIP and his 4.2 BB/9.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 14, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the idea of Davis

simply because Duncan seems to have a way of magically reducing the walk rates for veteran pitchers. I think if Davis brought his walks down he’d be a very effective pitcher because he has good stuff.

"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 Jul 14, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What is the max package

that you would be willing to give up for Holliday. With the lack of interest lately, his price has assuredly gone down and good ol’ Billy would probably settle for something closer to the 2 draft picks they would pick up. If we could package a deal without giving up either wallace or jones, it might be worth it. Especially with the $8M relative value of the comp picks.

by mopack on Jul 14, 2009 4:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Chris Duncan Rick Ankiel and Joe Thurston

The poster formerly known as JoeyBombs.

by RasRoY on Jul 14, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So, apparently you think that the guy who finished in the top five of AL cy voting

in each of the past three years is horrible?

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Jul 16, 2009 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure what Halladay has to do with Holliday

But I don’t see the A’s accepting that deal either.

"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 Jul 16, 2009 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah. Stupid similar last names.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Jul 16, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think his price has fallen just yet

Ask around the trade deadline, but I’d give up no more than a package of something like Craig and Jay to acquire Holliday, and that may even be too much.

Gallagher is better than any pitcher we have in our high minors right now, and they just sent him to San Diego to complete the Hairston deal, so I highly doubt they’re going to be interested in any of our 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 Jul 14, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What is the minimum package?

Obviously this is what every team asks themselves. My question is…do we have to give up Wallace? As mentioned he could be a very important part of our future…assuming he can play slightly below average defence.

Is it possible to give away our next greatest prospects. Could this package get Halladay?
Daryl Jones, Jess Todd, Pete Kozma, Mitchell Boggs, Clay Mortenson

This gives us the bat we need next year and a pitcher to propel us to and through the playoffs this year. Is it enough? If it is, IMO we should go shopping. This trade would allow us to retain what we need (big bat) and give up what we already have on the roster (starting pitching, SS, and OF).

by Schnurdog on Jul 16, 2009 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs