to a tee

by lboros on Dec 19, 2006 7:21 AM EST in St. Louis Cardinals News

a little followup on yesterday's looper post:

first, i sent an e-mail to david gassko, who wrote the Hardball Times article about julian tavarez's prospects as a starting pitcher. how about looper? i asked; here's his response:

I'd be extremely skeptical of Looper being able to make a transition to the starting rotation.

As a reliever, I would project his run average (ERA plus unearned runs) to be 4.09 next year, maybe a little higher because of aging (this is just a quick-and-dirty projection). Using the same method (well, slightly altered) I employed in the Jonathan Papelbon article, it seems to me that to make a successful switch Looper would have to post an RA below 5.30 (or a ERA below 4.80). According to "The Book," the average pitcher sees his RA go up about a run when he goes from relieving to starting, and if Looper could match that, it would probably be a good switch. However, there is a selection bias in The Book's research because guys who go between relieving and starting are generally used to both. Given that Looper has always been a reliever, I think he would experience a bigger learning curve than most, and thus his ERA would end up somewhere north of 5.00, making this a bad idea.

the looper stuff still has the whiff of idle off-season talk. about five years back, la russa spent all winter explaining that he was gonna have pujols switch positions with placido polanco --- make albert the regular 3d baseman and move polanco to left field. what he was really saying was, "i need more power production out of my 3d baseman." but when the games started, pujols was still in left and polanco was still at 3d --- until midseason, when the cards traded polanco and others for scott rolen. l'affaire de looper is likely a similar type of smoke signal, but if the intent (as has been speculated) is to increase the cards' leverage in trade negotiations by making the team seem less desperate, or to make looper seem more attractive as a trade chip . . . . . . well, there are some stupid gms out there, but this stupid?

i also heard yesterday from pzonehitter, who has sent me accurate information in the past. he relays the following:

Last weekend I had a chance to talk to Brad Penny. Asked him about the rumors that the Dodgers were shopping him and that one of the possibilities was the Cards. He said that he had just talked to his agent and in fact the Cards were one of the teams interested but was told that what the Cards had to offer didn't fit well with what the Dodgers would want. Penny is a life-long Cards fan and would love to come to the Cards. Also, at least 2 American League teams have inquired about the availability of Rolen. He's probably not going anywhere, but one of the teams was the Angels and they've got some pieces that would work for the Cards. No talk of trading Duncan anywhere. It's been really quiet, meaning that the Cards are satisfied with what they have unless somebody offers something special. Only time will tell.

it doesn't surprise me that the angels would inquire about rolen, given their aggressive pursuit of ramirez, tejada, and crede. i surmise that the "pieces that would work" include ervin santana and chone figgins, both of whom the angels have offered around. rolen-for-santana would be a bold gamble, but if it was going to happen it probably would've gone down earlier, when the free-agent field was still wide open and the cards could have applied the payroll savings toward the signing of an impact hitter to replace scotty (as fantasized here). if they were to pull the trigger at this point, the best hitter they could sign would be aubrey huff . . . . .

my SB Nation colleague jeff sackmann, who writes the brewers blog Brew Crew Ball, had an awesome idea last week about how the Nationals could fill out their thin rotation: "If Bowden fails to sign enough mediocre starting pitching, he can always just put a tee out at home plate." a batting tee, sackmann explains, would be expected to have a fielding-independent ERA of about 3.20 --- a run or more better than what eaton and meche and their ilk are likely to record. "Do you realize what a breakthrough this is?" sackmann concludes. "In a year with a lot of offense, a tee could win the Cy Young Award! Why trade for Jon Lieber when you could just buy a tee?"

hey, it's only slightly more off-the-wall than the looper initiative . . . .

Tweet Comment 87 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Brad Penny

Is a Cardinals fan? If we could just get a staff composed of Cards fans (Penny, Burnett, Burhle) we'd be set.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Dec 19, 2006 8:14 AM EST reply actions

yep

he's from Broken Arrow, which basically Tulsa...I lived there for 5 years, big time Cardinal country as Bob Carpenter used to say.

Go Crazy, Folks! & Future Redbirds

by erik on Dec 19, 2006 8:21 AM EST up reply actions

Trading Rolen....

really is an interesting idea. But i'm afraid that would just plug one hole while creating another. Yes, we'd get a young, cheap, #2 type starter. However, we'd be losing alot of offense. I still think i'd make that trade if I was WJ though. Santana, and then see if they'd thrown in Erick Aybar or Chone Figgins as well. Play for the future. Better to trade a player too early, then too late.

Miller sucks.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Dec 19, 2006 9:10 AM EST reply actions

trading rolen

A thought on trading Rolen: move Pujols to 3rd and install Duncan at first (his natural position). Duncan becomes more valuable as a power hitting 1B and Pujols was a solid 3B when allowed to man the position earlier in his career with the Cards. Duncan is not a long term solution in the OF. We'd need a young OF (together with pitching) in return for the package that lands Rolen.

by jjray on Dec 19, 2006 12:19 PM EST up reply actions

Defense a big problem

The problem is, Pujols is a very good first baseman, but rather lack luster everywhere else. Also currently Eck is able to cheat a little towards second because of Rolen's glove at third.

Then the bottom line on D is: at best Pujols becomes an average 3rd baseman, Eck is a step below average at short, Kennedy is average at second and Dunc is a step below at first.

Given a goundbally pitching staff, this is a problem.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 19, 2006 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

Kennedy is considered above average at second

by Valatan on Dec 19, 2006 12:50 PM EST up reply actions

You don't know how good pujols could be at 3rd...

Saying average at best is a ridiculous comment. Most people thought Pujols would be an average at best defensive first baseman, and yet he won the GG there this year. Pujols has a crazy work ethic and if he was a third baseman, he wouldn't rest until he was a gold glove caliber one at that.

Miller sucks.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Dec 19, 2006 1:52 PM EST up reply actions

Seems to me

that Pujols, if moved to 3B, next season would be a below average first baseman, average at best.

Could he be better? Of course. He has the athletic talent and the drive to pretty much be at least an average player anywhere on the diamond. But I don't think it's a good idea to keep moving this guy around.

Pujols is amazing, but there's only so much he can do. If he needs to focus on getting his defense up to his satisfaction at third, then that means less time devoted elsewhere, meaning, probably his hitting. There are only so many hours in the day and the guy's got a family besides.

Leave him at first. If we HAD to consider trading Rolen and wanted to use Duncan, make him a third baseman. At least we'd still have a gold glover at first.

by mtalken on Dec 19, 2006 2:14 PM EST up reply actions

Yes we do... we have seen him play there before.

Pujols is an average 3rd baseman at best.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 19, 2006 2:35 PM EST up reply actions

Pujols at 3td

>>Pujols is a very good first baseman, but rather lack luster everywhere else.<<

A contradictory argument. If Pujols is a GG caliber first baseman with a strong arm (which he possesses), there is no reason he cannot be a strong 3B. A corner infielder is a corner infielder. The difference is the throw and covering bunts. I liked what I saw of Pujols earlier in his career at 3B. His problem was with the glove which he is much better at now. Is there a risk that AP would not master the throws to 2B and 1B from third? Yeah, but I wouldn't bet against AP.

by jjray on Dec 19, 2006 4:17 PM EST up reply actions

Plantar Fasciitis

Pujols will spend the rest of his career at first base. Even if Rolen were to be traded away—which won't happen—there's no way Pujols would be moved away from first base. Pujols' foot condition would prevent him from making those kinds of pivots against all the right handed hitters all game long, all season long. We'd definitely demand Chone Figgins and Dallas McPherson and see whether either of them could break out at third, but it won't happen.

by liam on Dec 19, 2006 5:26 PM EST up reply actions

Pujols at 3B

This is exactly right. Pujols can't play 3rd because of the foot problem. Also remember that he had elbow problems when he played in left. Forget the idea of moving him to 3rd. I'm not opposed to trading Rolen, but Jocketty better get more value than, say, Mark Mulder.

Cards fan in Denver

by Futility Infielder on Dec 19, 2006 6:23 PM EST up reply actions

Why hasn't

Cliff Floyd been picked up? Is he garbage? Reason I say this is if we trade Rolen, would he be at least a offensive replacement? (Just looking through the MLB free agent tracker...)

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 19, 2006 9:21 AM EST reply actions

" Is he garbage? "

Yes.

AVG .244 | HR 11 | RBI 44

Plus, he's really injury prone.

by Big Red on Dec 19, 2006 10:07 AM EST up reply actions

Trading Rolen doesn't just lose a lot of offense

it loses a lot of defense as well.

The team has been sucessful with a core of strong players. Each of these has been rewarded with long-term contracts. The model has been to retain these and shuffle the other positions to find something that works. For whatever reason, they've always been able to do that. I think at this point, it's not only fantasy, it's insanity.

by Red in Chicago on Dec 19, 2006 9:28 AM EST reply actions

also, Rolen's contract...

Is a pretty solid bargin these days.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Dec 19, 2006 10:02 AM EST up reply actions

I might...

be on board with trading Rolen if we could sign Aubrey Huff.

He's supposedly pretty bad at third, but he'd probably put up something around 280/350/475 - admittedly a step down from Rolen. On the other hand he has done better in his career and could surprise, and he is on the right side of 30 (til tomorrow, sorry Aubrey).

He could be had for a 2 or 3 year deal most likely, then moved to right or left if a better third baseman comes along. The 2007 FA class for third is terrible, save for A-Rod, but maybe Jocketty could swing a trade.

Bottom line: Santana, Huff, and prospect (not Figgins, please) is better than Rolen, imo.

Acquire Jason Johnson!

by guayzimi on Dec 19, 2006 10:23 AM EST up reply actions

I agree

Miller sucks.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Dec 19, 2006 10:55 AM EST up reply actions

doesn't he have a no-trade clause?

by tdawg on Dec 19, 2006 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

Yes, but he can waive it...

and the Angels aren't a high pressure organization like the NY Teams, so I doubt Rolen would have any gripe about playing there. Plus with his and TLR's feud, he may want to leave.

Miller sucks.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Dec 19, 2006 10:56 AM EST up reply actions

He'd probably be pissed about having to

move away from his huge farm for 8 months out of the year.

and I'd be pissed if they traded him, too.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 19, 2006 11:40 AM EST up reply actions

Umm...

Count me out for the idea of trading away a perennial all-star 3rd baseman both offensively and defensively, and one of our three cornerstone players on the team for a potential #2 starter and a prospect.

Thinking outside the box is fine, but we've got Rolen locked up with a good contract, he pretty much solidifies the rest of the team's infield defense, and he is a crucial bat in our lineup. I, for one, clearly noticed how poorly the team did when he wasn't hitting. Personally, I thought Rolen deserved the WS MVP over Eck, although Eck was a fine 2nd choice.

Count me out of any talk of trading Rolen.

From my perspective, if Tony can't properly manage his 3rd baseman because of a lack of the necessary communication skills ("the feud"), then maybe we should get rid of Tony. I haven't looked them up, but I bet Rolen's win shares are arguably much higher than Tony's...

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Dec 19, 2006 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

looper

If I remember correctly Looper was the guy that TL and DD could not count on in the playoffs. It seemed as though each time he came in it was either in a non-significant role or he would blow it. Wainwright and Reyes I have no problems with, although I am not convinced they are the answers, but Looper is a bad deal in my mind. I do not trust him in the bullpen much less needing to count on him every five days. The rotation has a lot of questions right now after Carpenter. 2-5...Wells, Wainwright, Reyes and ??? does not scare anyone and could be a recipe for disaster...in my opinion.

by preacherboy on Dec 19, 2006 10:19 AM EST reply actions

Scary

Carpenter, Wells, Wainwright, Reyes and ???? scares ME and many other Cardinal fans...especially if that #5 turns out to be Looper.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Dec 19, 2006 10:37 AM EST up reply actions

Rolen will bust out this year

Year 2 after surgery. Just you wait. Nobody will be talking about trading him by June. I'm going to try to get him on my fantasy teams for cheap next year.

by silent_bob on Dec 19, 2006 10:19 AM EST reply actions

Yeah, I think he's gonna have a strong year

n/t

by sdrone on Dec 19, 2006 10:31 AM EST up reply actions

possibly looper too

I know everyone is down on him(which I don't understand), but Looper, as well as Rolen will both be entering season 2 after surgeries that are really more like 2 year recoveries.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see Rolen return to being a 30 HR/100 RBI guy and Looper post a mid-3 ERA.

by mtalken on Dec 19, 2006 2:24 PM EST up reply actions

His 2006 ERA was 3.56

by plh903 on Dec 19, 2006 8:56 PM EST up reply actions

And Rolen hit .296/.369/.518 last year

Hardly a disaster of a season.

by Valatan on Dec 19, 2006 9:27 PM EST up reply actions

Outbid again: Werth to Phillies

Today's Philadelphia Enquirer reports that Werth, in whom the Cardinals and Padres also had interest, has agreed to terms with the Phillies. The Cardinals have lost yet another player they targeted, but I am sure they and most of their fans will rest content in knowing that only they know his true worth (pun intended and irresistible). Who needs players that can help you win if you can keep the payroll down?
In response to an earlier poster, Cliff Floyd has been reported as close to signing with the Cubs. But why worry? We all know the Cubs are constitutionally precluded from overtaking the Cardinals.

by MikeG on Dec 19, 2006 10:35 AM EST reply actions

We needed Jason Werth?

n/t

by sdrone on Dec 19, 2006 11:20 AM EST up reply actions

Uh, no...

We didn't need Werth, but there were a couple of reasons to consider pickling him up cheap from the discard pile -- possible platoon partner, Cardinal heritage, etc.

Losing him doesn't hurt, getting him probably wouldn't have helped.

by madridbend on Dec 19, 2006 11:32 AM EST up reply actions

Need

It's apparently an article of faith in Redbird World that we never need anyone we don't already have or who will cost anything more than our own arbitrary notion of his economic value. So of course we don't need Werth or any other relatively young right-handed power bat to pinch hit and fill in in the outfield. We've already got Taguchi, even though he's 37 and has little power. We don't need more than 2 or 3 proven starting pitchers either. Miracle man Dave Duncan can always be counted to resurrect a few starters from the bullpen or the scrapheap. It even worked last year, so let's push our luck and save our money for next year, when the bloom will be off the rose and we will need it for sure. Next season we too can be the Cubs.

by MikeG on Dec 19, 2006 11:54 AM EST up reply actions

Werth is broken

He'll never put up a 750 OPS again, and even when he's healthy he has more holes in his swing than Encarnacion.

Yet another good job by walt of getting the competition to overbid on a low value commodity.

"...in winter, when there's no baseball... I stare out the window and wait for spring." -Rogers Hornsby

by SleepyCA on Dec 19, 2006 12:04 PM EST up reply actions

Walt's genius

truly knows no bounds!

by MikeG on Dec 19, 2006 12:14 PM EST up reply actions

huh...

Walt's track record speaks for itself. Do we have holes, yes, especially in the starting rotation. But, besides Zito and maybe Schmidt; the pitchers signed so far are not #2 starters; and it's obvious that Suppan and Weaver are going to wait until Zito gets his crazy money.

As to Werth, having watched him play Little League and H.S. ball, he is (was) a heads up and good player. But the two surgeries he has had on his wrist, and the fact that he is just now trying to swing the bat, makes him a risk, especially if you are planning on him being that platoon player in the outfield.

Compared to most of the other G.M.'s, Walt is a genius. So lighten up, and be glad you're not in Philly, Chicago, Pittsburg, Tampa Bay..........

go crazy folks..........

by wwbd on Dec 19, 2006 2:45 PM EST up reply actions

"we too can be the cubs"

do you mean we too can overspend to become an offensive juggernaut while neglecting our rotation, thus virtually assuring a 20-19 loss sometime in the next few years? well, maybe, but we'll need to find an impact bat...

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Dec 19, 2006 12:17 PM EST up reply actions

I think we are guilty

of neglecting our rotation up to this point. I know, I know, we are spending OUR money wisely while everyone else is just throwing thiers away, but it's not really fair to say the Cubs have blown it when we really aren't in any better position right now. We still have a vacancy to fill, and don't forget Looper is mentioned to be filling it.

"Forget about the curveball Ricky...Give him the heater!!"

by BleacherBum on Dec 19, 2006 1:15 PM EST up reply actions

oh, I wasn't saying

that we're in great rotation shape at this point, and i think we've let some opportunities slip through our fingers. we've also been utilized as a ghost bidder by some free agents we were actually taking a shot at, but that's neither here nor there. i'm only pointing out that the cardinals, with money to spend but no one to spend it on are likely in better shape than the cubs with their huge commitments to offence keeping them from making any real moves for legitimate pitching.

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Dec 19, 2006 2:00 PM EST up reply actions

Didn't need him

but for a million bucks, the risk would have been negligible. He's got some pop and can take a walk, too. He's a big kid but moves well in the outfield, too.

It's too bad. It would have been cool to see him get to play close to home.

Sign Kurt Kepshire! The 26th Man

by 26thMan on Dec 19, 2006 7:39 PM EST up reply actions

It's worth a try

It seems to me that Looper's problem as a pitcher is that he only has 1 above average pitch...his mid-90s fastball. His slider is hard but mainly just spins without much break. His splitter is also mediocre because it doesn't move much either. Looper was most effective when he was able to bust the fastball inside. The breaking stuff then had a fighting chance to get a hitter off stride. Over the course of 5 innings, he would seem to be very suceptible to lost velocity. Without the invention of better off-speed pitches, it's going to be batting practice the second time through the order. However, we don't have anything to lose with Looper. He is a spare part in the bullpen that can easily be replaced. Maybe he can start using some pinetar to get a better grip on that slider!

by lefty fan on Dec 19, 2006 10:36 AM EST reply actions

Why not a four man rotation?

It has been shown to not really increase injuries, and it's not like the organization is overflowing with MLB-ready talent. There's an excess of bullpen arms...

Why not give a four man rotation a try?

by Valatan on Dec 19, 2006 10:43 AM EST reply actions

not a bad idea.....

....considering the way tlr likes to use his bullpen.

by busch league on Dec 19, 2006 10:51 AM EST up reply actions

What is amazing is...

...that guys like BP have been saying that there is no reason not to have a four man staff and it's everyone else that says pitchers need the time off...but then the same people complain that these same pitchers don't throw enough complete games.

I don't get it.

by Harknights on Dec 19, 2006 11:05 AM EST up reply actions

I normally agree

with BP stuff, but it does seem like a four man rotation is a bad idea. look at how obviously tired carpenter got at the end of last season; an extra day of rest changed him from an average pitcher to the best pitcher in the league

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on Dec 19, 2006 11:21 AM EST up reply actions

Well, it also has to do with his pitch count....

...if we went to a 4 man rotation, the likelihood would be that he would have a solid cap at around 100 pitches.

Likewise, if they used the calender to their advantage, they could throw a spot starter in when Carp wouldn't get the extra day to push him back one.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 19, 2006 11:42 AM EST up reply actions

And they have Narveson

If it makes sense for any team to try a four man rotation, the 2007 Cardinals are that team.

by Valatan on Dec 19, 2006 11:56 AM EST up reply actions

Four man rotation

Let's see...we have two young pitchers that have never thrown more than 200 innings in a season, one stud pitcher with possible fatigue issues and a history of injury, and the fourth we have no idea whether to expect league average stuff or total disaster. Good idea.

All my friends became Cardinal fans and grew up happy and liberal. I became a Cub fan and grew up imbittered and conservative." -- George Will

by wannabeGedman on Dec 19, 2006 12:42 PM EST up reply actions

High pitch counts are what wear pitchers down

not large numbers of IP. Keep everyone on a strict 100 pitch count, perhaps even ninety or eighty for Reyes and Wainwright. You have an extra bullpen guy to pick up the slack, and you have a couple of marginal guys in aAA that you can call up for a spot start or two.

by Valatan on Dec 19, 2006 12:49 PM EST up reply actions

There isn't anything

that shows a pitcer making more than 32 starts in a year will have a higher chance on getting hurt. It's a pitcher throwing more than 100 pitches (or whichever number you pick) that hurts them. If frequency was a problem relievers would be dropping like flys. If we are only going to see Reyes for 6 innings a game why not 40 games instead of 32 games?

by Harknights on Dec 19, 2006 1:40 PM EST up reply actions

Non-sense...

I think there are plenty of FAs and scrap heapers out there who could be fill a #5 spot. Oh yeah, give Narvie his shot.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 19, 2006 12:51 PM EST up reply actions

Pitchers throw on off days anyways...

they have their side workouts on days they don't pitch, which isn't the same as throwing an actual game, but still puts wear and tear on the arm.

I'm not advocating a 4 man rotation, but it is very doable.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 19, 2006 1:55 PM EST up reply actions

with Reyes and Wainwright?

If we had the rotation of a few years ago with veterans like Carpenter, Morris and Williams, I'd be all for it.

I'm not sure taking away a day of rest from young guys like Reyes and Wainwright is really a positive in the long-term plans of the organization.

by mtalken on Dec 19, 2006 2:27 PM EST up reply actions

looper in the rotation

i just think this is a monumentally bad idea. i'm having a hard time believing walt, dunc and tlr are seriously considering this. it's like some cosmic joke or something. this guy isn't even a good reliever and now we want him to start? if he was capable of doing that, then he would have started a long time ago.

i don't know what to make of this whole thing. i refuse to believe that this is a viable option. is it a recruiting thing? is it walt/tlr's way of telling potential fa's that we don't really need them as bad as they think we do? is it a marketing ploy....confusing the masses, trying to keep us calm when it looks like they have failed to sign every fa sp that they've went after? i just don't know. they have accomplished their goal with me, i think. i'm thoroughly confused.

but alas, i'm still drunk on the world series kool-aid. so i haven't really complained too much. however, mark my words...YOU WILL HEAR MY WRATH IF WE GO INTO SPRING TRAINING WITH THE LOOPER EXPERIMENT. it's inconceivable to me that the st. louis cardinals, fresh off their world series title, can't come up with a god damned 5th starter. like i said though...i'm still drunk on the kool-aid so i'll digress. i'll just assume that walt & co. have something up their sleeve that will shock (and awe) us all.

god help them if they don't.

peace.

by busch league on Dec 19, 2006 11:02 AM EST reply actions

I don't think

there really is any "feud." That's just made-for-TV nonsense.

Re: Four man rotations. Remember how much better Carp was on six days' rest instead of five? Imagine how much worse he would be on four instead of five. If Bob Gibson was one of the four, you could do it. But with today's pampered pitchers I don't think so.

by Red in Chicago on Dec 19, 2006 11:02 AM EST reply actions

four man rotations

Gibby was an iron man who thrived on a workload that now seems inconceivable, but Carp needs his rest. Four man rotation is more like a Dusty Baker idea than a LaRussa idea.

by madridbend on Dec 19, 2006 11:43 AM EST up reply actions

It wasn't just the 1968 Cardinals

it was every team until the mid-seventies. I have trouble believing that pitchers are so inherently different today when contrasted with pitchers thirty years ago that this idea is inherently impossible.

by Valatan on Dec 19, 2006 11:58 AM EST up reply actions

without looking up the stats

I'm guessing part of it had to do with it being the era of pitchers/higher mound. Once the mound changed, pitchers lost a lot of their inherent advantages over hitters, meaning they had to try harder more often. That kind of fatigue needs more time to recover in order to have the same kind of effectiveness. Gibson was not only amazing, but he didn't have to try as hard in order to be successful.

by jimstllax on Dec 19, 2006 12:29 PM EST up reply actions

The higher slope

also puts less pressure on your arm. Try throwing an overhand curve from a flat surface sometime. It would be interesting to see how many pitches per start pitchers average today versus 30-40 years ago. My guess is that the numbers would be similar. The difference now is that 100 pitches only gets you through 6-7 innings.

by lefty fan on Dec 19, 2006 1:33 PM EST up reply actions

Former Cardninal Castoffs

I got it, trade Rolen for Santana and some guy (good SP prospect?) then fill in our holes with former Cardinals David Bell and Kerry Robinson! Okay Okay maybe not, but I like the whole trading Rolen though. Here's a question, if you could swing a huge deal to get say 5 dynamite starting pitchers for Pujols, would you do it? I think for me it would take
Zambrano
Oswalt
Zito
Webb
Willis
Or something like that. I probably still couldn't pull the trigger though...

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 19, 2006 11:26 AM EST reply actions

Weird analogy, but hear me out

[Oh my gosh! A weird analogy - from Solanus? What a shocker!]

A lot of people have been complaining that a league-average pitcher like Suppan is going for >$10M on the open market and that he is way too expensive for that price. A lot of people have also surmised that he would be easily replaceable by a bargain-bin offering or one of our overhyped/underskilled minor leaguers. While it is wishful thinking that we could get lucky quickly and find a gem within our bag of rocks, it is more likely that we'll end up with a handful of shale. (Or that we'd find the (probably flawed) jewel only after digging all season.)

The analogy is a comparison to computer role-playing games. I've been playing for years & the one constant is that the trade system usually involves some given value for an item, the cut-rate price at which you can sell it, & the 300% markup for you to buy it. You know that you have to get through an area that has pretty tough enemies & the best way to do that is to get the Steel Sword of Ass-Kicking +1.

The going price is 3000 gold pieces; you have the money, but you're naturally a miser & don't want to fork out the cash for something that's not that much better than what you already have.
It's not even the best sword available; the Platinum Battleblade of Whoopass +7 is amazing, but there's no way you can afford it. (Plus, there will be no way that you could afford all those charcter improvements you'll need over the next few levels, leaving you effectively screwed.)
You could try to get by without it, but it will be very difficult & you'll probably spend more time looking at loading screens after you die than actually playing the game.

There are only two ways around it: find a comparable weapon (either lying around or by defeating a worthy foe) or make it yourself. Those require, respectively, pure luck, a little luck combined with great skill, or skill to produce it on your own.

Comparing that to the Jeff Suppan situation is that he is the known quantity, that we know will help us get to where we want to be. Yeah, he's not that great, but he's defintely cheaper than the best option on the market. And because you're buying him on the open market, you're going to be taken advantage of.
But Walt & Co. don't want to spend their money foolishly; they want to have some left in reserve when they really need it. So they look at their options: hope we can find a reclamation project on the cheap & get lucky, swindle some GM that doesn't realize what he has, or produce a prospect out of our minor league system.
There's no guarantee that any of those avenues will generate anything of worth.

Sometimes it's just worth it to spend a little more money than you were comfortable with to ensure that you complete the mission successfully. Otherwise, you end up flat on the ground, with your sword handle and not much else in your cold dead hands.

Oh, the burden of stupid people.

by Solanus on Dec 19, 2006 11:36 AM EST reply actions

wow

by effin fisk on Dec 19, 2006 11:43 AM EST up reply actions

you know that

if only walt jocketty were a warcraft master...all the cardinals problems would disappear. I'll bet that WJ and Dewitt both go online and conquer the world of warcraft together.

by jose smokeindo on Dec 19, 2006 11:50 AM EST up reply actions

Yup,

Wow.

by jomfa on Dec 19, 2006 12:05 PM EST up reply actions

You laugh,

but increasingly economists are turning to "virtual worlds" to test models and theories. Solanus point is valid, but perhaps confusing.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 19, 2006 12:54 PM EST up reply actions

True, but...

True, but I just hope 2007 doesn't bring about the Cardinals version of the SWG NGE...

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Dec 19, 2006 2:13 PM EST up reply actions

oi

I used to play that game

by Birds on the Matt on Dec 19, 2006 4:03 PM EST up reply actions

Brilliant

Wow is right. I love it. Much better than the car analogy. Is there any way we can get this information in Walt's hands?

by age3in82 on Dec 19, 2006 5:18 PM EST up reply actions

OMG

SWG. Ugh.

<Simpsons_ComicBookGuy>

"Worst...Game...EVAR!"

</Simpsons_ComicBookGuy>

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Dec 19, 2006 5:17 PM EST up reply actions

Eh.

It's still fun. Just WAY too many teenage punks who can't spell to save their lives. I think they talk a lot of smack but I can't understand what they're saying.

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Dec 19, 2006 5:52 PM EST up reply actions

Not bad

It is a bit obscure, but this I think echoes my posts yesterday. I'm fine with the Cards getting a comparable weapon if they can get it cheaper. But that begs two questions:

Who are these weapons?
Are they as dependable as Soup?

I don't think Soup is outstanding. But he is consistent and the currently constituted rotation could use some consistency. We have Carp and three guys that you don't know what you're going to get. I think adding Soup, even at today's inflated prices, makes a lot of sense.

I wouldn't be upset with Weaver or Redman either. I just think if you have to overpay a bit, the least risky of the three is Soup.
If you can get Weaver cheaper, then I am all for that.

by OCCardsFan on Dec 19, 2006 1:26 PM EST up reply actions

Plus we have

the magic effect Duncan Dexterity +2. (Okay this is better than the car analogy.) The more I've thought about this, the more it makes sense for us. I think we should sign one of our "in-house" free agents. I think we would be fine till the trade deadline without one of them, but the #2 type pitchers might not be there. So is it better to wait an upgrade big, or sign now and be set, but not as dominant? This last year has really "screwed the pooch" on typical outcomes. Who'd a thunk we would win with our rotation? Nobody but us. (We might be biased) I'm still not sold on Suppan though, I think Weaver could do really well here. I also think Mulder has the biggest upside if he can return to pre-2004 form. It's just hard to predict what Weave and Mulder will do that Suppan seems like the obvious choice, but he also could be the worst choice if Weave or Mulder do well. (I hope that made sense.)

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 19, 2006 1:48 PM EST up reply actions

Why not Zito?

Hear me out. I know he wants east coast/west coast, etc. However, the Mets aren't going to give him what he wants right away from the sounds of it. Why not just get on the horn, offer Zito exactly what he wants, and get it done. Even at 6/$100 million.
If you need more convincing that he is worth it, just check out this stat I came across from si.com
"
Zito has never been on the disabled list and has thrown at least 213 innings in each of his six full seasons, a period that saw only Mark Buerhle and Livan Hernandez throw more total innings. During his career, Zito has won an astounding 95.5 percent of the games in which Oakland scored at least four runs for him and was 15-0 last year in such games for the light-hitting A's (and 16-0 when they scored three or more runs)."

"Baseball is the only field of endeavor where a man can succeed three times out of ten and be considered a good performer." - Ted Williams

by WiscCard on Dec 19, 2006 6:41 PM EST up reply actions

maybe

why offer a four year 80mil, with an option on year 5. Yes, it's alot. But the way the market is headed, we may be close to these numbers in a year or two. Zito should be a legit complement to Carp, and would give us two #1 starters.

go crazy folks..........

by wwbd on Dec 19, 2006 9:08 PM EST up reply actions

oops..

why not offer 80 mil...............

go crazy folks..........

by wwbd on Dec 19, 2006 9:09 PM EST up reply actions

Because

Zito isn't really an ace, and while I would take him for $20 million next year, it would be really foolish to mortgage 20% of the payroll for a Barry Zito in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Mark Buehrle has been a better pitcher over the last six years by in many ways, including durability. Zito has that fancy trophy and the Boras spin machine.

I am not so high on Beuhrle right now considering his disaster of a second half last year, but just to compare Zito to someone we could maybe get within a year, for a much cheaper cost.

Buehrle's ERA+'s 140, 129, 108, 126, 143, 93
Zito's ERA+'s 125, 169, 129, 105, 116, 116

Buerle: 1375 IP
Zito: 1336 IP

(in case you couldn't tell, I read that Rob Neyer piece this morning, and thought it was very good)

How about a best-case scenario rotation in 2008 where Buehrle returns to form somewhat, Wainwright and Reyes come into their own, and you have a developing Hawksworth?

Carpenter
Buehrle (insert whatever SP2 you think could be obtained)
Reyes
Wainwright
Hawksworth

Could, and I certainly mean that with no certainty, be flat-out dominating. This is my humble dream, and all the while I think we can be competitive in the lowly NL Central in 2007.

Just say No to Suppan at 4/40.

by plh903 on Dec 19, 2006 10:02 PM EST up reply actions

Don't worry

As long as Pujols has his +5 Great Club of Greater Lidge Bane we should be fine.... Now if we could just get Yadi some Boots of Speed....

by moochavelli on Dec 19, 2006 5:23 PM EST up reply actions

My thoughts on Looper...

I was scared enough when we put him in for 1 inning's work... Smoke screen or no smoke screen...we're talking now 5-6 innings?! That's a joke.

by jose smokeindo on Dec 19, 2006 11:38 AM EST reply actions

I believe it was the '67 WS

when Gibson started (and won) three games, pitched in relief in a fourth, and pinch-batted.

If a manager tried to do that today, they'd arrest him for cruel and unusual punishment.

by Red in Chicago on Dec 19, 2006 11:54 AM EST reply actions

I don't think the pitchers

are physically that much different. Certainly their training and preparation are better. But I would guess when the mound was higher the pitch counts would have been lower, thus allowing them to start more games. Wonder if there is data on this somewhere...

by Red in Chicago on Dec 19, 2006 12:29 PM EST reply actions

No but batters are

different. They are bigger, stronger and faster. Also the strike zone is smaller.

Biology limits what a pitcher can do with a ball, so with the exception of a few new "trick" pitches (screw balls in the 30s, split fingered fastballs in the 70s and 80s, gyroballs in the 2000s?) pitching has been relatively constant since the mid 1890s. The fastest pitchers top out at the mid to high 90s and the best throw in the 80s to low 90s with pinpoint control.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 19, 2006 1:01 PM EST up reply actions

Pitching is harder these days?

There is some circumstantial evidence in this article:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2008

Notice that, although they use the statistic of BB+K to make their point, almost all the increase is in K. (Not that I have any further point to make based on that.)

Surely there's a site around somewhere where data on every pitch in some given historic games (at least WS games?) is available, just to compare pitch counts. It would again be circumstantial, but it'd be interesting to see how many of Gibby's at-bats ended on an 0-2 count instead of 2-2 or etc.

I suppose that weightlifting and the like is more encouraged for batters today, making HRs, doubles off the wall, etc. more likely. And we all know about:

"It's another 'roid rage shot into Big Mac Land!"

I haven't been to the new park yet...tell me they let Big Mac Land die a natural death...

by lordsummer on Dec 19, 2006 1:15 PM EST up reply actions

Observation

I've often wondered (without any empirical support) if pitchers tend to be more fragile these days b/c of the increased emphasis on weight lifting even at a young age. I think many old school pitchers grew up throwing all the time and throwing long toss a lot. I don't think any weight lifting can actually stregthen the arm in the way that throwing does.

Also young athletes today divide their time among many sports and other activities (like video games etc). Whereas old timers often tell about playing ball all day every day in the summer...

Surely much of this is anecdotal and given to exaggeration, but I think there could be something to it overall, that pitchers are not well-conditioned to throw a lot of pitches. They may be in "great shape" overall, but not necessarily prepared for a long career of throwing lots of pitches.

by OCCardsFan on Dec 19, 2006 1:22 PM EST up reply actions

but any pitcher used by

dusty baker would disagree that throwing every day alot helps...jk i know thats totally different than your point but i had to.

Kenny is a "dirt" bag?

by punchinjudy on Dec 19, 2006 1:47 PM EST up reply actions

Eckstein

I know that we all pretty much know Eck's story by now, but for a reminder check out this at SI.

Man what a breath of fresh air he is in this world of professional sports. He is giving the car he won for the WS MVP to his brother. I'm glad the cardinals have this guy (even though I still long for more production at SS).

by OCCardsFan on Dec 19, 2006 2:00 PM EST reply actions