weekend discussion thread

by lboros on Oct 28, 2005 4:12 PM EDT in St. Louis Cardinals News

let's say you could hit the rewind button on the 2005 season, spool it back to any point after the last out of the 2004 season, and change one decision the cardinals made. what would you change and why?

it has to be a decision that falls within human control. you can't say i'd wind it back and make larry walker's neck healthy, but you can say i would have benched walker in favor of john rodriguez in the nlcs. you can't say i'd eliminate al reyes' elbow injury; but you can say i would've replaced al reyes with anthony reyes on the postseason roster.

i don't care how broad or specific your decision-point is. you might say: i'd wind it back and not pull the trigger on the mulder trade. or you might say: i'd wind it back to the 9th inning of game 4 of the nlcs, pinch-hit nunez for mabry, and put on the squeeze.

whatever you choose, it should be something you think might have increased the cardinals' odds of reaching and winning the world series.

have a great weekend.

Tweet Comment 34 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

signed

a free agent OF Jermaine Dye. Those kind of guys usually balance out a team way, way better than one packed with older, defined superstars, i.e. one reason why Brian Giles may not be the answer to the Cards' problem.

Cardinals Diaspora

by Ryan Van Bibber on Oct 28, 2005 4:58 PM EDT reply actions

Undo the Mulder deal

I actually grew to like Mulder -- he had a great second half, pitched two fine games (out of three) in the postseason, and he even seemed to settle into the St. Louis community (early in the season he apparently missed the bachelor-party atmosphere of the A's clubhouse).

That said, Danny Haren's season was virtually indistinguishable from Mulder's, except he played against better offenses, was slightly more durable, was younger, and cheaper. So with Haren I see no dropoff in our starting pitching; I see a bump in our bullpen (with Calero rather than Tavarez the main righthanded option out of the pen in the postseason); and I see an extra $5.25 million in salary to spend howeve we wish, either on a backup for Walker or an upgrade at the trading deadline. Plus we get to hold onto Daric Barton, who might be able to start in the OF as soon as '06 or '07.

Would this have made a difference in '05? I don't know. But it's still the move I'd undo first.

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Oct 28, 2005 8:39 PM EDT reply actions

And tonight's starting pitcher ... Jason Marquis

Given the luxury of 20/20 hindsight, I'd put Marquis in the postseason rotation and remove Morris. Matty did fine against the Padres but broke down in game 3 of the NLCS. Marquis had been pitching very well in the final weeks of the regular season. Certainly not a crazy decision by TLR to go with Morris. But if Marquis gives us 7 IP, 2 ER in game 3, we probably win the game and maybe the series. (While I'm dreaming, maybe he'd even have ended the season as a happy camper poised for an all-star '06 rather than the team's leading malcontent not named Ray King.)

By the way, Brian, in terms of the big picture, I agree with you. You've helped convince me that the Mulder trade may well end up being Jocketty's biggest mistake. But since lboros specifically asked about the '05 World Series, not the '07 or '08 one, Marquis is my guy.

DCGreg

by DCGreg on Oct 28, 2005 10:37 PM EDT reply actions

Mulder alone

is not the reason this team failed to get farther than it did, so I'm loathe to say the trade was a mistake. In fact, there is no one thing that I can come up with that would've made THE difference in this past season.

by cardsrul on Oct 28, 2005 11:28 PM EDT reply actions

Nice point

In general I agree with this. The biggest single mistake the Cardinals made all year is our failure to jump on Brandon Backe in Game 4 when we were getting a good game from Jeff Soupcan. Backe's performance against the White Sox (and his performance against us in Game 5 of last year's NLCS) makes our lack of execution more understandable -- it's possible, after all, that Backe just steps up in the postseason.

Nonetheless, that game, more than any other, typifies our postseason woes. So who's to blame? La Russa? (Read below for salvo's great shred job.) Edmonds and Walker? Our bullpen? Jocketty? Lady Luck?

I honestly don't know. But I do know that our inability to win games like that helps explain our 23-year-long title drought.

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Oct 29, 2005 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Undo Brian's Retirement

With all due respect to your great blog LB, I'd give Redbirdnation life for another year...

Okay, really I'd undo the Mulder deal. I think Haren would have become the #2 starter on this team. Here are the comps.

Haren Mulder
Year    2005    2005
Ag    24    27
Tm    OAK    STL
Lg    AL    NL
W    14    16
L    12    8
G    34    32
GS    34    32
CG    3    3
SHO    0    2
GF    0    0
SV    0    0
IP    217    205
H    212    212
R    101    90
ER    90    83
HR    26    19
BB    53    70
SO    163    111
HBP    6    9
WP    6    9
BFP    897    868
ERA    3.73    3.64
*lgERA    4.49    4.27
*ERA+    120    117

And I think there is a key difference between Mulder and Haren, Look at the SOs (163 to 111).

by Zubin on Oct 29, 2005 12:04 AM EDT reply actions

Why thanks, Zubin.

Redbird Nation was fun, but VEB more than fills the void left by its absence.

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Oct 29, 2005 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Redbird Nation

Interestingly enough I had this same conversation with someone at my gym (in Thousand Oaks, CA) who knew about Redbird Nation and apparantly knows you.

When I told him that you retired, he asked who picked up the ball. I told him Larry Boros and Viva El Birdos.

by Zubin on Oct 29, 2005 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions

I would

Sit Rolen against the Dodgers.

by bellyscratcher on Oct 29, 2005 12:35 AM EDT reply actions

Mulder vs Haren.

Okay, I was mistaken... there is another significant difference between Mulder and Haren. Check out BAA and OBP.

RK    76    25
PLAYER    Mulder    Haren
TEAM    StL    Oak
TB    318    338
2B    47    40
3B    1    4
HR    19    26
RBI    84    90
IBB    1    5
SB    2    19
CS    8    5
CS%    0.80    0.21
BAA    0.273    0.255
OBP    0.339    0.303
SLG    0.410    0.407
OPS    0.749    0.710

by Zubin on Oct 29, 2005 12:47 AM EDT reply actions

That BAA and OBP against

..of Mulder's is even worse than it looks because he's facing a pitcher instead of a DH.

And it's not just Haren's edge in Ks that's so huge, but the overall ratio of K/BB: Haren's better than 3-to-1, while Mulder's about half that.

I could see Haren becoming a 200-strikeout guy, which is real nice to have going into a postseason.

by salvomania on Oct 29, 2005 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions

Larry Walker

I would've scheduled his cortisone shot for the last weekend of the season. Have him sit Friday and Saturday, and play Sunday for the first time after the shot.

All we needed against Houston were a few clutch hits - we had the baserunners, but couldn't drive them in. Larry had a consistent postseason last year - even in the World Series. This year he was just too dinged up to make that difference. But, oh, remember the last week or two weeks of the regular season...

by STLEdge on Oct 29, 2005 12:53 AM EDT reply actions

Letting Steve Kline get away

He didn't have a great season in Baltimore, but I would have rather had him than Ray King.

Also, letting the Astros beat us twice in the last week. Win one of those and they'd have had to play a one-game playoff against the Phils; win 'em both and they wouldn't have made the postseason.

by Mad Lithuanian on Oct 29, 2005 10:41 AM EDT reply actions

Not canning TLR...

...and enduring another year of micromanaging, obssessive-compulsive, dugout-stalking, tension-inducing, psychological warring that sucks the life and joy out of the game and turns a team into grim robots resigned to their role as pawns in the Genius's misguided machinations only to crack from the strain and mental exhaustion when the stakes are highest.

by salvomania on Oct 29, 2005 10:51 AM EDT reply actions

salvo that was

pure poetry

by lboros on Oct 29, 2005 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Haren

Salvo, I completely agree.

I really think Haren has a good shot to become a great pitcher with 200Ks and a sub .230 BAA... I think Mulder will be good for some time, but never great.

by Zubin on Oct 29, 2005 2:00 PM EDT reply actions

Haren, in 2005

in his first full season in the bigs, at age 24, finished in the Top 10 in the AL in: starts; complete games; innings pitched; strikeouts; and K-to-BB ratio, and bettered Mulder in each category.

I think it's safe to imagine that Haren will contimue to improve. That said, some of his 2005 numbers (H/9; K/9; K/BB) are very similar to what Mulder put up in his age-24 season with the A's, and Mulder has seen those numbers get progressively worse over the past three years.

So there's no sure thing, especially when it comes to pitching, which is, we all know, why Walt made the deal in the first place: Mulder had a track record and Haren didn't, and the Birds were in a "win-now" mode that didn't seem to allow the luxury of a gamble on Haren's maturation.

Many of us thought then, though, that it wasn't much of a gamble, and considered Mulder to be, in many ways, just as much (if not more) of a gamble.

by salvomania on Oct 29, 2005 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions

The Thing About Mulder

Imagine your Walt Jocketty in October of 2004 and the Ghost of Playoffs Future shows up at your door. He tells you in Games 2 and 6 of the 2005 NLCS you'll face Roy Oswalt and you'll only score one run each game. Your ace will pitch in Games 1 and 5 and win both, but you'll lose Games 3 and 4. He taunts you, "What do you, Jock? What do you?"

It turns out Mulder wasn't much, if any, of an upgrade on Haren, but last offseason he looked to be close to the absolute best pitcher the Cardinals could've had in that situation. Maybe they should've gone after Tim Hudson or maybe they should've figured this would be the one-year-in-three when Kevin Millwood decides he's going to be really good. From a GM's standpoint, the Cardinals did almost everything they could do to win Games 2 and 6, and they even had the right guy there. It just wasn't enough.

So I give a special exemption to the Mulder trade. If I had one move to do over, I don't re-sign Morris. You can't trust Tony LaRussa with Matt Morris, and vice-versa. I sign Scott Erickson as the #5 starter (allowing Rolen to start against the Dodgers) as a holdover until I can bring up Anthony Reyes in June or July. Not that I think Reyes is that good, but he seems to be the one guy in the org aside from Carpenter with the arm capable of going Josh Beckett or Steve Avery for a couple of weeks.

by Rob H on Oct 29, 2005 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Mulder, Morris, Suppan and Marquis

Here are stats for each in 2004:

Name    Marquis    Morris    Mulder    Suppan
Year    2004    2004    2004    2004
Ag    25    29    26    29
Tm    STL    STL    OAK    STL
Lg    NL    NL    AL    NL
W    15    15    17    16
L    7    10    8    9
G    32    32    33    31
GS    32    32    33    31
CG    0    3    5    0
SHO    0    2    1    0
GF    0    0    0    0
SV    0    0    0    0
IP    201.3    202    225.7    188
H    215    205    223    192
R    90    116    119    98
ER    83    106    111    87
HR    26    35    25    25
BB    70    56    83    65
SO    138    131    140    110
HBP    10    6    12    8
WP    6    3    10    4
BFP    874    850    952    811
ERA    3.71    4.72    4.43    4.16
*lgERA    4.18    4.18    4.68    4.18
*ERA+    113    89    106    100
TB    337    352    352    310
2B    36    38    48    41
3B    4    2    3    1
HR    26    35    25    25
RBI    82    112    108    85
IBB    1    3    1    1
SB    7    11    14    11
CS    4    3    13    3
CS%    0.360    0.210    0.480    0.210
BAA    0.275    0.266    0.264    0.265
OBP    0.339    0.319    0.337    0.330
SLG    0.430    0.457    0.417    0.428
OPS    0.770    0.776    0.754    0.758

I recall Brian commenting why would Walt give up the farm for Matt Morris' twin Brother. In retrospect he could have been Jeff Suppan's twin too. No, I take that back. Suppan is a gammer. (Despite his base running folly in the '04 WS.)

by Zubin on Oct 30, 2005 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions

The final stipulation

in the thread was that it be something that would have improved the Cardinals' chances of reaching and winning the World Series...it did not specify which World Series.

Not only would not making the deal have slightly improved our chances this year, given Haren's success and the value of having Calero around, it would have vastly improved our chances in the coming years.

by Nate811 on Oct 29, 2005 3:45 PM EDT reply actions

you're right

On further review, I see that lboros didn't say the 05 series. I just assumed it. With that in mind, then I most fervently wish Jock hadn't pulled the trigger on the Mulder deal.

DCGreg

by DCGreg on Oct 30, 2005 1:56 PM EST up reply actions

I have a question...

did everyone expect Mulder to come in and go 30-0, with 300 K's? Given his experience, and Haren's lack of it, I would still have pulled off the trade. But then again, I'm not the GM, nor are any of you. None of you can say, with certainty, that Haren would have done the same in St. Louis as he did in Oakland. I know I can't.

by cardsrul on Oct 30, 2005 2:40 PM EST up reply actions

Mulder & Haren

cardsrul:

Anything we choose we don't know really know the outcome with perfect certainty...

The point about Mulder is that he wasn't a spectacular pitcher to begin with. His 2004 stats aren't that much different from Morris, Suppan or Marquis. At the time the trade was made most everyone thought Jock gave up way too much and this season seems to have proven it.

Who knows, the trade may still work out for in the Crads favor. Haren could go belly up (not that I wish that upon him) and Mulder could become a perenial 15-20 win guy. I wouldn't could on either tho.

by Zubin on Oct 30, 2005 3:47 PM EST up reply actions

Yes, But

Mulder was an excellent pitcher prior to 2004. In light of what he did in 2004, it was a very high-risk, high-reward maneuever, which is what contending teams should be doing.

The field move I make is I pull Kyle Farnsworth after he loaded the bases.

by Rob H on Oct 30, 2005 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

2003 Stats for Mulder, Morris and Suppan

I wouldn't exactly call Mulder excellent prior to 2004. Again check out the comps.

Name    Mulder    Morris    Suppan
Year    2003    2003    2003
Ag    25    28    28
Tm    OAK    STL    BOS+PIT
Lg    AL    NL    --
W    15    11    13
L    9    8    11
G    26    27    32
GS    26    27    31
CG    9    5    3
SHO    2    3    2
GF    0    0    0
SV    0    0    0
IP    186.7    172.3    204
H    180    164    217
R    66    76    98
ER    65    72    95
HR    15    20    23
BB    40    39    51
SO    128    120    110
HBP    2    4    8
WP    7    3    7
BFP    747    703    873
ERA    3.13    3.76    4.19
*lgERA    4.26    4.16    4.39
*ERA+    136    111    105
BAA    0.259    0.252    0.272

by Zubin on Oct 30, 2005 7:11 PM EST up reply actions

ERA+

There's a pretty big difference between a 136 ERA+ and a 105. As measured by ERA+, Mulder was one of the top 20 starting pitchers in baseball in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

by Rob H on Oct 30, 2005 11:12 PM EST up reply actions

ERA+

Rob:

But we all know you can't just go by one metric. That is exactly why we look at BAA, OBP, IBB...

The bottom line is almost nobody liked the trade then and even fewer of us like it now. Si if I could have plugged the plug on the trade on December 18th I would have and if I could do it today, I still would.

by Zubin on Oct 31, 2005 1:06 AM EST up reply actions

Destiny?

Even if the Cards would of done some of the things suggested above & won the NLCS, I still feel the White Soxs would of won the series.
They played flawless baseball in the playoffs. They were "destined." Last year there were comments made that it was better for the Cards to get to the series & lose than not get there at all. I could handle losing one series, but not two in a row! Houston did us a favor.

CliffNotes

by CliffNotes on Oct 30, 2005 12:42 AM EDT reply actions

i wish we could replay the season

with rolen staying on the dl until he was really fit. he came off in mid-june after missing 30-some games and couldn't swing the bat at all; in fact he was observed crying out in pain during swinging strikes. the guys at The Birdwatch commented on it at the time, and so did miklasz ---- ie, where is the common sense on this team? stl already had a 7- or 8-game bulge in the standings by then and was clearly playoff-bound; they should have been trying to get rolen healthy, not padding their lead in a weak division.

maybe the shoulder was so screwed up he could never have healed in time for october; i don't know. but it's also very possible they made the injury worse by bringing him back too soon

by lboros on Oct 30, 2005 9:32 AM EST reply actions

Rolen

I don't think sittting Rolen versus the Dodgers would do much. It seems to me the guy has been hurt since last September and never truely mended. Besides, Nunez hardly hurt us during the season or playoffs.

by Zubin on Oct 30, 2005 3:49 PM EST up reply actions

My vote

goes to the Mulder deal too. Walt rolled the bones on that one, and it just didn't work out. It wasn't exactly craps, but it wasn't the genius move we all hoped it would be either. Did I expect a 30 game, 300 K year from him? No. But I did expect him to compete with Carp for the "ace" title. He just wasn't quite good enough to make the trade worthwhile--especially in playoffs, which was Walt's real reason. Still, we're stuck with him for at least another year, so maybe 06 will find him "breaking out." We can hope anyway.

by rockin redbird on Oct 30, 2005 8:16 PM EST reply actions

Many Bird Watchers

panned the trade when it was made---this isn't revisionist analysis.

Mulder pretty much did what I expected he'd do---be a decent innings-munching mid-rotation starter. My problem with the trade wasn't that Mulder didn't live up to expectations---it's that he did.

by salvomania on Oct 30, 2005 8:27 PM EST up reply actions

since the mulder trade

was THE signature off-season move, i have no problem with it being the main topic here. it's pretty clear the thing was a disaster, and kudos to brian and anybody else who saw this coming ahead of time. i saw it as rob haneberg did at the time the trade went down: a gamble, but an appropriate one for a team built to win this year.

i'm also not convinced undoing the trade have made a diff'nce for 2005. mulder did stink in game 6, in part because he seemed to lose his nerve (ie he chickened out), but i don't think the starting pitching lost this series. it was everything else:

the hitters' failure to hit brandon backe or to expose a vulnerable clemens, whose only good postseason start came against stl

the lapses of the defense: 5 errors, 3 dp in the series

the bullpen's inability to hold a tie in game 4, or to keep the score close in games 2 and 6

that's why i mentioned rolen, who --- if reasonably healthy --- might have reinfoced both offense and defense. i also wonder if the front office got complacent at the trading deadline; they talked a line at that time which assumed both rolen and walker would be healthy for the playoffs. if they'd had a more realistic view of the players' health, maybe they'd have been slightly more aggressive.

by lboros on Oct 31, 2005 7:59 AM EST reply actions

p.s. ---- thanks to ev'yone

who jumped in and posted; i thought that was a pretty good conversation. i'll keep posting these weekend discussion threads all winter and am wide open to suggestions for subject matter, so if anybody has a topic they'd like to toss out, just holler

by lboros on Oct 31, 2005 8:01 AM EST up reply actions