duck supp

by lboros on Dec 21, 2006 9:05 AM EST in St. Louis Cardinals News

writing at the Hardball Times, my SB Nation colleague jeff sackmann (Brew Crew Ball) concludes that 4 years / $40m for jeff suppan would be right in line with the going rate for starting pitchers. "Given the high cost of starting pitching in this year's market," sackmann writes, "there's an easy way to judge whether a signing has the potential to be a good one: does the team have a shot at contending? . . . . As bizarre as it may have sounded even a few months ago, if the addition of Jeff Suppan turns a team into a Wild Card winner, he probably will have been worth $11 million."

the cardinals might well be in that position. if (as surmised here) their current rotation is good enough to get them to the mid- to high 80s in wins, then replacing brad thompson (the putative #5 at this point) with suppan might nudge the team into the range of 90 victories --- which is where the nl wild-card winner has been the last three or four seasons. so if we only look at the first year of the deal, it might make sense for st louis to spend $11m on suppan.

but what about years 2 through 4? that's where the idea breaks down. even if he stays in st louis, with dave duncan and a good defense to help prop him up, suppan is an excellent candidate to decline over the next few seasons. PECOTA thinks so, anyway. here's how the system projects him to perform over the next four years:

	age	inn	w-l	era	k/9	bb/9
2007	32	176	10-11	4.49	4.6	2.6
2008	33	153	8-10	4.58	4.4	2.6
2009	34	136	7-9	4.79	4.4	2.7
2010	35	99	5-7	5.10	4.1	2.8

for whatever it's worth, PECOTA nailed suppan's projection in 2006: 11-11, 4.10 era, 193 innings (vs the actual totals of 12-7, 4.12 era, 190 inn). it doesn't therefore follow that he is destined to perform at the levels PECOTA projects for 2007-10; but he's gonna have to outperform that projection by a considerable margin to be worth the trouble.

the cardinals' standing this year vis-vis the rotation is almost identical to where the team stood 12 months ago vis-vis the outfield and bullpen. they had suffered massive defections at those positions --- both corner outfielders gone, along with three right-handed relievers (tavarez reyes and eldred) --- and, with the new year looming, hadn't addressed the vacancies. with their options running short, the cardinals panicked and signed 3-year contracts with looper and encarnacion; they're now trying to get rid of both players. and it's not as if either one was particularly bad in 2006; both more or less filled the hole they were signed to fill --- for one year. but years 2 and 3 of both deals are burdens the team would rather not bear.

and the hell of it is, the cardinals had suitable replacements right under their noses. chris duncan and scott spiezio turned out to be the answer at one corner outfield slot; we all would have laughed at that notion 12 months ago, much as we laugh today at the idea that brad thompson might make a suitable 5th starter. likewise, adam wainwright, josh hancock, and josh kinney turned out to be the answers in middle relief; at this time last year, every cardinal fan would have been aghast at the thought of relying on such players.

encarnacion and looper seemed like safe options then, much as suppan appears to be now. like en'cion and looper, supps might help prop things up for a year, but it's likely that by year 2 of the contract --- and even more likely by years 3 and 4 --- he'll be dead weight, soaking up payroll (he'll be making at least as much as looper and en'cion combined) and blocking the path of better pitchers who have moved up through the minor-league ranks (e.g., blake hawksworth and jaime garcia).

that, more than the money, is the price the cardinals can't afford to pay for jeff suppan.

* * * * * * * * * * *

the reports about john thomson's shoulder must not be so good; i can't think of another reason the cardinals haven't swooped in on him by now. like kip wells, he represents a buy-low option and is available on a short-term deal. he was ready to sign a one-year deal with the mariners at the beginning of the month, before the m's dealt for horacio ramirez. that in itself is a red flag --- ramirez is no great shakes, but the m's apparently deemed him a better bet than thomson.

but insofar as there's money to burn in that putative $100m payroll, why not offer thomson 1 year at $6m? if there's even a 50-50 chance he is healthy, it'd be worth taking a flyer. line him up against kip wells over the last three seasons; if wells is a reasonable bet, then surely thomson is.

	inn	w-l	era	k/bb	gb/fb
thomson 04	198	14-8	3.72	2.56	1.43
wells 04	138	5-7	4.55	1.76	1.45

thomson 05	99	4-6	4.47	2.18	1.53
wells 05	182	8-18	5.09	1.33	1.33

thomson 06	80	2-7	4.82	1.44	1.24
wells 06	44	2-5	6.50	0.95	1.74

thomson 04-06	357	20-21	4.39	2.14	1.41
wells 04-06	364	15-30	5.07	1.43	1.42

like mark mulder, thomson injured his labrum; it was diagnosed as fraying, rather than a tear, and he has not had surgery. that might explain why the cardinals are keeping their distance. since the mariners backed off, thomson apparently hasn't gotten any nibbles; at least, i haven't heard of any. just the same, i'll be keeping my eye on him . . . .

Tweet Comment 151 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Another day closer

to the Cardinals having no other option than to let me pitch.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Dec 21, 2006 9:16 AM EST reply actions

i think maybe

Walt's looking for more of a proven commodity w/ that 5th starter. I don't expect to see Thompson or Looper filling that spot.

As for your 1st comments re: Suppan, I read that as well. But you're dead on that he only looked at year 1 of a 3 or 4 year deal. Sackmann is a Brewer fan and the Brewers appear to be in the thick of the Suppan negotiations assuming Zito ends up w/ the Mets.

But it makes me wonder why so many teams backload their contracts. I guess I know why -- the same reason people buy Christmas presents w/ credit cards. But wouldn't it make more sense to frontload them. For example, offer Suppan 3 years, $27 million broken out like $11 mill in year 1, $9 M in year 2, and $7 M in year 3. In 2009, when Suppan's a 5th starter, it should free up more cash to spend on a legitimate #2. Not saying we should do that, but teams should give some thought to those types of contracts. Imagine paying Soriano $18 M or whatever when he's 38 or 39!

That said, your point about blocking Hawksworth, Garcia, or Lambert is the biggest cost to a long-term deal w/ Suppan and I think one of the reasons Walt will pull off a trade for that last spot in the rotation.

by chuckb on Dec 21, 2006 9:18 AM EST reply actions

I think

that the short answer is that because of inflation, or hyperinflation as we've seen in the MLB at times, that it's always smart to pay your dollar amounts when those dollars are less valuable.

I won't do the math, but you might be paying 30% (I really have no idea, just throwing a random number out) increase in real value by frontloading vs. backloading the contract.

I agree though, it's intriguing to just give Jeff the rest of the budget for this season and go from there, so that we get him back and the contract isn't an albatross.

by plh903 on Dec 21, 2006 9:24 AM EST up reply actions

Frontloading

I think frontloading is a great idea sometimes given the situation, but we almost never (if ever?) see it done.

In years like this, I would love to see us just put a bunch of money up front and have more payroll room later. Also, if your last year under contract is at a marginl price...your trade value ZOOMS. For example, say we did sign Supp for 3 years/33 million. Assume Supp's career trajectory follows as above. He would be a whole lot easier to trade in the off-season prior to his third year if he was due $7 million (13-13-7) rather than $13 million (9-11-13).

A large part of the deferred money isn't about payroll, however. It's making the most of your dollar. Owners can hold greater nest eggs longer and gain quite a bit of earnings on millions of deferred dollars. Also, the rate of inflation is a consideration. $11 million dollars isn't going to be worth the same as it will be 4 years from now. So, it's better to pay less of it up front from a financial standpoint.

You know what I'd like to see? A PR communication move from an owner group. For a group like DeWitt and Co., to hold a press conference and say, "Well, the market this year is crazy and the free agent pool is pretty shallow. We pursued a couple guys we thought could help is win, but didn't get them. We had a $100+ million dollar budget and have underspent. Rather than throwing money at someone we don't believe to be a better option than what we already have, we've decided to keep the money. The money will still be there, waiting and growing. If we can find someone at the trade deadline, it might go there. If not, $15 million will grow into $16.5 by next season and we will have an extra $16.5 on top of our projected $100+ million 2008 budget that may push us over the edge for a marquee player. We are going to spend wisely in this turbulent market, but don't worry. We will make a big splash soon and remain competitive year after year." Would that be so bad?

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 9:40 AM EST up reply actions

The Cubs do it

They give a fat signing bonus to bring the total value over-market, but they keep the year-to-year salaries low enough to make their players acceptable in trades. Jacque Jones is an example. He was paid more overall than Encarnacion in the same market, but his salary over the remaining two years is lower than Juan's.

I don't know if a player would sign a true front-loaded contract, where they get a paycut each year, unless he was at the end of his career and his playing time was sure to decline over the contract length.

by liam on Dec 21, 2006 1:44 PM EST up reply actions

I don't see

why not. It seems that any financial planner worth his weight, would tell the player that is the most rewarding fiscal decision. He could be getting better value returns, years ahead on any portfolio he may have set up.

by plh903 on Dec 21, 2006 8:48 PM EST up reply actions

juan pierre's

deal with the dodgers is front loaded. You beat me to it, I was going to make this same post. If we've got money to burn now, burn it now, save it for later.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Dec 21, 2006 10:03 AM EST up reply actions

back loading

as long as the money wont put you over the luxury tax (and you arent spending money you dont have), it is ALWAYS better to back load. basic time value of money concept. you get no benefit by paying it now while you get interest income by paying later. as long as there are no interest charges, you should never pay today what you can pay tomorrow.

by dmb60614 on Dec 21, 2006 11:09 AM EST up reply actions

vis-a-vis

face to face, I'm not sure what faceface means ;)

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 21, 2006 9:35 AM EST reply actions

grammer police

rool.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 9:47 AM EST up reply actions

Really

As much as we don't like it. Not signing anyone has left Walt in a great spot. What happens in June when teams are dumping players. Who, other than the U.S. Mint that is the Yankees and Red Sox, will be able to add payroll? Astros? Reds? Brewers? They can't add a $15M/yr type player. We could. We can...and most importantly I think we will. I like Suppan I really do...but not at 4 years. I said it before and I will say it again. Suppan is the Tino Martinez of pitching. He's only valuable if he's cheap.

On a side note. How does Walt let the Royals sign Brandon Duckworth? Isn't that the prototypical minor league guy that walt gets Duncan for Christmas? This whole offseason has the feeling that there is something that they aren't telling us...not bad just a double secret plan.

by Harknights on Dec 21, 2006 9:37 AM EST reply actions

Random thoughts

There has to be a trade...doesn't there? The cards have too many relievers on the roster and not enough starters.

Did anyone here the Hot Stove show last night on the radio with Derrick Goold? I missed the latter part when they were going to talk names of players the Cards have been attached to in trade and FA talks.

The Post had mentioned that the Dodgers were dangling Penny to the Cards, but for what? Do we have anything they are looking for? They are looking for a power hitter, aren't they?

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

by Elvis on Dec 21, 2006 9:45 AM EST up reply actions

There simply...

has to be a trade...

Last year, LaRussa couldn't bear to go into the season with a rotation of Carp/Mulder/Marquis/Suppan/Reyes...

It's inconceivable that he marches into 2007 with what he has now.

Acquire Jason Johnson!

by guayzimi on Dec 21, 2006 10:21 AM EST up reply actions

Kevin Kennedy would agree

with the idea that Walt is playing it smart:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6294392

I can't believe that he's not working on some interesting ideas.....but it's also not likely that we'll overpay and/or give away key youngsters like Duncan/Reyes/Wainwright unless something significant is gained in return.

by wildman on Dec 21, 2006 10:21 AM EST up reply actions

Juan'Cion and B'Looper

LB, you say that the Cardinals would not like to bear Juan'Cion's and B'Looper's 2nd and 3rd contract year, but in this crazy market both deals seem relative bargains to me.

If they were on the market this year, both guys would sign for considerably more than what the Cardinals gave them last year...

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

by Number47 on Dec 21, 2006 9:49 AM EST reply actions

but the cards are trying

to dump both players. the contracts may be reasonably priced, but the players just aren't very good . . . . they're dead weight who gum up the roster and make it more difficult to upgrade the overall quality of the team.

that's what suppan might be in a year or two.

by lboros on Dec 21, 2006 9:58 AM EST up reply actions

Not very good, but they are

league average at least. We might be able to replace B'Loop with a young cheap guy, but I see no replacement for Juan.

I guess my whole point is, both guys may be average, but given the lack of prospects coming from Memphis, they are a necessity and quite frankly I don't see them as any better than other options.

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

by Number47 on Dec 21, 2006 1:16 PM EST up reply actions

they are bargains

compared to many players who've been signed this offseason. But they're still barely above replacement level and set to earn $5-7 M. Looper could be replaced w/ Kinney or Thompson for about 1/10th the price, thus freeing up $4 M to give to a much better player. Encarnacion could also be replaced w/ a young guy who would give us the same production at a much lower cost. Those are 2 contracts that were backloaded and get considerably worse from year to year. FWIW, I really expected Looper to be traded after 1 or 2 years w/ the Cards anyway and I think there's a good chance that will happen this year.

by chuckb on Dec 21, 2006 11:03 AM EST up reply actions

List of affordable free agent outfielders

who'll hit 20 home runs please. Huff? Who else?

by sdrone on Dec 21, 2006 11:12 AM EST up reply actions

craig wilson

by lboros on Dec 21, 2006 11:35 AM EST up reply actions

Well, you could save, say

$1.5m there if you sign him to a $3.5m contract like his last year. I don't know anything about his running or defense, but surely he's not an automatic triple if a Cub hits it to right field.

Then you gotta get rid of Enc...

by sdrone on Dec 21, 2006 11:47 AM EST up reply actions

actually

I am still hoping that the Cards pick him up. This team still needs a lefty-mashing platoon for Duncan, and against left-handers the outfield could look like this:

Wilson
Taguchi
Encarnacion

and against right-handers

Encarnacion/Wilson
Edmonds
Duncan

There are plenty of ABs for all four guys, and Duncan gets platooned, Edmonds gets his rest, and platooned...

by plh903 on Dec 21, 2006 12:04 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe the Nats

would trade Church for JEnc straight up. Afterall, they are pretty stupid.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

Bowden might be getting smarter

The fleecing of the Reds (the Kearns, Lopez trade) and the great trade w/ the Mariners (getting rid of Vidro's terrible contract for a very useful player, Snelling, and more youth) show that Bowden is either getting smarter or dealing with dumber people.

by OBPplusSLG on Dec 21, 2006 1:06 PM EST up reply actions

As a Nats season ticket holder

I can guarantee JEnc is better - not only is Church horribly inconsistent (he can't even earn an everyday spot in the Nats lineup!), but he is a clubhouse problem - apparently overly religious.

by jdonels on Dec 21, 2006 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

sounds kind of like

Chad Curtis, but the Yanks were still able to win a world series with him. Besides, would being overly religious really be a big deal on a team with Pujols?

by walkingunderwear on Dec 21, 2006 2:56 PM EST up reply actions

Being overly religious could be a big deal

Should Church and Pujols believe in different religions.

by viva el rojo pajaro 42 on Dec 21, 2006 3:09 PM EST up reply actions

You might be right about B'Loop

but which young cheap guy can replace Juan? Again, I don't see Juan as any worse than our other options.

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

by Number47 on Dec 21, 2006 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

the team is trying to move him

which tells you something. i agree that he's not a terrible player; he has his uses. but his presence on the roster imposes an opportunity cost. if you subtracted him (and his salary) from the equation, it might open up opportunities (via free-agent or trade acquisitions) that are currently not practical.

by lboros on Dec 21, 2006 2:55 PM EST up reply actions

we don't have anyone

who can replace him but a lot of teams do. They're not going to be willing to give them up b/c they'll provide a .780 OPS for next to nothing. Our guy will cost us $6 M for that. Juan's not bad. It's probably no worse than Mark DeRosa for $4 M from the Cubs and it's better than $9 M for Juan Pierre. But if our farm system was deeper and more productive, we could have replaced Juan w/ someone else making the minimum and spent that $5 - $6 M on a pitcher.

by chuckb on Dec 21, 2006 4:51 PM EST up reply actions

Mulder Labrum Injury

Where did you get the information that Mulder's labrum was torn? I'd like to see the link to that information if someone has it.

A frayed labrum is pretty normal for a pitcher. Tears are not good.

by silent_bob on Dec 21, 2006 10:02 AM EST reply actions

You know, the more I think about it

the more I completely agree with this about Supp. $10m/year might be market price this year and maybe even a fair price for Supp. But that drag on your payroll in year 3 and year 4 is really what gets you.

by sdrone on Dec 21, 2006 10:26 AM EST reply actions

StL pitching contracts

This is where Walt's reluctance to go beyond three years to a pitcher probably serves us well.

by wildman on Dec 21, 2006 10:29 AM EST up reply actions

People who complain

that Walt should just suck it up and pay Suppan what someone else will pay him don't get this part. Yes, he's a little overpriced this year but in a year or 2 when he's a replacement level pitcher standing in the way of Garcia or Hawksworth we really have a problem b/c he can't be traded at that point. It's time to cut the cord.

by chuckb on Dec 21, 2006 11:05 AM EST up reply actions

Suppan goes from...

slightly overpaid in 2007 at $11mm to replacement level in 2008, and Garcia and Hawksworth are ready to start after one more year in the minors.

Are these the most likely eventualities?

Acquire Jason Johnson!

by guayzimi on Dec 21, 2006 11:13 AM EST up reply actions

it's a distinct possibility

that supps will decline to just above replacement level in the near future. he has never been that far above replacement level to begin with; he's a number 4 starter, a number 3 on a bad team.

by lboros on Dec 21, 2006 11:44 AM EST up reply actions

According to Sackaman...

bench last year was Shawn Chacon at 109 innings, 63bbs, 62ks, and an era of 6.36. If Mulder and Marquis could collapse to that level, then yes Soup could as well, however it seems pretty unlikely.

I think going into 2007 with 3 question marks and a complete blank space is more risky than signing Soup until age 35. We have to have those 3 wins he provides to repeat next year, imo.

Acquire Jason Johnson!

by guayzimi on Dec 21, 2006 3:18 PM EST up reply actions

you mean "a chance to repeat"

and that's the crux of it. supps and his 3 wins might increase the cards' chance of repeating in 2007, but decrease it in 2008-10 ---- and you have to ask yourself if that tradeoff is worth it. if the cards were at a 92-win level and supps would push them into the 95-win range, i might say it's worth it; sign him and they're a virtual lock for a playoff spot. but i don't think that's where the current cards are; they won 83 games last year and haven't done a whole lot to improve. if they sign supps, maybe they're a 90-win team, but they could easily still miss the playoffs.

is that front-end benefit (ie, the hoped-for boost from 87 to 90 wins) worth the risk at the back end of a fading, overpriced suppan?

not to me.

by lboros on Dec 21, 2006 3:34 PM EST up reply actions

I guess...

I'm a bit more bullish on the 2007 Cards. I see 2nd, Catcher, Left, and maybe SS being better to the point of a couple extra wins. Izzy/Kinney will be better for another. Reyes/AW/Wells will be a marked improvement over Ponson/Weaver/Mulder/Marquis...

That gets us to somewhere around 89 wins. The Stros and Reds have taken a step back, if not many steps, and the Cubs haven't improved enough...

I see the difference between 89 and 92 being pivotal. Plus, even if Soup is replacement level in two years - he's been above average for four years in a row and is only 31 - it's not like it breaks the Cards as they really have no other albatross contracts.

How many times do you get the chance to go for a repeat? Be cautious some other time!

Acquire Jason Johnson!

by guayzimi on Dec 21, 2006 4:04 PM EST up reply actions

why is the difference pivotal?

if the cubs and reds have gone backward from their 80-win standards of a year ago, and the cubs haven't improved by very much . . . then shouldn't 89 wins be good enough? why do they have to get to 92 --- to beat the Brew Crew?

actually, the brewers might be that good . . .

i don't disagree much with your assessment. i've got the cards at 85, 86 wins if they make no further moves. but i don't see suppan as the difference-maker that substantially increases their chance to repeat. and i say that will full awareness of and appreciation for his contributions from 04-06, including his postseason record.

by lboros on Dec 21, 2006 4:46 PM EST up reply actions

I disagree

This sort of comment simply makes no sense to me. Are we really to assume that in a year or two Suppan would be of such limited value to the Cardinals that he wouldn't be even a useful trading chip? Or that it might not be easier to trade a Hawksworth or Garcia for real value, assuming they are good enough, with a probably still effective Suppan available in the wings. Good teams don't refuse to sign capable starters this season because they may have capable and cheaper younger starters available two years down the road. As they used to say, you can't have enough good pitching, and a perceived excess of pitchers usefully manages to sort itself out. What doesn't work is trying to get by with a bare minimum of talent, leaving yourself exposed when the inevitable injuries happen, and with an inadequate reserve for improving by way of trade. But until we see evidence to the contrary, the latter foolishness appears to be the path the Cardinals and their apologists seem all too willing to follow this season. I say phooey. It's one thing to be outbid by the Yankees and Red Sox and, another to lose out to the Royals and Pirates of the world. If not Suppan, who? Hint: the answer is not Braden Looper.

by MikeG on Dec 21, 2006 11:44 AM EST up reply actions

Well, the point is that you don't make a good

move now that is a BAD move in 2009/2010. Then it's a salary you have to eat.

by sdrone on Dec 21, 2006 11:49 AM EST up reply actions

If you expect to contend in 2007

Your planning can't be determined by what might--or at least as likely might not--happen in 2009. That's just foolishness.

by MikeG on Dec 21, 2006 11:53 AM EST up reply actions

Foolishness

would be to put all your eggs in one basket. The playoffs are nothing but a crapshoot. The best team in baseball hasn't won the world series even once in the last ten years. Basically, you just have to build a team that will make the playoffs and hope for the best. If our 2006 Cardinals taught us anything, it should be this point.

Therefore, overpaying for a marginal pitcher to "go for it" in one year at the expense of taking yourself out of tanking your budget for the next three is a very, very bad gamble. It's one a mid-market team should never take.

WJ and DeWitt have it right...build a contending team year after year (the 2000s have been great!) and every once in awhile your team will win it all. It may not be when you were the best on paper (2004), it might actually be when you were almost the worst (2006). Just ask the Marlins...or the Yankees.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 12:08 PM EST up reply actions

*clarification

taking yourself out of contention by tanking

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 12:09 PM EST up reply actions

playoffs are less of a crapshoot...

...with Suppan on your staff. Isn't this the strongest argument for resigning him? His dominant play in the post-season?

by age3in82 on Dec 21, 2006 12:21 PM EST up reply actions

That the strongest arguement

is based on a sample size that small should set off major alarms.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 12:29 PM EST up reply actions

our current projected rotation...

...should set off major alarms. Looper or Thompson in the rotation?! It's shocking that panic has failed to set in at the appropriate level for the situation we now find ourselves in.

We have no sample size for Wainwright, Thompson, or Looper as a starter. Nor do we have any current sample size for Wells. Yet, you seem to feel confident heading into the season with these guys.

by age3in82 on Dec 21, 2006 12:43 PM EST up reply actions

panic does not usually lead

to good decisions

by lboros on Dec 21, 2006 12:46 PM EST up reply actions

non-panic (conservatism)...

...has us considering looper as a starter. i don't see how that is a good decision. you don't either judging from your post yesterday. i have yet to hear a compelling solution.

i'm not recommending we make panicked decisions, but i am surprised at the lack of alarm about our current rotation.

Re-signing the NLCS MVP doesn't seem like panic to me. It sounds like common sense.

by age3in82 on Dec 21, 2006 2:06 PM EST up reply actions

Age2in82...

myself.

My thinking on this is go into the season with Looper/Thompson/Narvie in as your #5, but don't plan on finishing the season that way. It's more of an experimental thing. There is sure to be some salary dumping going on at the break where we can pick up a hopeful #2, as long as we don't spend $10-11 on Supps we should have the money to make this happen. Half a season of one or all three of these guys as the #5 won't hurt us. Truthfully our #5 can't be much worse than last year.

I don't imagine there's a single poster on this site that doesn't like Supps. He's just too likeable. However, he is not a number 2 or even 3 starter on a legitimate staff, and won't be getting better over the next four years.

P.S. I know he doesn't have 'impressive' stuff, but Thompson was very effective in the Minor Leagues as a starter. Plus, he has the 'mental toughness' for it. I'd like to see what he can do.

by cardzfanbub on Dec 21, 2006 2:31 PM EST up reply actions

Weaver

JeffWea didn't sign last year until February. There's no sense in making him an offer he can't refuse now (which would be an expensive panic-play). We're still a long way from from opening day. Just because the current roster has Looper/Thompson/Narveson slotted for the fifth spot in the rotation doesn't mean, by any stretch, that they'll be there on April 1.

Suppan's going to be a very rich man for the next few years. He may have earned it with the Cardinals, but that doesn't obligate us to sign him to the silly contract he's due when other teams are more than happy to do it. Suppan's not coming back to the Cardinals. Two nights of work two months ago made him the NLCS MVP—it's not common sense that those two starts make him worth $44mil over the next four years. If anyone knows that, it's a Cardinals fan.

by liam on Dec 21, 2006 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

at least make an effort

although we only know what's leaked to us, and it's clearly bad business to make your best offer public, hearing that the Cardinals offered Soup a 3/$21 contract is pretty insulting. I'd feel better about the whole situation if we at least made a competitive - not silly - offer to Suppan.

What I should have said was "common sense" was to try to resign him. His WSAB on Hardball's site speaks for itself that there's more value than the post-season in Suppan. Suppan's a "B" & "C" student all year, but then he aces his final exams in the post-season. That's more than most pitchers - even A-grade regular season starters - can say they've accomplished.

I disagree with lb on this one. I think Suppan could do this 2 or 3 more times on a contender.

by age3in82 on Dec 21, 2006 4:14 PM EST up reply actions

I wish

Someone would insult me like that...

How is 7/m a year insulting? Its a significant pay raise and appropriate for his pitching ability.

by Birds on the Matt on Dec 21, 2006 4:53 PM EST up reply actions

Nope

Not confident...but, not painted into a four year corner of mediocrity either.

At least we will have room to move if a desireable move comes about.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 12:47 PM EST up reply actions

We have a large sample size for AW.

He has logged extensive innings in the minors as a SP. His MLE (major league equivalents) show that he should be a "good" SP. He will probably be better THIS YEAR than Soupy.

Thompson has been a decent SP in the minors. Blooper, you are correct, and I am terrified of that option.

by OBPplusSLG on Dec 21, 2006 1:09 PM EST up reply actions

yes

that is exactly how the braves operated in the 90's (only they won only once, hopefully we win more than once!)

by cardgirl on Dec 21, 2006 12:28 PM EST up reply actions

What's foolish

is scrapping a plan to play these prospects when they get to the big leagues so that you can run a replacement-level pitcher out there every 5 days. Suppan in '07 will be worth probably close to $11 M. But in 2 years he'll probably be worth half that. If we could sign Supp to a 1 year, $11 M contract, I'd probably go for that.

The point I made about being unable to trade Suppan in 2 years is critical. It's not that he'll be so awful in 2 years that no one will want him. It's just that, if we want to play Garcia or Hawksworth or Lambert or maybe Ottavino, we would have to trade Suppan. He'll be a $6 M pitcher earning $11 M. Someone would probably take him as long as we ate half the salary or more. Maybe what he would bring next year is worth what he does to your payroll in years 2 and 3. To me, it's not. He's not that good! Schmidt, maybe. Not Suppan. He is much more easily replaced, and hopefully on a shorter term deal.

by chuckb on Dec 21, 2006 4:59 PM EST up reply actions

clarification

As may be obvious, my disagreement posted below was intended for Houstoncardinal. I clicked on the wrong entry.

by MikeG on Dec 21, 2006 11:48 AM EST up reply actions

Heh

n/t

by sdrone on Dec 21, 2006 11:49 AM EST up reply actions

Sorry

I should have said posted above.

by MikeG on Dec 21, 2006 11:50 AM EST up reply actions

BTW

just wait. After next season, Eckstein will be a free agent and 32 years old. The difference is that we have nobody who is anywhere close to being ready to take over. He's almost the definition of replacement-level and he'll be a WS MVP. I don't know what Walt will do but you should prepare yourself for the possibility that he may suggest that Eckstein won't be worth the contract he'll be about to receive.

by chuckb on Dec 21, 2006 5:31 PM EST up reply actions

It's hard...

to argue too much with PECOTA, but I don't get why Suppan can't be average to slightly above average for the next 2-3 years.

He's not a fireballer... He's 31... He hasn't had any recent arm troubles... He hasn't been overworked... He doesn't have terribly lofty goals (ie post an ERA+ of 100 and take the ball every 5 days).

The real question is, how badly do we need him or someone like him for next year and into the future? I would say the need is pretty strong. Rosy projections aside, the reality is that there's a good chance either Reyes or Wainwright will run into difficulties. Even if they both turn into solid major league starters, there's still Wells spot in the rotation for Hawksworth or Garcia if, and that's a big if, they are ready to go in '08.

Given that there is currently but one sure thing in the rotation, it's somewhat laughable that Suppan can't be indulged a 4 year deal because he'll take up a coveted space in our rotation. Our rotation has nothing if not free space.

The over-under for the number of above average starters to come from Reyes/Wainwright/Hawksworth/Garcia is 1.5, imo.

Acquire Jason Johnson!

by guayzimi on Dec 21, 2006 11:08 AM EST up reply actions

Exactly

Kip Wells has been taken as a given performer, even by La Russa, and the guy is 3 years away from having been a given. Thankfully, his one year contract allows one of our future arms to replace him if they are really ready to go next year. If Kip does not pan out this year, or becomes reinjured, then we are down to 3 starters - one of which has never started, the other whose performance to this point has been uneven. On top of all this, we're talking about wanting to trade Looper because he underperforms at the same time as we're considering promoting him to a starter! This spells trouble not just for next season but for the next few years.

Now the Mets are talking to Suppan. I guess we'll just have to hope that if he signs with them, he'll pitch more like Woody Williams agianst the Cardinals than Jeff Suppan against the Mets when we face him in the post-season.

More likely, we'll see a solid, durable Suppan use his experience and pitch location to his advantage more in the vein of Greg Maddox or Tom Glavine than Woody Williams. What were the PECOTA numbers on Maddox and Glavine ages 32-36? Suppan's numbers have not been as dominant as theirs, but his pitching style is so similar the comparison is tantalizing.

I'm in favor of frontloading his contract to increase his trade value should our young arms emerge as projected in 2008 or 2009. Otherwise, we should expect to pick up part of his contract down the way when we feel safe without him.

This will all turn into a massive "I told you so" when the Cardinals starters are struggling after the all-star break. No one but Carpenter has pitched a full season as a starter in the majors in years, if ever.

by age3in82 on Dec 21, 2006 12:14 PM EST up reply actions

Soup does not equal Glavine and Maddux.

This might be the first ever comparison between Soup and Glavine/Maddux. Below are stats from baseball-reference.com Soup is a league average pitcher for his career. Glavine is 20% better, Maddux is 40% better. Two of them have HOFers as their comparables. Soup has journeymen.

I like Soup as much as the next guy, but signing him for 10+ is crazy.

    ERA+    Top Comparable    Comparable by Age
Soup    101    Mike Gardner    Jaime Navarro
Maddux    139    Tom Seaver    Tom Seaver
Glavine    120    Jack Morris    Warren Spahn

by OBPplusSLG on Dec 21, 2006 1:24 PM EST up reply actions

only during the regular season...

...does Soup not equal Glavine or Maddux. In the post-season, he beats Roger Clemens in Game 7 and then becomes NLCS MVP in 2006. Run the same #'s on Soup's post-season performance and see where that ranks him.

If we could sign him for 3/$33, I would say that's the going rate or better. In just 2-3 years' time, it will be cheap. The problem is that Soup can probably get 4/$40 or more, so this is all probably meaningless to argue about anyway. Maybe we should just bive Buerhle the same offer next year...

by age3in82 on Dec 21, 2006 2:21 PM EST up reply actions

If you are basing it on 50 IP, then

we'll never agree.

I don't give a lot of credence to Soup as a "postseason hero." He has about 50 ip in the postseason, or just shy of 2 months. I don't really want to look anymore up on my BlackBerry (bb-ref is blocked at work), but I think I remember Soup having a lower era, but lower K/9 and lower K/BB than Glavine or Maddux in the postseason.

I think the other posts in this thread have shown that any marginal advantage Soup might have in the postseason over (Reyes/Wainwright) - which I believe is no advantage, by the way - is offset by the opportunity cost of paying him all year (and the next 3) vs. paying a more productive player.

by OBPplusSLG on Dec 21, 2006 3:10 PM EST up reply actions

just name that more productive player

I think the only hope at this point would be to get someone less effective than Soup for cheaper, not more effective. Otherwise, you have to take your chances on young arms (quickly becoming coveted) and guys with injury histories (quickly being overpaid). Once Soup gets his 4/40, anyone proven statistically better is going to want much more.

I find it amusing that people think this market will eventually restabilize or crash and that if we just wait it out we'll find gems in the rough. It's only going up from here ad nauseum.

by age3in82 on Dec 21, 2006 3:49 PM EST up reply actions

I've read some of your comments...

...and it seems like you're the type of person that would trade young talent to get proven to semi-proven talent. What happens when you run out of good prospects though? At some point, we HAVE to take a look at our young talent and put some faith in their abilities.

I agree that the market will likely inflate for quite some time. How is this not yet another reason to try some inexpensive AAA talent? Fear they might fail? So what if we don't make it to the playoffs this year because we took our "chances on young arms"?! Let's give them a shot.

by lostraven on Dec 21, 2006 4:22 PM EST up reply actions

i'm not in favor of trading young talent

I'm in favor of waking up to real market costs when there is a need to fill a key position. I don't want to trade anybody on our team. We don't have much to trade.

I'm in favor of making AN EFFORT to sign Suppan or Weaver on the open market.

"Who cares if we don't make the playoffs?" This entire message board and the rest of Cardnial Nation. I can tell you Walt, Tony, and the rest of the team does. (except maybe JuanEnc)

by age3in82 on Dec 21, 2006 6:06 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not all that interested in who WAS

the more productive player. I'm more interested in who WILL be the more productive player. Overpaying someone who will be declining in skill is not a good way to compete.

His BBRef and Pecota comparables are full of people who had a good season or two, were average for their careers, then faded into Bolivia (as Mike Tyson would say).

by OBPplusSLG on Dec 21, 2006 4:24 PM EST up reply actions

name that player

We wouldn't be having this debate if there were other more appealing choices out there on the market. Without suggesting an alternative to fill out the starting rotation, you're in effect saying Looper/Thompson/Narveson is better than Suppan or Weaver. I can't agree with that, even if you look past this season.

I'm fine with Reyes and Wainwright getting their shot. We have to. We're banking on them succeeding.

by age3in82 on Dec 21, 2006 6:22 PM EST up reply actions

Thomson

Interested in your Thomson comments, lboros. I have been keen to signing him, as well. There must be something there with that shoulder - but when he's on I like the way he pitches. Decent in both the K/BB and GO/FO splits, he has the potential to put up better numbers than Suppan. If he's healthy he'd be great in StL. If anything, the waiting game could be probably driving down Thomson's price.

That being said, if we are still pursuing Mulder I don't think we'd want two injury-recovery projects at the same time. Presuming Mulder can be had for a decent price (big question these days!), I think I'd go with Mulder who has more upside IMHO. I wonder if Walt is highly confident Mulder will be back in StL?

by wildman on Dec 21, 2006 10:27 AM EST reply actions

Lets just

Plug in some minor league guys and see what they've got. We may have a terrible year, but at least we would know the real value of our younger pitchers instead of this back and forth of "Are they good enough?" and "They aren't ready... just yet."

Put 'em in coach, they're ready to play.

by TNFan32 on Dec 21, 2006 11:00 AM EST reply actions

OTHERS???

HELLO, MY NAME IS TOLAXOR, AND HERE ARE OTHER PITCHERS I THINK ARE JUST AS GOOD OPTIONS AS THOMSON AT THIS POINT:

TOE-KNEE-ARM-@SS JUNIOR
TOMA OHKA
JOEL PINEIRO
PAUL WILSON
STEVE TRACHSEL
MIKE REDMAN
BRANDON CLAUSSEN

AND NONE OF THESE EXCITE ME...

I MEAN, LET'S FACE IT - UNLESS STL PAYS MARKET PRICES FOR SUPPAN OR WEAVER, WE'RE STUCK WITH FLOTSAM LIKE THE ABOVE, OR RYAN DRESE OR RICK HELLING OR BRUCE CHEN...

AS SAD AS IT IS, THE SWEET SPOT FOR 1/$6 MIGHT BE A GUY LIKE REDMAN OR TRACHSEL!!!

by TOLAXOR on Dec 21, 2006 11:01 AM EST reply actions

The Caps Lock key

can be found on the left side of the keyboard.

by outraged on Dec 21, 2006 11:28 AM EST up reply actions

You Mean?

You mean Mark Redman? Mike Redman is a catcher i believe

by Calhoun on Dec 21, 2006 11:37 AM EST up reply actions

I was trying to take a nap

by plh903 on Dec 21, 2006 12:06 PM EST up reply actions

No, please, not Trachsel

Got to see him for an inning or so in NLCS Game #3 -- that's the only way I want to see him pitching in Busch Stadium, as an opponent.

TSF

by TedSimmonsFan on Dec 21, 2006 12:24 PM EST up reply actions

Stop me if you've heard this before

But I believe the people at BCB already told you to hold shift while you type if your keyboard is broken.

by viva el rojo pajaro 42 on Dec 21, 2006 12:25 PM EST up reply actions

Tolaxor

I love it when you stop by. I get my full weeks worth of capital letters that are missing from lboros's posts. Capitalization can be so satisfying.

I also enjoy the 10 comments or so that inevitably follow your posts regarding you yelling or where the Caps key is on your computer.

by azruavatar on Dec 21, 2006 1:38 PM EST up reply actions

it always reminds me of

John Irving's book A Prayer for Owen Meaney.

by DCGreg on Dec 21, 2006 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

Ummm...anyways

I like Supp and all, but Supp will be a replacement level pitcher THIS year if he pitches in front of the Brewer's defense.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 11:47 AM EST reply actions

I tend to agree

I think Suppans worth is in St. Louis. He can't be anymore effective with 2 gold gloves at the corners, an effective ss and 2b. If he goes to another team, he can't be as good. If we do re-sign him, I will not be upset, but I think weaver and mulder might be gambles that could pay huge dividends.

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 21, 2006 11:54 AM EST up reply actions

Low-risk, high-reward

Is always a good philosophy. It paid off in huge dividends in the past with signings like Carpenter, Suppan, and Kiko Calero. Also in trades where we bought low - the list is endless.

So, why pay high for Suppan now? Or Weaver - unless he asks for something reasonable?

by airhad on Dec 21, 2006 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

Trachsel

If we sign Traschel, I will change allegiences and become a Cubs fan. Write it down.

by silent_bob on Dec 21, 2006 11:52 AM EST reply actions

You don't want to do that

Heck if I got upset about a few Cardinal trades or signings, ida been an Cubs fan a long time ago. It'll be okay!

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 21, 2006 11:57 AM EST up reply actions

It won't be comforting to know

That PECOTA lists Trachsel as Suppan's #5 comp.

by airhad on Dec 21, 2006 1:29 PM EST up reply actions

Mulder Labrum Injury

Sorry to revisit, but I cannot find any article that states that Mulder's injury involved a torn/repaired labrum.

by silent_bob on Dec 21, 2006 11:54 AM EST reply actions

i don't have a citation

for you, but i distinctly remember reading in the MSM that once the surgeons opened up mulder's joint, they discovered the labrum was torn.

by lboros on Dec 21, 2006 12:46 PM EST up reply actions

The reason I ask

is that a torn labrum is a much bigger issue to repair and rehab. Speaking from experience as a physical therapist, it takes 4-6 weeks of very restricted motion, and strengthening does not take place until after full motion is achieved.

I just doubt that he would start any kind of throwing program in December, as is being stated by his agent, if the surgeon repaired a labral tear.

by silent_bob on Dec 21, 2006 1:06 PM EST up reply actions

Rotator cuff issue

Gotta scroll down a bit

"had surgery in New York on Sept. 12 to repair a partial thickness tear of the rotator cuff, a condition that had caused inflammation and eroded his pitching mechanics this season."

http://www.kffl.com/player/4861/mlb

by sdrone on Dec 21, 2006 12:56 PM EST up reply actions

the rotator cuff

is not the same as the labrum. labral tears mean shoulder instability. Rotator cuff tears are bad, but a RC tear + labral tear is disastrous.

by silent_bob on Dec 21, 2006 1:07 PM EST up reply actions

if i got this wrong

my apologies. i still am pretty sure i read somewhere that he had a tear, which the mri's had failed to pick up; i would not swear to it.

by lboros on Dec 21, 2006 3:04 PM EST up reply actions

I did read that as well...

but it was a rotator cuff tear that they found. The muscle was 50% torn, so they had to go in and repair it openly. This is not uncommon. But in my opinion, we may have to compare his timetable to Wade Miller's.

by silent_bob on Dec 21, 2006 3:54 PM EST up reply actions

Wade Miller's

he's already on about year 3 of his timetable isn't he? I'm less than enthused about the possiblity of signing Mark Mulder. I don't figure him for much in '07 and, after that, who knows?

by chuckb on Dec 21, 2006 5:04 PM EST up reply actions

Nevermind

about Wade Miller. I just read that he had a labral tear. And Carrol also reiterates that it takes a 6 month rehab before even starting a throwing program. So adding it all up, Mulder likely did not have a labral tear since he has already begun throwing. This is significant, I think.

Now the next step is finding pitchers who have recovered from a significant rotator cuff tear similar to Mulder's.

I contend that Mark will not significantly help a team until September, which would be 1 year after his surgery.

by silent_bob on Dec 21, 2006 5:08 PM EST up reply actions

Rotator Cuff Tears

If you put together a list of pitchers who've recovered from RC tears, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd post it. I found this very short list. Also Jaret Wright, Dan Kolb, and a few others I've seen.

It sounds like it takes about a full year to get back into top shape. About how long FA RHSP Brian Lawrence has had to rehab since his RC surgery last ST. I'd really like to see him get an invitation on a one year contract,ideally with an option. If he's healthy, he'd replace Soup easily. A durable groundball machine with better stuff.

by liam on Dec 21, 2006 5:49 PM EST up reply actions

Clemens

Probably the most successful recovery from rotator cuff surgery was Roger Clemens' bounceback. James Andrews performed arthroscopic surgery for a partial tear in 1985. Clemens might be the only Major League pitcher not to lose significant velocity after repair of a torn rotator cuff.

Andrews credits Clemens' diligence during rehabilitation, but it is also possible that his "partial" tear was not as deep as most, and it could have been in a different part of the supraspinatus, the most commonly injured of the 4 rotator cuff muscles.

http://www.shoulder1.com/hero/hero.cfm/12/1

by unclegrubworm on Dec 22, 2006 9:36 AM EST up reply actions

Does anyone else remember

Suppan's first half last year? I know finesse pitchers tend to start slow in spring until they get a "feel" for the zone. But, wow, was he awful. I was really scared he was done.

What I mean to say is, Suppan has to be extremely finely tuned to be effective. How much longer before age takes away enough of the slim line he's walking?

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 12:20 PM EST reply actions

Agreed

He's the epitomy of a pitch-to-contact pitcher. His top 5 comparables according to PECOTA are:

Pat Hentgen
Jamie Navarro
Dick Ruthven (who?)
Mike Moore
Steve Trachsel

I don't know Ruthven, but Hentgen, Navarro, and Moore didn't do anything remarkable in their early and mid 30s. So we're hoping that Suppan is the next...Steve Trachsel?

Yikes.

by airhad on Dec 21, 2006 1:25 PM EST up reply actions

DICK RUTHVEN

WAS A PHILLIE PITCHER IN THE 70'S/80'S

CARLTON/RUTHVEN MIGHT BE COMPARABLE TO

CARPENTER/SUPPAN

by TOLAXOR on Dec 21, 2006 4:13 PM EST up reply actions

BP Posted the Cardinals Top Ten Prospects

The list is as follows:

Excellent Prospects
None
Very Good Prospects
1. Colby Rasmus, cf
Good Prospects

Jaime Garcia, lhp
Adam Ottavino, rhp
Bryan Anderson, c
Daryl Jones, of

Average Prospects

Chris Perez, rhp
Blake Hawksworth, rhp
Mark McCormick, rhp
Cody Haerther, of
Tyler Greene, ss

Later in the article, Kevin Goldstein says that if there were 11 and 12 he'd have them:

John Jay
Mark Hamilton

His super sleeper: pitcher Blake King

by airhad on Dec 21, 2006 1:19 PM EST reply actions

Trey Hearne...

gets no love, despite manhandling batters at Low A last year.

Miller sucks.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Dec 21, 2006 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah...

Kevin Goldstein has a tough job. Really, anyone who tries to cover every prospect in the minors does. There are just so many freaking players. That said - what numbers did Trey Hearne put up last year?

Interestingly - the pitcher he projected with the most upside was McCormick b/c of his stuff. But he thinks Garcia is close to his ceiling b/c he's mostly filled out his frame.

by airhad on Dec 21, 2006 1:26 PM EST up reply actions

I emailed him

about his Reyes bashing.
Reyes has a number of apologists/delusional supporters who seem to believe that just because he was brilliant in Game One of the World Series, that forgives an inconsistent regular season

Seems pretty short-sighted from a sabr publication. As if Reyes has no peripherals, projections or stuff to indicate he can pitch? Guy must not read his own companies 'favorite toy'.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 2:33 PM EST up reply actions

I met Kevin Goldstein

and some of the BP writers at a Chicago area BP Pizza Feed/Mock Winter meetings a few yrs ago. It was a lot of fun, but was Kevin Goldstein ever the sourpuss!

He had a chip on his shoulder about sabermetrics and was giving Rany J, Will Carroll and Nate Silver a hard time about discounting traditional scouting. I was shocked to see him join BP.

You're right, he's totally short sighted about Reyes. Knowing the details that we know as Cards fans (i.e. Reyes wasn't prepped to pitch that last day, thus really tanking his stats) tells us much more of the story and really highlights the importance of the subjective factors for all players...

And that stats aren't the whole story.

He also disses on Y Molina, which we better get used to seeing. I mean, the guy did hardly hit his own weight.

by airhad on Dec 21, 2006 2:47 PM EST up reply actions

I don't even think he hit that high

by effin fisk on Dec 21, 2006 2:59 PM EST up reply actions

Silly

Since when does every good/great pitcher have a consistently brilliant rookie season?

Even Jered Weaver, who I'd hold aloft as the 2006 version of the consistently kick-ass rookie, had a couple of really bad starts.

by liam on Dec 21, 2006 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

Hearnes stats...

12-3/2.25 ERA/128 IP/106 K's/34BB/Opponents only hit .216 off him

Miller sucks.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Dec 21, 2006 3:53 PM EST up reply actions

If Hearne

is a top ten prospect in your system, you're in deep, deep trouble.

Stuff is really important for pitchers in the minor leagues, because you can destroy the low minors--even the high minors, see Travis Smith--on smarts alone, but major league hitters are just too good for that. Even Greg Maddux has a moving fastball and a sick curveball.

by DanUpBaby on Dec 21, 2006 4:44 PM EST up reply actions

and change of speeds

Keeping hitters off-balance has been huge to pitchers like Maddux. Anyone that can move the ball around the edges of the strikezone with movement and speedchanges can do fine without overpowering stuff. I don't know enough about Hearne to know if he has that or not....

by wildman on Dec 21, 2006 6:02 PM EST up reply actions

prospect rating

For comparison, does anyone know how BP rated Duncan last year, or Albert before he came up?

I suspect that comparing hundreds of players at different levels, in different ballparks, with different expectations, is more guesswork than science.

by madridbend on Dec 21, 2006 1:42 PM EST up reply actions

Salt in an old wound...

BP also has a new article evaluating 2006's best/worst baserunners...

Ryan Howard was the 6th worst.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 2:30 PM EST up reply actions

was surprised

that yadier didn't make this list...

by airhad on Dec 21, 2006 2:54 PM EST up reply actions

it's not that

yadi is a bad baserunner, it's more that it's a stretch to call it running...

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Dec 21, 2006 3:19 PM EST up reply actions

HAHHAHAHA

Yadi made the list of "worst basewalkers for 2006"

by sdrone on Dec 21, 2006 3:33 PM EST up reply actions

From everything I've read

it doesn't seem like WJ wants Sup back. He keeps saying things like "I'm not sure we can meet his terms", or "It doesn't look like we have a real shot at him"(paraphrasing him, of course). If I'm Sup, I go elsewhere, because I'm reading between the lines...

by cardsrul on Dec 21, 2006 1:24 PM EST reply actions

Disagree somewhat

What I distinctly recall is Suppan making it clear, right after the World Series, that he was going to test the market and get everything he could. There wasn't going to be any home-team discount. And who can blame him? This is his moment. His postseason performance was terrific; he will never appear more valuable to teams shopping for pitching than he does right now.

I just think Jocketty is being realistic. Sup is going to get more than the Cardinals feel they can afford.

by Youneverknow on Dec 21, 2006 3:18 PM EST up reply actions

It's pretty clear...

that Sup and Weaver are going to wait until the Zito sweepstakes are over to cash in with the losers. Frankly, I have to agree with LB that Sup is not worth the long term money for what may be a short term solution. As much as I like what he has done for us, he can now cash in for several life-times of financial security. Our best bet will be the trade route, and hopefully WJ can pull some Whitey magic and get something done. It would be interesting to see an analysis of who may be available on the trade front, and what we would have that may interest them (slim-pickings?).

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

by wwbd on Dec 21, 2006 1:53 PM EST reply actions

anyone cruise the hot stove on mlb.com

there are some interesting guys left for utility roles

HUff
David bell
Shannon stewart-ok he could be the you've been hurt prove something guy...could be a great steal

mabry 4th tour..no
A.boone-as a backup why not
Thomas perez..
Craig wilson...stated this before i think its worth a shot
Burnitz...too much cash..pass

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061107&content_id=1736744&vkey=hotstove 2006&fext=.jsp

thoughts?

Kenny is a "dirt" bag?

by punchinjudy on Dec 21, 2006 2:04 PM EST reply actions

Jenkins

The Brewers have too many outfielders and are looking to move both Mench and Jenkins. Jenks is owed $7 this year with an option year ($9) next. Not a bad price for an .850 OPS corner outfielder.

I think it would take a couple of trades. I'm not sure we have much the Brewers would want, even though they do need some bullpen help. And, we would certainly have too many outfielders at that point. But, maybe we could trade some of our outfielders for pitching and trade pieces and then trade for JEnks. He seems like quite a TLR#2 hitter or a pretty good #6 hitter.

The downside would be yet another guy from the left side of the plate who has poor splits.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 2:28 PM EST reply actions

He'd be pretty good

in a platoon but we already have 1 OF that we can't play vs. lefties.

by chuckb on Dec 21, 2006 5:07 PM EST up reply actions

Soup = Reliable 2-3-4 starter

More than any other pitcher available right now, Jeff Suppan is the most reliable option available to us. When we talk about the injured or the rookies, we are simply hoping they get healthy and they actually perform up to everyone's expectations. Does anyone remember Bud Smith? Rick Ankiel? Look back at the number of recent pitchers the Cardinals have successfully moved from AAA to rotation. Now look back at all the ones that never made it.

Now consider that it looks like we are putting 4 (FOUR!) unproven starters into the rotation next year. Either career relivers, rookies, or existing starters with 5+ ERAs last year. Are you kidding me?

4/40 for suppan may be a lot of money, but imho if they don't sign some pitcher for 10M+ this offseason, then management is basically calling 2007 a rebuilding year. And they're not getting zito, or any of those others either.

When Jason Marquis makes 7M/year, just what exactly does management think they are going to find out there that's a better affordable option? Either this year or next, or the year after that?

by redbird2006in on Dec 21, 2006 2:46 PM EST reply actions

Four years?

I find it interesting that everyone now thinks the Cardinals would even consider offering a 4 year deal to Suppan. Not bloodly likely. Maybe 3 with an option...but 4? I'd be shocked.

But I'm also not convinced that just because the Brewers offered him 4 (and there's no confirmation yet that it's 4/$40M...it might be something along the lines of 4/$32 or 4/$36) that Suppan would jump at that versus a similar 3+option deal from STL.

As already stated, Suppan would be a far less effective pitcher in MIL with their defense behind him than he would be here...

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

by Mr Clean on Dec 21, 2006 4:59 PM EST up reply actions

clever signature!

and I think you're right on the Brewers' defense but I doubt Suppan's going there. He'll probably go to the Mets or Giants, depending on where Zito goes. His agent's just using the Pirates and Brewers to bump up the offer.

by chuckb on Dec 21, 2006 5:10 PM EST up reply actions

Brewers...

The brewers are just trying to stop Suppan from pitching against them :)

by redbird2006in on Dec 21, 2006 6:51 PM EST up reply actions

SB Nation Logos

I've noticed at least two of the other sbnation baseball team pages have changed their logos. The D-Backs have an angry looking Rattlesnake and the Mariners page changed theirs to a a ship going down (Hilarious). I like the VeB logo, it looks good on the red shirts, hope any changes made would be minimal.

by liam on Dec 21, 2006 3:26 PM EST reply actions

So long, Sup

I should say this publicly, and say it soon, since it does look as if Sup is moving on:

I forgive him for his baserunning blunder in game 3 of the 2004 World Series. I lost my living s**t at the time. I could NOT believe my eyes. It was the moment I knew that World Series was lost.

But ohmygod did he ever make up for it in this postseason, especially in game 7 of the NLCS. All is forgiven. Forgiven isn't even strong enough. I plan to forget. And I will always think fondly of him.

Vaya con Díos, Sup. You showed some serious cojones in New York, hombre.

by Youneverknow on Dec 21, 2006 3:36 PM EST reply actions

Brad Thompson = Suppan in 07

If given the chance to start. He has a very comparible style but more movement on his pitches. A vastly lower carrer ERA even adjusted for pitching in relief. And is much younger.

Bank the money, go with the kids, if one fails, then make the trade if the $15mil in the bank to take someones expensive vet.

by DriverZn on Dec 21, 2006 3:50 PM EST reply actions

Thank you...

for stating simply what took me two paragraphs to spit out above.

There is nothing impressive about Supp other than he 'knows how' to pitch. Brad is cut from the same cloth.

by cardzfanbub on Dec 21, 2006 4:11 PM EST up reply actions

He eats innings

Give him credit for that. I realize that doesn't necessarily qualify as "impressive," but it is one of the things I believe we could miss about him. He takes the ball every fifth day and averages 6 innings a start.

Not making a case for keeping him. Just sayin'.

by Youneverknow on Dec 21, 2006 4:25 PM EST up reply actions

Just curious about PECOTA's track record...

If accurate, the PECOTA numbers are compelling. Not being completely familiar with their track record, however, I'm curious to find out how "on target" they were in the past with other 2 & 3 year-out projections. For example, are their predictions for Woody Williams still on record from a couple of years ago?

Their "accuracy" with regard to Supp's 2006 year isn't really very convinving, since I could have nailed that prediction...Supp has been nothing if not consistent as a Cardinal.

I don't think any of us doubt that Supp may decline a little over the next couple years, but those predictions are considerably more dire than a mere "decline", especially with regard to the innings pitched.

Anyone have their estimates on Woody from a couple years ago, for example? I'd be really curious to see them.

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

by Mr Clean on Dec 21, 2006 4:39 PM EST reply actions

BP (of course, they're biased)

ran a report a few days ago that someone else had compared them to zips and a couple of others on their projections and that theirs was the best w/ hitting and 2nd best w/ pitching (or maybe vice-versa). The point is, they're pretty good. They'll miss their fair share but their predictions are better than most you'll find out there.

by chuckb on Dec 21, 2006 5:13 PM EST up reply actions

here it is

December 14, 2006, 02:40 PM ET
Deadlier Than Ninja Accurate

by Nate Silver

Although we'd like to confirm these results independently, Chone Smith, a poster at Baseball Think Factory, has run a comparison of projection systems in 2006 and PECOTA has come out on top, with a huge lead in position player projections and a very narrow second place in pitcher projections. You can find more details here.

(And in case you're wondering -- sure, we are competitive people and would like to have been first place in both categories. But pitching has been PECOTA's strength in other years, and we're happy with our results).

Make no mistake: the other projection systems are improving. Dan Szymbroski's ZIPS projections have come an awful long way. I like the work that the BIS guys are doing. Top Tippett's projections for Diamond Mind, not referenced here, have always been very good.

So we need to make PECOTA a moving target, and it is improving too. The league difficulty adjustments that we've built in this year correct a longstanding pet peeve of mine. We've revised the formula for the starter/relief pitcher adjustment, which was producing a few funny results for middle relievers last year. And we're always catching little things in the extensive beta testing that we do each year, things that can help you to gain an extra point in your roto league here and there. There's really no ninja magic that give the PECOTAs a leg up on their competition -- it's thousands of man hours of hard work.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/index.php?paged=2

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/2006_projection_results/

by chuckb on Dec 21, 2006 5:16 PM EST up reply actions

Chone Smith

He blogs at Anaheim Angels All the Way. If you scroll down to 12/5, you can download the full spreadsheet of the 2007 forecasts from his own projection system's (CHONE). On the way there, you'll see that Larry Bigbie has the highest line-drive to pop-up ratio of all players with at least 250AB in the 03-06 period.

The projection system comparisons are all published there this month, too.

by liam on Dec 21, 2006 5:55 PM EST up reply actions

Suppan's value...

i'll start by saying that i don't think the Cards should sign Soup for anything approaching 4/40. but everyone here has been arguing that Suppan will (most likely) decline over years 3-4 of such a deal (his age 34-35 seasons). even assuming that's the case, if he stays anywhere around league average, then how will 10 million/year look?

i think it's just as likely that the league average guys are making 10-12 million per year in a few years, which would put Suppan's salary for those seasons right in line. obviously, his PECOTA projects worse for him, but it might be overstating (only 99 IP?).

just about everybody's jaw dropped with Burnett's deal last year. now, it looks like it might've been a steal. after the market inflates a bit more over the next 2-3 seasons, 10 mil/year for Suppan might seem very reasonable. in fact, it kinda already does, when compared to the deals that Eaton, Batista, and Padilla got.

just saying, is all.

by kindred on Dec 21, 2006 5:47 PM EST reply actions

Soup (again)

On the decline?

Suppan ranked 2nd in the NL in fewest losses by a qualifying starter (7), in the company of pitchers named Glavine, Zambrano, Webb, Oswalt, etc.

And ... now I'm not a big fan of trends, but...
ERA by month (last year)
Jun 5.4
Jul 4.5
Aug 3.4
Sep 2.1
Oct 2.5

Did something click here or just a good long hot streak?

by redbird2006in on Dec 21, 2006 7:13 PM EST reply actions

he seems to do that every year

I'm kinda hoping some other team will sign him, and then trade him (and cash) back to the Cards after he has his typically lousy spring half of the season.

by madding on Dec 21, 2006 7:17 PM EST up reply actions

Finesse pitchers

all seem to start cold. They depend so much on painting corners. When they don't have a good feel for it, they either pitch too much in the zone or too much out of the zone.

For pitchers like Suppan and Moyer who don't really have that great of "stuff", and even Maddux on a lessor level...it means they get shelled until they get adjusted for the season. If Suppan had better stuff, he could get away with pitches that caught a little more of the strike zone than the corner.

He was really awful for the entire first half last year, without having mechanical or injury problems. It really shows how slim his margin for error is and how easily he could decline. Take another 3-4 mph off his fastball (and the difference in speed between fastball vs. offspeed) and he's in huge trouble.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 21, 2006 7:31 PM EST up reply actions

finesse

why have Moyer and Maddux lasted so long? I'd think "finesse" pitchers would be more durable later into their years, with less physical strain on their bodies than their power pitching counterparts.

by madding on Dec 21, 2006 8:34 PM EST up reply actions

I'd love to see how Maddux has done compared

to his PECOTA projections.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 22, 2006 12:55 AM EST up reply actions

age trends

Typically power pitcher age better than finesse pitchers. Compare Maddux, Johnson, and Clemens. All three were about equally effective at their peak. Yet Maddux started to have a big decline at the youngest age.

Finesse pitchers do seem to be less injury prone but more of an issue with declining effectiveness. After all a power pitcher can learn to be a finesse pitcher if he loses it. A finesse pitcher has nothing left to fall back on.

by DriverZn on Dec 22, 2006 1:40 AM EST up reply actions

the problem

with that assesment is that ONLY johnson and clemens have pitched with this kind of success after 40, as power pitchers anyway, and yes i know ryan was great after 40, but he doesnt compare to johnson, and he REALLY cant compare with clemens

by bigcardsfan5 on Dec 22, 2006 3:12 AM EST up reply actions

Strikeout pitchers

have more strikeouts to lose. It's just like fast guys ("young players' skills") aging better than slow guys, even though it seems like the opposite should be true. You have to have a certain amount of speed, or strikeout ability, and if you're a fringe-y guy who's lost it it doesn't matter how good you are at other things.

by DanUpBaby on Dec 22, 2006 12:00 PM EST up reply actions

Correct, but

Maddux and Moyer are not what I would call normal finesse pitchers either.

Moyer is the only positive comp for Suppan. All the other that pitched well as the got older were typically much better than Suppan early on.

by DriverZn on Dec 22, 2006 3:56 AM EST reply actions

Maddux....

Is the epitome of "Pitcher"-not thrower. I just love watching him work.....he looks like your local Hardee's manager to boot. He's probably only good for 75 pithces a game these days, but that is usually enough to take it into the 6th or 7th inning....has there ever been another pitcher like him? He never threw hard, but he always threw smart.......

by jillsinmo on Dec 22, 2006 10:22 AM EST reply actions