The Wainwright Question

In addition, speaking of concentration, are we forgetting how many people were on base when AW struck out Beltran, and who put them there?

Weaver or someone else under 9 mill a year.  We will not pay over that for any pitcher not named Carpenter, IMO  (and shouldn't)

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/jonathan-papelbon-and-replacement-level/

Personally, I'm still a bit mixed on whether or not I want to move Adam to the rotation.  After watching him close out games in the playoffs and falling in love with him, a part of me thinks if it ain't broke don't fix it.  However, I think until he's given a shot at the rotation, we'll always wonder how he would have fared.  Maybe he doesn't have enough pitches to make it three times through the lineup. But, maybe he does.  Maybe he can be that intense and that nasty for 6 or so innings every five days.  And until he's given a shot, we'll never know.  I think the research also points out, he doesn't have to be lights out to be an effective and worthy starter. So, I say give him a shot.  And if not, then I'll still be glad to have him in the pen.  

The whole "are 75 great innings more valuable than 200 good ones" question is a classic baseball koan.

My deal with closers is that I think it is silly to pay retail for the quote-unquote established closer. Find a hard-throwing kid with nuts, guts and smarts and voila, you have a closer on the cheap.

But with a guy like Wainwright (or Papelbon), who was drafted a starter but has proved to be effective in relief, a team needs to determine where the player's value is more valuable: Is 75 innings of 3ish ERA at the league minimum a better payroll allocation than 200 innings of 4.5ish ERA? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the specific needs of the team that year.

I also think that with the swingman type, once a kid gets into his arbitration years, when he starts making some real money, he needs to find a permanent spot in the rotation. Paying someone seven figures for 75 innings most definitely is NOT a good allocation of payroll.

he's a RH who's allowed LHB to hit .215 against him over his career, RHB to hit .216.

he was absolutely phenomenal in '05, with a K per inning, while holding batters to a cumulative .177/.261/.288 line, consistent vs. both L and R hitters.

he was almost untouchable in his brief '04 stint with the Birds, allowing 2 singles, a double and 2 walks in 41 plate appearances against.

I'm sure he could be signed to a 2-year deal for $1 million per.

Why the hell not? Cheap, effective againt both L and R, makes batters miss.

AW would also be a cheap closer option for years to come.  I think he would at least be as effective as any of our non-Carp pitchers were the first half of last season, and we ended up being a playoff team.  I think he's a better starting option than, say, Adam Eaton would have been, and the Cards had interest in him.  

I think he could fill either role, but I like the way that mgmt is approaching it, because if you end up with too many good pitchers - you win games.  Trying to have 5 starters, AW, and Izzy at the beginning of the season is a good problem to have, because it allows the Cards more flexibility in the case of injury.  That's something that can strike at any time, even for Carp, as durable as he's been since he's been here.

And what does it take to get them.

Rosenthal suggested in his article today that the White Sox and the Rockies were the two most likely trade possibility.  How do you think Jennings matches up with those guys in terms of talent?

Without looking at the numbers I like Vasquez, because I remember seeing him be a beast with the expos, but he may not be the same pitcher he was then.

However, I tend to think Wainwright will begin next season as a starter and Izzy back in his accustomed role as closer. That could change if Izzy continues his dramatics and if Mulder is resigned and is put back into the rotation at mid-season, which could well move Wainwright back to the closer role.

That still leaves the Cards one top quality starter short. I'm skeptical of Mulder. I'd be happy with Jennings of Colorado (and elated if JuanE is used as part of a package to get J.J.), though I'm not sure he's a legit #2 (but perhaps best we can do for that spot).  

Jocketty: We talked about that in spring training. We had four free-agent pitchers- Sidney Ponson was here instead of Weaver- and we decided that rather to single out one or two to focus on we would go through the season and assess them then. At this point we hope to sign two or certainly one of them.  We need three starting pitchers because we have Chris Carpenter and Anthony Reyes.  We need three more.  

Schwarz: That's assuming you keep Adam Wainright in the bullpen, which also depends on the health of Jason Isringhausen, etc.

Jocketty: Right.  If we're able to sign three starters we'll keep him in the bullpen.  If not we have other options.

...........

The interview does probe these other options.  It seems Jocketty assumes Adam will be in pen next year barring a major failure signing, now, two more starters.  

We know what Wainwright can do as a reliever. Yes, it's a small sample but we've seen him as a setup man and as a closer. We haven't seen him as a starter.

We can project all we want but I say put him in the rotation. Let's see what we've got. We need starting pitching. Condition him as a starter in spring training. Put him in and let him start until at least the all-star break. If he fails, move him to the bullpen. It's easier to move a starter back to a reliever role, correct?

Izzy says he'll be ready by opening day. If not, let Looper/Kinney close until Izzy is ready. If Izzy fails miserably, then move AW back to the bullpen and hopefully you have a good (and cheap) closer for a few years.