waste not, want not

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 9:51 AM EDT in News Comment 217 comments

bernie miklasz hits it on the head vis-vis the cards' organizational dysfunction:

To make the reduced payroll work, the Cardinals need to give significant roles to young players such as like Luna. Players who can start, handle the job, and do it cheaply. But that scenario doesn't hold up, because La Russa prefers playing the veterans, who are pricier, over the youngbloods, who cost less. In this case, the Cardinals dismissed Luna's cheap labor (he made $340,000 this season) to bring in a more expensive temp.

another organization might very well have committed to luna in the offseason, hoping for league-average performance, and used the $1.3 million expended on spivey some other way. likewise, another organization might have committed to reyes and wainwright in the offseason, rather than throwing a million at sid ponson; they might have committed to tyler johnson instead of throwing $2m at ricardo rincon; and they might have committed to a j-rod / rodriguez platoon, rather than trading for larry bigbie, who ended up costing $900K.

spivey, ponson, rincon, bigbie -- that's $5.2 million, plus a left-handed relief pitcher, that the cardinals wasted on "established" veterans who were brought in to do jobs that young players within the organization already could do -- and have done, as it turns out. too bad those resources weren't applied toward a solution for one of the holes that have gone unfilled on this team all season long, and likely will remain unfilled beyond the trading deadline. for example, if the cards had been willing to commit to both wainwright and reyes, they could have traded marquis over the winter when his value was still reasonably high -- might've packaged him with king and a prospect to acquire the "impact bat" they've been missing all season.

i'll acknowledge that la russa does work unproven players into the mix -- molina, flores, and j-rod last year; duncan, luna, hancock, wainwright, reyes, and ty johnson this year. but in the majority of these cases he has not gone out of his way to create an opportunity for a young player; rather, he's turned to youngsters as last resorts, when injuries left him without other options. aside from molina, the cardinals under la russa don't commit to young players; tony's always got to have other (read: veteran) options hovering around, soaking up resources and roster space. over time all those mediocrities gum up the pipeline, and jocketty finds himself with no attractive trade chips and no maneuvering room.

will belliard help? marginally, perhaps; he's got the ability to get hot for two months, and i hope he does. but he's not the type of player who is likely to alter the outcome of the postseason, carry the cardinals to a world series. at any rate, i'm not focusing on this individual trade; in isolation, it's harmless. the troublesome thing is the pattern -- the inefficient use of organizational resources. that's no longer sustainable. jocketty's shopping list for the 2006-07 off-season is already long enough -- 2 or 3 starting pitchers, a left fielder, bullpen help (as always), and bench strength. now he'll also have to buy a 2d baseman, leaving fewer resources available for all the other positions. so the cardinals will spend $2m on a 2bman next winter . . . . . but they'll come up a few million short in the bidding for jason schmidt.

here's joe sheehan's take on the trade at baseball prospectus (subscrip req'd); you could say he's not a fan:

At the very least, the Cardinals have merely shuffled deck chairs, acquiring a veteran in exchange for a comparably-valued, less-experienced player. It's likely that the difference between the two won't even be a win over the last 60 games of the season. That wouldn't make it a good trade for the Cards--they lose out on Luna's peak seasons at low cost--but it would mean they didn't actively hurt themselves. On the other hand, Luna is trending upward, while Belliard seems to be treading water or sliding back. I've been advocating for Luna most of this year, and I won't stop now; he's going to outplay Belliard over the next two months, take hold of the second-base job in Cleveland and be one of the best 2Bs in the AL in 2007.

i think sheehan's overstating luna's value, but if he isn't -- hoo, boy.

transaction oracle says:

This isn't one of Walt Jocketty's best trades. While I was skeptical of Luna's play last season, he's playing just as well this season splitting time with Aaron Miles. While Luna has a disproportionate amount of at-bats against left-handed pitchers, the difference in platoon splits is only 29 points of SLG (identical OBP), so one can't argue that his stats are beefy from beating up lefties. Speaking of platoon splits, the Miles/Luna sorta platoon has to be one of the most pointless platoons ever - Miles actually has a higher career OPS against lefties and hasn't been as good as Hector Luna at either handedness.

While I appreciate Belliard and his impressive Fat-Leticism at second, I don't see him as all that much a better player than Luna now (if at all) and I'd rather have 4 years of Luna than 2 months of Belliard. Yes, the trade gets Aaron Miles out of the lineup, but the team could've done that anyway. My only complaint is of utilization . . .

the luna-belliard deal is a rare one in this sense: it's a straight-up trade of position players at the same position. i've only found two previous instances of this type of deal in jocketty's record: on march 29, 2004 he dealt speedy outfielder kerry robinson to the padres for speedy outfielder brian hunter; and on the trade deadline in 1999, he traded utility guy shawon dunston to the mets for utility guy craig paquette. so this is the first time walt has traded a starting position player for a starter at the same position. in 2002 he did trade the cards' starting 3bman (polanco) for a new starting 3bman (rolen), but it wasn't a straight-up transaction. . . . .

in case you missed it, both the pa.m beach post and the post-dispatch (2d-to-last graph) confirmed the cards' active pursuit of dontrelle willis. . . . .not that it alters the outcome, but at least it clears up any doubts about whether this so-called rumor had any truth behind it.

0 recs | Comment 217 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

rheal cormier got traded

to the reds . . . .

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5832710

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 10:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Great

Nice to see the Reds getting all the bullpen help we need.

by roebirds on Jul 31, 2006 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cormier has 13 K and 12 BB this year

He's like Tyler Johnson, only not free.

by DanUpBaby on Jul 31, 2006 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No Tyler Johnson

That's a pretty selective stat to compare the two, since Rheal has never struck people out. It's better to look at his important stats, like a 1.59 ERA, .225 BAA, and 1.18 WHIP in 43 games this season.

Me thinks TJ is a bit off those numbers (5.06/.238/1.59).

by roebirds on Jul 31, 2006 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's got good numbers

but he doesn't have good peripheral numbers and he's in his late 30s, so I'm willing to bet he's got no chance of keeping them up. Nobody's going to keep an OBA of .225 while striking out all of 3.5 batters per nine innings.

by DanUpBaby on Jul 31, 2006 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trade Deadline

It's over at 3pm Central time, correct?

I have a feeling we are going to stand pat...Mulder can be the #2 pitcher we are looking to get through a trade. I just don't know who the hell we have with any value? Duncan? Marquis? Those guys aren't exactly going to bring in a great player. I have to agree I wish LaRussa would give the young guys more of a shot. I know it is probably a risky situation to play youngsters everyday, but with guys like Pujols, Rolen and JED protecting them in the lineup, I think they would thrive the way J-Rod did last season in the 2nd half and the way Duncan has done so far. We could still have Haren and Daric Barton. Luna. Hopefully Jock pulls off a nice deal today, it just stinks that he has to cater to TLR so much when there are obviously players that we could have gotten or could get that TLR probably wouldn't even be interested in.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

saw that

I wanted Cormier, oh well.

Transactionoracle hit it right on the head. Belliard is better than Miles and about the same as Luna. I, too, would rather have 4 years of Luna (at the low salary for at least the first couple) than 2 months of Belliard.

The trend is also concerning which is why I'm not crazy about the possiblity (probability?) of trading for Shawn Green once the July 31 deadline comes and goes. Yes, he'll probably be better this year than Duncan, but what will we miss out on b/c we're paying Green $9 million for his .790 OPS when we could be paying Duncan/Rodriguez the minimum each for their .790 OPS. Plus, they'll be improving (or at least Duncan will) while Green's going downhill.

by chuckb on Jul 31, 2006 10:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Green

He would only be a rental for 2 months, right? If he is going to be under contract after this year I hope the Cardinals stay farrr away. I don't want anything to do with him if it is for more than 2 months.

And after all that penny-pinchin' the Cards wanted to do this past offseason, it looks like they are going to end up spending a bit of money after all is said and done. Maybe if they'd just spent the money on good players in the offseason we wouldn't be scrounging for guys wherever we can find.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Green

earns $8 million this year, is signed for next year at $9.5 and there is a mutual option for 2008 at $10 million. He also has a no-trade clause to all but 3 teams I think. In any case, he may want the Cards to exercise that option in order to complete the trade.

Presumably the snakes may pick up some of the $$$$ on the contract but there's no way they pick up enough to make it worth not playing Rodriguez/Duncan.

by chuckb on Jul 31, 2006 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

eww...

I wouldn't mind him for 2 months, but for 2 years after that? Heck no! There are plenty of better options, this might be one of the worst deals ever if this happens.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I thought he was going to be a free agent after this season. His numbers are about the same as J-Rod's and significantly worse than Duncans.

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just in...

Pirates traded Sean Casey to the Tigers for minor leaguers. Wow...

by cardsrul on Jul 31, 2006 10:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Really?

Not a bad pick-up for Detroit. Shelton hasn't been very good since his hot start to the season and the Tigers have been lookin' for a left-handed bat. The Pirates might as well give us Jason Bay already, they are going to be last in the division every year, forever.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

how about

jason bay for timo perez and aaron miles, and maybe a five gallon bucket of gatorade.

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Jul 31, 2006 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

TLR's comments confuse me....

"Sometimes you have to seize the moment," Cardinals manager Tony La Russa said. "This is our chance to win." - on getting Belliard

AND TAKE A BREATH TONY......

On Luna -

"There isn't anybody who's had more confidence in him than our staff," La Russa said. "We've given him playing time. He's responded. I think he has a chance to be a special player and he's still learning."

uh.... these statements conflict.

by Schnake on Jul 31, 2006 10:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Meh

How is this any different than anything the Cardinals feed their fans? I'd appreciate it if they'd quit blowin' smoke up my butt.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Spinmasters

Don't you think that Walt or Tony could moonlight in the offseason as press secretary for some politico in D.C.? Spin, spin, spin. It's all they do.

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

cholesterol in the arteries

Lboros' analysis is very clear and I agree completely. This is a trade that has no real point except to exchange a young player for a veteran of nearly identical value. The only "plus" for St. Louis is Belliard's "experience" - no real difference in peformance this season, or expected performance for the remainder of this season - while the "minus" is cost.

Over a series of such deals, the costs add up like cholesterol in the arteries, and it's time for a bypass.

Still, grumbling about trading strategy is less painful thinking about the Cubs series.

by madridbend on Jul 31, 2006 10:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Jocketty Quote in P-D

"Right now he's the best offensive player we felt we could acquire."

Um, but Belliard is only marginally better than Luna, if he is better than Luna at all. This move does not make us better and makes no sense to me whatsoever. At what point does Jocketty tell TLR, "Tony, you are playing the youngsters. I refuse to sign Timo Perez. I refuse to trade for Aaron Miles. I refuse to sign Ponson."

Why didn't we re-sign Grudz? At least we'd be getting above average defense as well.

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 10:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Keith Law

We frequently mock him here, but I believe that he sums up this deal rather well in his latest blog post on ESPN.com Insider:

"It's not clear where St. Louis thought it was helping itself with this deal, and there's a nonzero chance that the Cardinals hurt themselves slightly for 2006."

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 10:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not

sure what that's supposed to mean.

Cheers, Alex Fritz

by Alxfritz on Jul 31, 2006 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Meaning

It just means that there is not a readily recognized improvement from the trade and that the deal has a chance of hurting the Cardinals come next year when Luna plays well and we sign another Junior Spivey type for $1.7M or something in this ilk.

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't

know what he is trying to say either. Terrible wording, no wonder people mock him.

"nonzero chance of hurting themselves in 2006"

so he is saying that the Cardinals have no chance of hurting themselves in 2006? So he likes the trade? But he doesn't know what the Cardinals were thinking? Gahhh...confusion!

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

it caused my eyes to go crossed trying to decode it

Cheers, Alex Fritz

by Alxfritz on Jul 31, 2006 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

he is saying...

that the cardinals didn't do a trade guaranteed to benefit them.

NEXT year there is a chance (hence nonzero) that this trade will come back to haunt us.

Law seems to make declarations and then back them up very poorly. All trades have a nonzero chance of being bad for those involved.

Seems like he got his job by being very bold a la Jim Rome, however for fear of being wrong he writes things that are as middle of the road as possible.

by bretsyboo on Jul 31, 2006 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

nope

"there's a nonzero chance that the Cardinals hurt themselves slightly for 2006"

he's saying Belliard may be worse than Luna THIS year. Not next year.

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

whatever the hell he was trying to say, the point is Keith Law is an idiot.

Cheers, Alex Fritz

by Alxfritz on Jul 31, 2006 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well...

You could say there's a nonzero chance that he's an idiot.

by john vb on Jul 31, 2006 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mets are

looking at both Schmidt and Oswalt, and are apparently willing to trade Milledge. Heilman is rumored to be included in any deal, too.

by cardsrul on Jul 31, 2006 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I wish

We had a starter we could move for Milledge. Too bad Mulder isn't healthy...Mulder for Milledge and Heilman. I'd do it!

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oswalt...

if oswalt goes to the mets, thats gonna be a big blow to the cards come playoff time.

by gdowdy3 on Jul 31, 2006 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Astros

Would the 'stros really part with Oswalt? I thought they were trying to do everything they could to get to the Series this year. They are up to 3rd in the Majors in Payroll and I read they were willing to take on even more to get to the Series.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you're the 'Stros

why on earth would you trade Oswalt before Clemens?

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Astros

are not all that bright for even discussing trading Oswalt. He is their best player, including Berkman.

Richard Justice, a Houston sportswriter, speculated last night that even this talk about trading Oswalt will hurt the Astros when trying to resign Oswalt after next season.

by chuckb on Jul 31, 2006 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So...

Oswalt opts to leave Houston, to get revenge signs with the Cardinals? :D

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speculation I've heard...

is they're trying to "shop him" to gauge his value to sign him to a long-term contract.

Y'know that I, as a 'Stros fan, hope so, LOL!

by StrosDux on Jul 31, 2006 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would the Astros trade for Milledge?

With the Astros seemingly going all out to make the WS this year, in order to please Clemens, why would they be willing to pay such a high price for a rookie outfielder?

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know how NY teams can be...

Thinking they only need to give up a prospect for an ace. Right. Whatever.

by StrosDux on Jul 31, 2006 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oswalt?!?!?!

If he is available why the heck are we not going after him? I know he has had some injury issues, but sheesh! If the Stros are that desparate to trade him BEFORE that payroll cancer Clemens we need to move.

Okay deep breath, Astros would never trade him to us unless a guy names pujols was going the other way (I'm not talking Wilfredo)

by ibby001 on Jul 31, 2006 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Long-term deal by trading for the short-term?

Just a possibility. By getting Belliard for this rental, he has to be considered a Type A free-agent or at the very least a Type B. That means that we offer him arbitration, he declines, we don't offer enough money and he ends up signing elsewhere and we get a first/second round draft pick plus a supplemental. That means that Rasmus gets freed up to be traded today because we can afford to do so without really hurting our farm system besides delaying a potential player by a year---and Rasmus is our only trading chip outside of Reyes.

I don't know, it's just a thought...or a hope that we get something better than Ronnie Belliard to improve this team.

A diamond is just a lump of coal that performed well under pressure

by joker24 on Jul 31, 2006 10:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There

are better bargaining chips than Rasmus in our system. We have a lot of pitchers at the Double-A level who would be intriguing, but the problem is everyone wants guys who are major league ready, like Reyes.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How can you say...

that any of our double a pitchers are better bargaining chips than Rasmus? I don't think Pomeranz, Parisi, or any of our double a pitching prospects are rated that highly. I think most publications would rate Rasmus as our number one prospect now that Reyes is in the majors. Our highest pitching prospect might be Jamie Garcia...I don't know, but he's at double a. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but what makes you say this?

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just

going by hearsay...I thought our pitching was far deeper, but you may be right with Rasmus being our highest rated prospect now. I guess I was just saying we are far deeper in pitching than hitting at this point, so i think it would be more likely that Jockety would deal from that rather than trade our best (only?) position playing prospect.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I meant

garcia is not at AA - I meant to say he's at A.

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another take

I think it's possible that Luna got on Tony's bad side by being unhappy about his lack of playing time. For the same reasons everyone here clamored for him to start, he probably felt that he should be starting as well. Anyone who has played baseball knows that when a nonstarter plays well and doesn't start he starts to complain.

Why are people saying that his stats aren't inflated from platooning? They might not be, but what evidence is there that they aren't. He's facing more lefties than anything else...so i would surmise that it's possible that this situation helped his OBP - am I forgetting something?

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 10:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

luna's at-bats

are about evenly split between righties and lefties this season. he does not have a large differential . . . . .

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right...

...but that's not a normal split. Pujols has 275 PA (roughly) against RHP, 100 (roughly) against LHP. Rolen has 268 (roughly) against RHP, 112 (roughly) against LHP.

Luna has 120 vsR and 124 vsL. That difference is enough to inflate his overall stats.

by whopperman on Jul 31, 2006 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My point exactly

thank you.

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but luna hits

just as well vs right-handers as he does vs lefties . . . . that's what i mean when i say he doesn't have a significant split. he hasn't fattened up his stats by murdering lefties while sucking vs righties. he hits all comers equally well.

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You sure?

This year he's 310/355/431 vsL, 271/355/402 vsR. OBP's the same, but 40 points of average and 30 points of slugging.

2004-05, he was 271/336/414 vsL and 260/311/362 vsR.

Not a massive difference -- probably not even statistically significant yet -- but it definitely IS a difference.

by whopperman on Jul 31, 2006 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm thinking it might be the same reason

he got on my bad side. I want a real second baseman.

yeah, I love Luna's utility and cost. But I want a 2nd baseman who knows the position.

by sdrone on Jul 31, 2006 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'm sure

if LaRussa and the staff really felt he could be special they would have put the time in to teach him the finer points of being a second baseman. I don't think LaRussa or anyone else thought he could be an everyday option for the Cardinals, which is really too bad.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone read...

the book Fantasyland? The writer goes around and talks to a lot of managers and mentions stats like OBP and OPS and a lot of managers note that they really never look at that stuff. They just kind of go on what they think they remember about guys and go with who they feel is best.

Probably explains why Miles is playing so often...TLR thinks he remembers him playing well.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

great book

I started taking my fantasy team a lot more seriously after I read that, and now i've been in first place for two months.

by effin fisk on Jul 31, 2006 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reds acquire SP Kyle Lohse

for a pretty good pitching prospect whose name I can't remember. Kyle Lohse is arguably as bad as Jeff Weaver.

That's beer, that's Budweiser.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Jul 31, 2006 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Reds

not Homer Bailey?

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you gotta admire

wayne krivsky's guts. He's going for it and he should. He's bolstered that pen and now adds a pitcher who is, you're right, about the same as weaver. After so many bad seasons in a row, Reds' fans have got to be ecstatic. All this may not work out, but at least he's going for it.

by chuckb on Jul 31, 2006 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree

i like his guts (although not the kearns trade) and would at least be encouraged that he is trying if I was a cincy fan.

I think this is a good move too. I like Loshe to rebound the next few years.

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'm with you

krivsky is attacking his weaknesses aggressively and changing the complexion of his team. he obviously understands the game is all about pitching, and he's rapidly broadening the base of mound talent in that organization.

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

true

the cormier trade is nice. the trade with the nats isn't lookin too good already. majewski has had trouble in GAB already and Lopez and Kearns are hitting really well since being traded. The Lohse trade (if true) makes no sense.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

on the other hand

Kyle Lohse is not a good baseball player.

by DanUpBaby on Jul 31, 2006 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Worse indeed

Lohse 2006

63.2 IP/7.07 ERA/50 ER/80 H/8 HR/25 BB/46 SO/

.308 BAA/.378 OBPA/.454 SLGA/.830 OPSA

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This Trade

seems pretty dumb. No way is Lohse better than Brandon Claussen. If they actually traded a minor-leaguer who even has a shot at making it to the majors this is a bad trade.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Zach Ward

Is the pitching prospect they traded.

He is in A Ball , 7-0, with a 2.23 ERA

That's beer, that's Budweiser.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Jul 31, 2006 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lohse can easily rebound

next year or this year.

Classic buy low move that can help this year but also has payroll implications for the future.

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

where

did u get this info?

by cards4ever on Jul 31, 2006 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ESPN.com

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

link?

i didn't see anything about Lohse on espn.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stats, not of trade

I can't find anything on this Lohse trade. Any suggestions?

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's on

the official Reds site, although not anywhere else.

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

redreporter.com

they are talkin about the lohse trade in the comments...where the heck did this even come up? i haven't seen anything on any sports sites, not even the reds homepage.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wha-wha-what!?

they traded a 22 year old who was 7-0 with a 2.29 era for a 5th starter who has been horrendous all year? i admire krivsky for "goin' for it" but this just seems like a terrible deal.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Krivisky worked in Minnesota

w/ Lohse. Who better to know what this kid has? Lohse actually has the stuff to be better than a 5th starter but hasn't quite put it together.

I think this is a good buy low move by Krivisky.

and FYI low-A doesn't mean alot.

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

zac ward

3rd-round draft pick, but he's putting up those stats as a 22-yr-old in low-a ball . . . . doesn't necessarily mean he is any good. he'll need some time at high a, then at least a season and a half at double a / triple a . . . . and he may not perform at those levels.

guys like him are easily replaceable.

at best he is two years away from sniffing the majors; the reds are trying to get into the playoffs in 2006.

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Minnesota -

has also made some smooth deals for pitching prospects in the past - I hope this ends up being one and the Reds kick themselves.

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reds Official Site

It is mentioned in the first story that pops up on the main page.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/index.jsp?c_id=cin

Nothing as of yet in the actual write-up that is linked, however. Just on Cormier.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20060731&con tent_id=1585382&vkey=pr_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

where are they going to stick Belliard in our

lineup?

2nd? 7th?

by Schnake on Jul 31, 2006 11:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

hopefully

7th. keep duncan in the 2-hole unless we acquire a friggin starting LF today.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Got a

Soriano watch w/ Poll in the Diaries. I say he ends up in Minny.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Great post, LB

Once again, you nailed it: "tony's always got to have other (read: veteran) options hovering around, soaking up resources and roster space. over time all those mediocrities gum up the pipeline, and jocketty finds himself with no attractive trade chips and no maneuvering room."

There's the answer to at least some of the off season problems that have plagued this team.

I'm not a fan of the Belliard trade, but it's not a disaster in and of itself. The real disaster is that this smacks of a "trade for trade's sake" move by management, so that they can tell the fans that SOMETHING happened. I'm more steamed about the Abreu /Lidle move-that-didn't-happen. That's just cheapness. We could've made that deal if we wanted.

by birdie on Jul 31, 2006 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i dunno

i don't really want to see the Cards take on all that payroll of Abreu and have to guarantee they'd bring him back for a year or two more. I'd rather get a rental player and then look for long term options in free agency.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Salary...

Do you really think we could have soaked up all of Abreau's Salary like the Yanks are doing?

by TNFan32 on Jul 31, 2006 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fat-Letic?

Should we be worried about Belliard's physique and his being described as having "Fat-leticism" at 2B? I have nothing against portly people, but my memory cannot bring up very many portly 2B.

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

apparently

belliard is actually a good defensive second baseman. i guess he has found a way to use his jiggle to his advantage.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He

PLays short right field instead of traditional 2B, apparently.

Cheers, Alex Fritz

by Alxfritz on Jul 31, 2006 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fat-Letic...

hey fat people need love too!

by gdowdy3 on Jul 31, 2006 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

indeed.

But they have to pay! ;)

by matt reeder on Jul 31, 2006 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bill James

had an interesting comment about players similar to Ronnie Belliard. The only players that play in the majors that look like him are guys that can play really well. If they played as poorly as the toolsy, "jeans"-guys that get drafted/called up all the time, they'd never see the light of day.

The actual comment was about Yogi Berra, but he also mentioned Tony Gwynn and Kirby Puckett, among others.

by Solanus on Jul 31, 2006 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dodges have

insinuated themselves into the Soriano sweepstakes...

by cardsrul on Jul 31, 2006 11:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think

Parting with Luna is also an endorsement of what Duncan is able two do in left and the two-hole.

If they commit to Duncan in left, there are not as many places to put Luna. He is not a good fielder; Miles was not a good hitter. Belliard is at least consistent at both fileding and hitting. Plus he's from the Bronx!

by Schnake on Jul 31, 2006 11:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Random thoughts

Belliard for Luna is a mess of a deal. Ronnie looks like a pudgy punk, but is a solid offensive and defensive contributor. I don't know if he will be a good fit in the clubhouse, but I liked him a couple years ago when he signed with the Indians - good doubles and walks (at least, back then). Luna was an exciting, athletic player that gave us a lot of options and three more cheap years, but his head for defense was miles behind his body (no pun intended) and his AVG/OBP/SLG didn't add up to any real results (WPA had him at -118.1, slightly worse than Eck and only "bested" by Yadi: -131.6). Miles gets relegated to the bench, where his penchant for big hits and doing the things that Tony likes will work best. I hate the fact that we don't have a dependable backup at SS if things go wrong, but I think we'll make do. I think I would have been happier if we'd traded a SP to Boston for Loretta, then spun Luna or Miles for a reliever.
Marquis for Heilman would be a great trade, if Walt can pull it off. Marquis is gone after the season; he's been too much of a headache for the coaching staff, Jason probably needs a new start, and some team will be more foolish than the rest to try to fix him. Heilman has done well in the bullpen and can probably be a quality addition to the starting rotation. And while he may not be much younger than Bipolar Betty, he's definitely farther from the big payday.
Please, Walt/Tony, do not call up Timo if Rodriguez is DL-bound. Let Skip have a second chance as a PH/PR option, give Spiezio the starts that John would have received.
If anyone refers to the previous comments about Tony not properly using young players and then brings Pujols into the conversation, shut up right now. Albert was never a young player; he is Athena - he popped out of the top of La Russa's head, fully formed, ready to do anything that this game required.

(NOTE: Someone asked if I'd do a version of prom dates for the lineup & bullpen. I don't know if Athena is a good one for Pujols, but I might go with Stifler's mom from American Pie. Completely unexpected and the kind of date that will talked about by everyone for the next few decades. Any thoughts?)

by Solanus on Jul 31, 2006 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Mini Manny

ie Belliard is very good on the double play but his range has diminished. However he will get into proper position for cut off throws and the change of scenery may rejuvinate him. I know Belliards stats aren't noticably different from Luna's but his lack of fundamentals and instinct drove me crazy. Belliard doesn't thrill me but Luna didn't either. On the Red's Kearns and Dunn were such close buddies and both had the same bad work habits I think they felt one had to go to wake the other up and Lopez is one of the most inconsistent fielding SS in the majors. I was suprised they didn't get more back but Bray does have a huge upside.

by Birdsfanstuckinohio on Jul 31, 2006 11:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Dontrelle

Isn't going anywhere. Jayson Stark reported that the Marlins put both he and Cabrera on waivers about a week about. Sounds crazy right? Wrong... a player can't be traded if they are on waiver until their waiver peroid is up (and they wont be off waivers until last tonight). Dontrelle CANT be traded. Easy as that.

by BigMac545 on Jul 31, 2006 11:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

huh?

can't someone claim them off waivers though? how the heck does this work? claim em' both!

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

surely they aren't on waivers?

I think this must be misinformation, because a team could just claim them and assume their salary and the marlins would receive nothing in return. I think you should check your facts and post the link.

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually ...

a team can put a player on waivers and see if he passes through. If he does not and another team claims him than the team can pull the player off waivers without having to give up the player. If the player is then put on waivers for a second time the team with the highest waiver priority to claim the player is the new owner. That being said I dont know if he was actually put on waivers or not but it could be possible with no risk to florida of losing either of these guys.

by RB on Jul 31, 2006 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

Wouldn't it be easier for the marlins to just say "no."

by aet15 on Jul 31, 2006 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In either scenario

it's insane to put Cabrera and his $425,000 salary on the waiver wire. 20 teams would claim him, and Florida would know this in advance. I don't believe it. Willis and his $4M salary is also an incredible, incredible deal that would have 20 teams, at minimum, claim him. I really doubt Florida felt a need to test this hypothesis.

Also, I would think that both of them would still have options, though I'm not 100% sure on that.

by Valatan on Jul 31, 2006 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They were both put on waivers...

here is the blurg from ESPN Insider...

"...the Marlins made sure nobody would even waste their time asking about Willis this weekend. How? They put both Willis and their other walking trade rumor, Miguel Cabrera, on waivers late last week, according to multiple sources in both leagues. Those waivers were a meaningless technicality, and the Marlins clearly would have revoked both names if any team claimed them. So the only possible reason to place those particular players in waiver limbo at that particular moment in pre-deadline time was this: Players aren't allowed to be traded until their waivers expire."

this is from Jayson Stark

by BigMac545 on Jul 31, 2006 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure...

It's revocable waivers.

If they did that on irrevocable waivers, it'd be to outright them to the minors. They're not stupid.

by whopperman on Jul 31, 2006 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting, because earlier today

I read a comment from the Marlin's GM, I believe, saying that he was still listening to offers for Willis, even though he was adamant that he wouldn't trade him.

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Abreu

...wasn't the upside of that deal; Lidle was. I agree it's a gamble, but with cutting the veteran slack (including the pitching FA's) I'm not sure that the increase in the roll couldn't be somewhat offset in the coming year.

by birdie on Jul 31, 2006 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

more on sori...

Five-horse race for Soriano

According to ESPN.com's Jayson Stark, two new teams are making a late run at Alfonso Soriano: the Red Sox and Marlins.
Although the Sox are not interested in unloading their supply of young, electric arms, never say never. And no team has more bright pitching prospects than Florida.

Meanwhile, the Nats continue to talk to the Astros, Angels and Twins. But the Dodgers have faded from the trade radar.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why would the Marlins be interesting in Soriano?

What am I missing here?

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read...

that the Marlins had plans in place to flip Soriano to the Tigers for prospects. Apparently the three way talks weren't working.

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

by WiscCard on Jul 31, 2006 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see now

I figured it was a three-team deal, but didn't know who the other team was.

Thanks!

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

young players

How many managers who win a lot prefer young, inexperienced guys to proven veterans?

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jul 31, 2006 12:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

however

How many managers who win have young options that are actually better than their veteran counterparts? I think a lot of managers would've went with Reyes over Ponson A LOT sooner than LaRussa did.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you answer

My question first then I will get to yours :)

Well, at the time the decision was made Ponson WAS pitching better than Reyes. Was there any doubt to this?

I know, I know, Anthony Reyes is bound for 14 Cy Youngs but only if Duncan/TLR don't screw him up. I've gotten that from reading the posts here.

Again, the Reyes/Ponson thing is a non-issue really. Heck, Sidney won a lot in April/May. That isn't the problem.

Has anyone, god forbid, given thought to the fact that baseball people (and I mean scouts, etc. not just Walt/TLR) dont feel Luna is an everyday player? Or is this ONLY them getting rid of bad (young) for good (not young). I honestly feel Tony would have played Luna more if he truly thought he was capable of handling it. It wasn't a young vs old thing.

To compare Luna's production to Belliard's isnt really fair. Belliard has been doing it for quite some time. Will Luna? Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell.

Personally, Im not a huge fan of the trade. I liked Luna and thought he could produce. However, the powers that be felt differently. I guess we will eventually find out.

Until then, I will continually watch as TLR/Dunc ruin Anthony Reyes. The young kid can't possibly be making mistakes on his own.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jul 31, 2006 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

just seems

as though when Reyes was getting called up for emergency starts and LaDunc didn't have time to work with him he was pitching great. Now that he has a fixed spot in the rotation and LaDunc can work with him things have gone down the drain.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

or

Maybe the other teams in major league baseball got a hold of some video..did some scouting...watched some of young Reyes outings..noticed some tendencies..and developed a game plan on how Reyes pitches and how to beat him/make him work/get people out.

Nah, that never happens in baseball.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jul 31, 2006 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Youngsters vs. Veterans

I think the general argument here is that TLR prefers the devil he knows and this mindset shapes his perception of what youngsters can/cannot handle and leads to his holding them back.

I believe there is some credence to this position and I believe this mindset has hurt the franchise in that they do not always get a feel for just what a younger player is capable of because his opportunity to showcase his skill level is reduced by TLR's platoon system. It is a matter of opinion, and I understand this, but I think that JROD deserved an extended test run in the early going (after he came back from injury) so that the club could see what they have in him. Thankfully, they are doing this with Young Duncan.

I think that with Reyes both sides have very legitimate points and I think that both are right in that it is a combination of altering his approach and scouting reports. The pitch selection between the White Sox game and his last start is discernable just by watching (thanks to the beauty of TiVo). I'm not, however, discounting, scouting reports and video from our opponents.

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you think

our favorit lefty Ricky had anything to do with that? Ole Rick was set to be a stud until he lost it against Atlanta. I would be a little slow to throw my young talent into the fire also if I had seen that happen to a "cant miss" prospect like Ricky.

Lonedawg I see the ball, I hit the ball.

by Lonedawg on Jul 31, 2006 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stats Stats

Stats are anyone talks about in baseball. There is no doubt Reyes has good stuff but guys he is still very young. Weaver's season is just a freak of nature. You cant expect that out of everyone. Everyone has to learn how to pitch in the big leagues. Guys that throw really had can get away with more. Guys like Reyes have to learn how to be effective or they are going to get pounded without an over powering fast ball. The kid is learning on the fly and not doing a bad job at all.

Lonedawg I see the ball, I hit the ball.

by Lonedawg on Jul 31, 2006 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

But while his fastball may not be completely overpowering, it's still quite good. Good enough to shut down the White Sox when he was throwing mostly 4-seamers and changes.

His 2-seamer isn't very good, which should mean that he shouldn't use it that much in games until he gets good with it. Instead, the Cardinals' staff is trying to shoehorn him into using it as his #1 pitch. Nibbling with your fourth-best pitch is usually not a good way to be effective, and that's the Duncan gameplan for him right now.

by whopperman on Jul 31, 2006 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So whats the deal?

Is Carp just that good or is he the only one that can control his pitches the way Dunc wants them too?

Lonedawg I see the ball, I hit the ball.

by Lonedawg on Jul 31, 2006 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Carp...

...is unique on the Cardinals staff in that he's a power, strikeout pitcher who has a very good 2-seam fastball...apparently Jamie Garcia in A ball has the same type skill set. Reyes, right now, simply does not have the pitch set of a ground ball pitcher. It's not a problem to try to work on getting him to come around to that, but that's something to work on during the side sessions, not shoehorn him on during games against real, live, MLB hitters.

Heck, his 2-seamer is probably not even that bad a pitch if it's set up by the 4-seamer. But that's not what Duncan is trying to do with him.

by whopperman on Jul 31, 2006 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

carp

Was a flyball pitcher in Toronto. He gets to St. Louis and becomes a Cy Young winner. I know, it aint good enough for Reyes but it is for Carp??

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jul 31, 2006 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dood

Um, Carp's better than Reyes maybe?

Really, what does Reyes top out at? Carpenter? Carpenter also HAS a 2-seamer, Reyes doesn't.

And you've been -very- argumentative.

by SirVLCIV on Jul 31, 2006 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so

Im not allowed to disagree with a thought and provoke discussion??

I dont think I've said anything out of line.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jul 31, 2006 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also,

Carp had 4 years of MLB experience, and 1.5 years of rehab to work with Duncan on getting everything right before he made his cardinal debut. And still, he wasn't the totally dominant carp we know today until his second year as a Cardinal.

by Valatan on Jul 31, 2006 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To me it seems

we get some good pitchers and Dunc tries to get them to do stuff they're not used to. I know groud ball pitchers are more effective to a point but the lack of strike outs have really hurt us this year. I think Dunc has had so much success with his coaching style that it may hurt some pitchers going away from their strengths to pitch the way he wants them to. It may be conterproductive in some situations.

Lonedawg I see the ball, I hit the ball.

by Lonedawg on Jul 31, 2006 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Scouting

might account for his problems if he was pitching the same way now that he was against the White Sox and now getting lit up. But he's changed his approach against the hitters, both in aggressiveness and type of pitches, and NOW they're lighting him up.

It's kind of like playing chess, having a great gameplan, then thinking that they've figured that one out and changing to something else. But the other player had no clue what you were trying to do before and now you've played right into his hands.

Maybe Tony and Dave should realize that maybe the key to understanding Reyes is not to overestimate the intelligence of your opponent, nor underestimate the ability of your pitcher.

by Solanus on Jul 31, 2006 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

do you guys

Honestly think that Walt/Dunc watched the White Sox game and said, yep, we gotta change the way this guy goes about his business. This just ain't gonna work.

I highly, highly, doubt it. Everyone acts like Tony/Dunc missed that game.

Another question, how do we all know how many seams Reyes is throwing with??

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jul 31, 2006 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think their mind was made up before the CWS game

Afterall, their concern for Reyes' high fastball didn't begin with the White Sox game.

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the 4-seamer

is faster on the gun and has different movement on it; it generally comes in belt high or above.

the 2-seamer is 5 mph slower and no higher than thigh-high

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

re the white sox game

he got 12 flyball outs, vs 6 groundballs; struck out 6.

i think dunc and reyes believe, philosophically, that 12 fly balls is too many --- i think they believed that over time the flyballs would be prone to turn into doubles and homers.

they don't want him getting flyballs, even if they're outs. they want him getting grounders

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

too bad

now he is getting grounders and is giving up 5 runs in 6 innings.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe

But I think they prefer winning over anything else. This much Im convinced of.

It appears as if the walks are hurting Reyes more than anything else. If he learns to throw the ball over the plate (be it four-seams, two-seams, 12-seams) he will get guys out. He's too good a pitcher not to.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jul 31, 2006 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm guessing

the other 8 seams are vasoline-created? I'd prefer he not do that...

by Valatan on Jul 31, 2006 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

beano, i can't tell if you're serious

in asking if there are any succesful managers who prefer youth over experience.

but let's just say that you are. exhibit A is bobby cox: he's been atop his division for 15 years, mainly by developing young players.

whitey herzog used to win with youngsters; he routinely dumped veterans and gave their jobs to younger players. ditto dick williams and davey johnson.

la russa himself used to give young players a chance; the 1980s athletics were full of homegrown players that he stuck into the lineup --- canseco, mcgwire, steinbach, walt weiss, stan javier, mike davis.

i'll leave it there . . . . there are many many other examples

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

I know we've been round and round about this a million times. But Tony has and always will play young players when he feels they are better than the other alternatives.

We may not agree with his assessments but I personally feel his decisions are based on ability and whether or not the job gets done, and NOT on age.

Again, Tony has a track record of playing and relying on young players. I know its more fun to argue otherwise, but its true. Does he do it everytime? No. Do we/I disagree with him at times? Yes.

But lets not throw this all under the "Tony won't play young guys argument" because thats just not true.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jul 31, 2006 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes we really have

gone over this pretty well . . . .

tony has his preferences / tendencies, like any manager. i think --- all other things being equal -- he prefers veterans to young guys. that's not true in every single case, but it's an overall tendency in my opinion

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

But I dont know another "winning" manager who feels differently. I think most guys are more comfortable with the devil they know as opposed to the devil they dont.

Im not saying its right, just the way it is.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Jul 31, 2006 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

there are many "winning" mgrs

who feel differently. i just named you a whole bunch of them above in this thread.

there's not much point in continuing, really; you have your point of view. you're entitled to it.

by lboros on Jul 31, 2006 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not always

look at the wainwright / ponson "competition" for 5th starter during spring training

by PGeorge on Jul 31, 2006 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I keep dreaming

that we'll jump in and snag Soriano.

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 12:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

How 'bout this?

If lopey986 is right about Stark claiming the Marlins are interested in Soriano, what are the chances that they would flip Soriano to St. Louis for Reyes and other prospects? I say this because I don't understand why the Marlins would go after Soriano, unless they're going to flip him in a three-team trade and we already know that WJ offered Reyes for Willis, so Reyes isn't untouchable.

I highly doubt this and definitely wouldn't like it, but it's something to think about.

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no way

not reyes...willis would still be under our control next year. Soriano wouldn't - no way we could deal reyes for him. If we would, we could get him from Wash.

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yea

I wrote that before realizing that the Tigers were the third team and was just trying to make some sense out of the Marlins attempting to trade for Soriano. I agree that it didn't make sense and was looking for someone to fill in the holes for me.

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Assuming that we make the playoffs...

Who starts games 2 and 3 of a playoff series based on who we have on our roster?

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 12:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

2 and 3

Mulder than Soup.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd go with...

Mulder (if he comes back healthy) in game 2 and Suppan in game 3. If Mulder doesn't come back I'd go Marquis (pitches better after wins so hopefully Carp wins game 1) in game 2 and Suppan in game 3. I'd probably throw Reyes in game 4 although if he continues to struggle I'd put Weaver there and use Reyes out of the pen.

"The right-hander is throwing up in the bullpen." -Mike Shannon

by DJ87 on Jul 31, 2006 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seems to me....

that Walt could have gotten more than just Belliard for Luna. With the aging middle infield for the Giants, a Hector Luna package for Schmidt seems to me a better move.

by cmruready on Jul 31, 2006 12:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

schmidt for luna

I'm not sure we have that package - and surely Luna is no deal breaker in a deal like that.

by Toddius396 on Jul 31, 2006 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Me either, but

Jason Stark just reported that the Giants are looking for a package like the Brewers received for Carlos Lee (i.e. multiple players that can contribute now) and that might atleast give us a shot. I wrote off Schmidt a long time ago, because I figured there would be no way we would get him, but apparently the Giants are willing to trade him for the right pieces that would help them in the wildcard race.

It's probably too late now, but I didn't expect them to want players rather then prospects.

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So

Maybe something like the Dontrelle package: Reyes, Rasmus, Duncan, maybe Marti. We'd pretty much have to resign him after giving up that package. A better investment for the unspent Burnett money, for sure.

This also leaves us with the Bigbie, Taguchi, JRod, Spezio mix 'n match hole in left, but whatever--it improves this years team, which is all that really can be hoped for

by Valatan on Jul 31, 2006 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Marti

Can't be traded until next summer, IIRC.

by Cardinal70 on Jul 31, 2006 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correct.

It's either a year from being drafted or a year from signing his first pro contract -- can't remember which.

And you can't trade him as a PTBNL yet either I don't think -- there's a three-month window to name one, IIRC.

by whopperman on Jul 31, 2006 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So we need to develop young talent

and people keep mentioning the fact that TLR won't do it.

I'm sitting at the game at Wrigley yesterday, thinking about how I'm tired of Luna's defensive screwups. But I do agree that we probably should be playing him full time over Miles. Yet we don't.

Then I start thinking. Maybe I should spend more time wondering whether TLR is the right manager for this team anymore. I just checked - his contract goes through 2007.

by sdrone on Jul 31, 2006 12:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Who would be right

for this team? TRL is the right manager for this team we just need more finacial freedom fromt he owners to go out and get the other pieces. The ownership has put to much stock in the fact that some very good players will take less money to play in St Louis. Big Mac set the standard when he took less money to play for the Cards because he loved playing infront of our fans. Those type of players are rare. If you want the good players you have to fork out the money and the ownership has not really dont that. He needs their support to put that type of team on the field he can win with while allowing the younger players time to develop as bench players first. He has not been able to do that the past few years. You are not going to find another manager better that what we have.

Lonedawg I see the ball, I hit the ball.

by Lonedawg on Jul 31, 2006 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

New Manager Please?

I agree with sdrone. I think we need a drastic change in our managerial philosophy. We need more honesty about our team's injuries [ex. Pujols' elbow acting up but then magically recovering within the game or mulder's shoulder]. We need a manager who acknowledges our team's inadequacies directly instead of the regular "well the guys played hard, they competed for the full nine." We need more toughness and guts when our players repeatedly get beaned. We need a new manager who sticks to a plan, instead of flip-flopping batting orders and positions all the time without giving our players a real sense of their roles on the teams. We need a manager who doesn't pick favorites so much with our young players [anyone else notice how well TLR welcome Ankiel into the majors compared to how he has treated Reyes?]. We should never have let Jim Leyland leave the organization [how ironic would that have been considering Leyland and TLR's close relationship]. We have to make a change, because TLR won't.

by stlspecialsauce on Jul 31, 2006 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Come on...

I think the Cardinals have performed about as well as can be expected with the gaping offensive holes they have in their lineup, the aging of Jim Edmonds and Pujols' injury. Let's be honest with ourselves. The Cards, on paper, aren't a good team. They're decent enough to compete in a mediocre NL, but no manager is going to turn this collection of, uh, talent, into worldbeaters. More pieces are needed.

by Dirk Dorkelson on Jul 31, 2006 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he is so set on veterans,

he would suit a team with a more flexible payroll like those in the AL East.

by Schnake on Jul 31, 2006 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

I've been kinda thinking out loud to myself the past few days. Is the team too uptight? Does the team get too uptight in the playoffs? Is it just winning too many games and not getting good draft picks? Is it not spending enough money on strikeout pitchers?

Maybe it's sitting through losses this weekend and watching 2 more on TV. And, of course, seeing Reyes throw lower velocity fastballs. I dunno. Maybe I just needa drink.

by sdrone on Jul 31, 2006 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I also think the team is too uptight. I just can't fathom, even now, how our 2004 team did so well in the post season but completely shit the bed offensively in the World Series. I think part of the team's character comes from the players, but a large part of their character comes from their manager.

Witness Ozzie Guillen and Terry Francona. Their teams are scrappy with a "take no shit" kind of attitude, kind of like them. Same thing with Leyland. On the other hand, Tony's teams have a history of performing well and then tightening up in big situations. 1988 A's - 2004 Cards.

by Ray Lankford on Jul 31, 2006 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

TLR

Although I'm not ready to throw TLR under the bus yet, TLR and this organization have some problems. First, Tony seemingly manages us out of some games due to his Wile E. Coyote super genius method of managing. More to the point, we need a coherent organization to go beyond the first round of the playoffs.

Either we need to decide to follow the yankees and the red sox and spend to get our players and use our farm leagues solely to develop trade bait for the deadline. If we do this, Tony is our man because it seems apparent he is more comfortable with veterans. Then the problem is with our owners not spending.

On the other hand, we can go the route of the twins and develop our system and use it. We have the ability to use our farm system based upon talent such as Pujols, Reyes, Wainwright, Molina, etc. and we can find prospects for the future that we are willing to allow to contribute. Then we don't spend as much which is the owner's preference. If this is our route, then Tony isn't our man.

by Brownale on Jul 31, 2006 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wainwright

i believe he was actually acquired via trade from the Braves.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

duh

That's right, my bad.

I was thinking that we got him thru our system. The point is still the same though, acquiring guys thru trades as opposed to going for re-treads and mortgaging our future.

by Brownale on Jul 31, 2006 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Quick Question

Does anyone remember who we gave up for Larry Walker? And did anything ever happen with them?

by aet15 on Jul 31, 2006 1:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i know one of them

chris narveson was a part of it im pretty sure, and he is back in the cards oragnaization...i heard this a couple of days ago but im not sure if it is correct

by cards4ever on Jul 31, 2006 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jason Burch, Chris Narveson, and Luis Martinez

Burch is in Tulsa (AA), Narveson was traded to Boston, released, and has re-signed with the Cardinals and is on the Memphis DL. I'm not sure where Martinez is now, but he was in Japan in 2005.

by whopperman on Jul 31, 2006 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

approx 2 hours left

and I haven't heard a whisper of the cardinals acquiring another player...I don't like this. We need upgrades.

I'm getting more and more worried/pissed as this afternoon goes on.

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 1:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No kidding.

I sure would like to hear an ESPN "Marquis for Heilman" update soon.

by aet15 on Jul 31, 2006 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

whether we move or not,

walt is not the type to leak this info.

by Schnake on Jul 31, 2006 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love this!

Jordan (Scottsdale)
Rob, is Brad Lidge ever going to recover? What should the Astros do before the trade deadline? Is this season a wash, or can they add a bat and make the playoffs?
ROB NEYER
Anybody ever studied the careers of relievers who give up huge homers in October? Donnie Moore, Mitch Williams, Billy Koch, Byung-Hyun Kim, Brad Lidge . . . just seems like these guys don't fare so well afterward, though I'm aware I'm probably engaging in highly selective memory.
ROB NEYER
p.s. the Astros are finished. Time to start thinking about 2007.

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 1:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

you gentlemen just brightened my day...

that is all.

by sjoshi on Jul 31, 2006 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

uh oh...

From MLB.com:
July 31: "The St. Louis Cardinals are the latest team to make a run at Dontrelle Willis," the Palm Beach Post wrote. "The Cardinals reportedly offered a package centered around rookie right-hander Anthony Reyes, possibly first baseman/left fielder Chris Duncan and prospects."

I dont like this, I dont like this one bit....

by MarcGldstn on Jul 31, 2006 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, yeah.

It's rough. But at the same time, Dontrelle is the same age as Reyes and more than proven. He'd be a huge number 2 behind Carp.

by aet15 on Jul 31, 2006 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

just think...

if mulder comes back 100% and pitches the way he was at the start of the season. we would have Carp, Willis, Mulder. Hot damn that would be a pretty post-season rotation. Soup can pitch in the 4-hole, he has been pitchin well as of late.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I love it, but the previous posts on this site indicate that it won't happen.

by Ray Lankford on Jul 31, 2006 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I posted this above...

But due to the number of posts ill re-post it... according to Jayson Stark Willis Can't be traded... here is a blurb from his Stark Markert on Insider...

"the Marlins made sure nobody would even waste their time asking about Willis this weekend. How? They put both Willis and their other walking trade rumor, Miguel Cabrera, on waivers late last week, according to multiple sources in both leagues. Those waivers were a meaningless technicality, and the Marlins clearly would have revoked both names if any team claimed them. So the only possible reason to place those particular players in waiver limbo at that particular moment in pre-deadline time was this: Players aren't allowed to be traded until their waivers expire."

by BigMac545 on Jul 31, 2006 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a barrier

If a team claimed him, he'd be revoked before the expiration of the waiver. If the Marlins wanted to trade Willis, all they'd have to do is revoke those waivers.

by roebirds on Jul 31, 2006 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'm still a skeptic

i can't imagine they would do something of this ilk and make someone completely untouchable. just hard to imagine.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do.

Dontrelle's strengths are exactly in line with the TLR/Duncan set of priorities. He'd be cheap and under our control long term. He is, by far, the best pitcher on the market, considering age and ability. The package would only give up players tangentially related to our current playoff run. He gives us a powerful 1-2 at the top of the rotation for this year and 2007, our last two years of serious possible contention for a while. He is likeable and charismatic. We have no idea whether or not Reyes can live up to the promise, much less Rasmus. We have no idea whether or not Duncan is a flash in the pan.

Really, with the money he costs, we could concievably make a run at another quality spare part free agent (i.e., Jason Schmidt, Andruw Jones) in the 2006 offseason and create one last superteam in 2007

But this trade isn't going to happen, either, so no need to get worked up over it.

by Valatan on Jul 31, 2006 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another question:

does anyone know which club has top waiver priority? Could this be a clever scheme to lock out everyone else but a certain team for a trade that isn't quite finalized yet?

by Valatan on Jul 31, 2006 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wavier wire

I beleive is based on record or something like that... so I would imagine that KC is on the top of it.

by BigMac545 on Jul 31, 2006 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

really--

what is everyone's problem wwith giving up Reyes for Willis, anyway? The absolute best case scenario is that Reyes evolves into what willis already is.

by Valatan on Jul 31, 2006 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have

no problem with doing this. I am worried about Willis' heavy workload while he has been in Florida.

if this did happen, hopefully it wouldn't be another Haren trade in which next year Reyes outperforms Willis.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

I have a lot of faith in Duncan.

by aet15 on Jul 31, 2006 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

reyes

is going to evolve into a lefty?

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Jul 31, 2006 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was talking about ability to be a frontline

starter--but willis' handedness only strenghtens my point.

by Valatan on Jul 31, 2006 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

from the show on ESPN.com

... Jayson Stark reports that there are two trades for Soriano that the Nationals would accept right now... one from an NL team and one from an AL team. Stark speculates that those two teams are the Astros and the Twins.

by BigMac545 on Jul 31, 2006 2:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i hope the astros

give away a bunch of good players for the stretch run and then lose all their rentals. They could cripple themselves if they aren't careful!

that makes me smile. I hope they hamstring themselves something fierce

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

obviously

it is a trade with the Marlins and they will flip it and trade us Soriano, Willis and Miguel Cabrera for our entire farm system.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lidge...

looks like lidge is staying with the stros for us to pound on.

by gdowdy3 on Jul 31, 2006 2:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

counting down...

only got an hour to go.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 2:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Todd Walker

To the Padres?

by Ray Lankford on Jul 31, 2006 3:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

WALT - ACQUIRE A PITCHER

Jason Schmidt
Aaron Heilman

DO IT WALT! DO IT NOW!

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 3:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Trade Update

Hopefully no one was dying to add Kip Wells...

MLB TRADE UPDATE FROM THE MAG'S AMY NELSON
Three baseball sources say that Pirates RHP Kip Wells is on the verge of being traded to Boston, and that the two sides are ironing out details to get it done. A deal could be done at any minute, a baseball source says.

It better not be a straight up deal for Wily Mo or Coco Crisp or I will be rather upset we didn't move Marquis for one of them.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 3:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting Tidbit from Jayson Stark

He writes in his "Stark Market" column that in the proposed Oswalt et al for Tejada deal that "[t]he only condition Houston is said to have laid down was that the Orioles not send him to the Cardinals. Which apparently was agreed upon."

To think, I was thrilled at the mere thought of his leaving the league to join the Awul-O's, never even imagining that the O's might have spun him off to us. Then again, this is probably just the Houston front office being thorough and covering their backsides.

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 3:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It would be funny

if that trade went down and the O's decided to go ahead and trade him to us anyway.

Anyone else checkin out mlbtraderumors.com...
how legit a site is this? lots of trade rumors on there. BoSox interested in damn near evy'one.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay, so have the O's send him to Memphis

and we'll only call him up when we face Houston in MMP.

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mets/Pirates "Closing In"

Jayson Stark reports on the ESPN.com chat that the "Mets are closing in on a big deal with the Pirates, for Roberto Hernandez and Oliver Perez" and that they are "haggling about the rest of that deal."

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 3:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

hmm...

interesting. oliver perez was a heckuva pitcher 2 years ago, it'd be scary if he regained any form and pitched with that mets lineup backin' him up.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

makes sense...

Duaner Sanchez seperated his shoulder in a car accident and will miss the rest of the season so the Mets need a set-up man.

Surprised they don't make a play for Brad Lidge and slot him as a set-up man.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

trade

there goes the Marquis for Heilman deal.

by chuckb on Jul 31, 2006 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think

that deal was a dang long shot anyway.

rumors are the mets will be sending perez and heath bell(?) to the padres for linebrink.

so i suppose the marquis for heilman deal would still be possible since the mets would be adding 2 bullpen arms...hernandez and linebrink. they could part with heilman for a starter.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

done deal

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jon_heyman/07/31/monday.trades/index.html

hernandez/perez for xavier nady.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice to see the Mets gain a starting pitcher

that Pujols owns.

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is that really all the Pirates got?

The Cards could have easily sent Duncan and/or J-Rod over for a quality bullpen arm and a once deadly lefty starter. It is really getting frustrating with the lack of real movement here. These Boston rumors about a starter for Coco are upsetting too; I would send Marquis for Crisp any time and free up room in the rotation for Mulder on his return.

by GoCrazyFolks on Jul 31, 2006 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why would the Cardinals want...

...either of those guys?

by Hardcore Legend on Jul 31, 2006 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Holding on tight to their wallets

Gary Gilette assessed the Cards thusly in his chat:

"I had a long talk with another writer about this yesterday. It looks like the Redbirds are going to hold on tight to their wallets and not make any big-money deals. In one way, that's easy to see given that they are the class of a weak division and really aren't likely to be threatened."

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 3:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

OTOH

He then augmented his answer...

"OTOH, it's gonna be hard to explain to Redbird Nation if STL limps into the postseason and then gets sent home early due to a very weak OF. Their faith in Rodriguez and Taguchi is touching, but they are long overdue in getting some serious punch added to the lineup, and LF is the place to do it."

by bgh on Jul 31, 2006 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

gag

i know we can win the division but this no trade at the deadline has me seriously pissed. We've an opportunity to upgrade this team and Walt an Co. had best do something significant to show that they are committed to winning the WS. We haven't seen that they are commited to winning the WS since the Walker trade imo.

by azruavatar on Jul 31, 2006 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh...

How much of it is Walt and how much is Walt not being given the leeway to make a big move? The only big move we've heard about would have been for a guy who is cheap. There's been no real talk of landing an actual high-salary player.

Isn't it great to root for a team run by a cheapskate?

by whopperman on Jul 31, 2006 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only slightly more exciting then last year

when we did nothing. Normally I might say that you have no reason to be pissed, but not when team management fails to make any significant signings during the off-season, promises to make significant trades during the season, but let's the trade deadline pass without making any. All while other teams take home players that we'd love to have.

by rob is back on Jul 31, 2006 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

freakin' great

so the cardinals are happy just gettin' to the playoffs and being swept out by the mets. good organizational plan.

at least other teams are doing all they can to get better.

by lopey986 on Jul 31, 2006 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If this is the case...

I'm gonna be one royally pissed off Cards fan. If they hold tight onto their wallet Im gonna be livid! The whole reason these freaking penny pinching owners said they didnt spend as much in the off season was to have flexability at the trade deadline. If they dont make a trade because of money those lying bastards can go to hell and take my season tickets with them.

by BigMac545 on Jul 31, 2006 3:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Except that I don't have any season tickets for them to take. They can rest assured I'll never purchase any if they keep making bone-head moves.

I actually expected them to make a trade b/c of exactly what you point out: they said they didn't make off-season acquisitions to keep some $$ for later deals. What a bunch of liars. The talent was there: Soriano, Willis, Schmidt, Abreu, Wilson.

I'm pissed, and I often think about how the Cards would operate if they were a fan-owned team like the Greenbay Packers.

by Ray Lankford on Jul 31, 2006 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs