the good news: cards sign ryan franklin
Update [2007-1-11 15:52:57 by lboros]: Erik and Mrs. Erik had a healthy baby boy --- Landon James. add'l info at this diary. congrats and blessings to the new parents.[end update]
i checked in with will carroll, who wrote the book (literally) on pitching injuries, to ask him what we can reasonably expect out of mark mulder in 2007. his response:
The mid-season target seems reasonable.
but a lot of guys you have heard of came back from rotator-cuff surgery; that's the good news. the bad news is that only one of them came back to pitch with any degree of effectiveness within 10 months of his surgery: roger clemens, who was operated on in late august 1985 and returned the following april --- less than 8 months after surgery --- to post one of the best seasons in recent memory, 24-4 with a 2.48 era. he won the mvp and cy young awards that year. another pitcher, jimmy key, returned to action in april 1996, just 9 months after having rotator-cuff surgery, and had a decent season: 12-11 with a 4.68 era. the caveat is that he was absolutely awful for the first 2 months of his comeback; through june 5, his record stood at 2-6 with a 7.06 era. from that point --- 11 months post-surgery --- forward, key was very good: 10-5 with a 3.65 era. mulder will reach the 11-month point in his recovery in mid-august.
below is a list of the rotator-cuff recoverees who most resemble mulder --- starting pitchers who'd achieved some degree of success before getting hurt. i won't claim it is a complete list, but i bet it's pretty close. if anybody knows of others (starting pitchers only), add 'em below:
| date of surgery |
age at surgery |
date of return |
length of rehab |
year 1 record |
year 2 record |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| scott elarton | 9/99 | 23 | 4/23/00 | 7 mos | 17-7, 4.81 | 4-10, 7.06 |
| casey fossum | 9/03 | 25 | 5/14/04 | 8 mos | 4-15, 6.65 | 8-12, 4.92 |
| aaron sele | 9/02 | 32 | 5/9/03 | 8 mos | 7-11, 5.77 | 9-4, 5.05 |
| joey hamilton | 9/99 | 28 | 8/19/00 | 11 mos | 2-1, 3.55 (6 starts) |
6-10, 5.93 |
| orel hershiser | 5/90 | 31 | 5/29/91 | 12 mos | 7-2, 3.46 | 10-15, 3.67 |
| tony armas jr | 5/03 | 25 | 6/1/04 | 13 mos | 2-4, 4.88 (16 starts) |
7-7, 4.97 |
| el duque | 5/03 | 37 | 7/11/04 | 14 mos | 8-2, 3.30 (15 starts) |
9-9, 5.12 |
| ramon martinez | 6/98 | 30 | 9/2/99 | 15 mos | 2-1, 3.05 (4 starts) |
10-8, 6.13 |
| carlos hernandez | 2/03 | 23 | 8/14/04 | 18 mos | 1-3, 6.43 (9 starts) |
n/a |
| bret saberhagen | 10/95 | 31 | 8/22/97 | 22 mos | 0-1, 6.58 (6 starts) |
15-8, 3.96 |
| justin thompson | 8/99 | 26 | 8/18/05 | 72 mos | 0-0, 21.50 | n/a |
| dave fleming | 10/95 | 25 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
the players are ranked in order of the time it took them to get back on the mound --- shortest to longest. the top guy on this list, elarton, had a comeback similar to jimmy key's: he returned too soon and performed miserably, with a 7.11 era through his first dozen starts in 2000. the same goes for fossum, who came back after an 8-month layoff and posted an era of 7.64 over his first 18 starts post-surgery, and aaron sele, who put up an era of 7.01 in the 1st dozen or so starts after his premature return. don't overlook joey hamilton as a comp; he was the same age as mulder at the time of his surgery and had a somewhat similar path, pitching extremely well through age 25 and then slowly crumbling under the weight of faulty mechanics and declining peripherals. despite a triumphant 6-start return from surgery in august 2000, he was never the same pitcher after the injury.
continuing down the list from this point, all of the rehabs are at least a full year in duration --- which, if applied to mulder, would mean a september 2007 return. even at this point of the table, not all the stories are pretty. hershiser scuffled for most of his first year back; as late as labor day his era was worse than league average, but he prettied up his final line with a stellar september --- 16 months post-surgery. el duque waited more than a year before he started pitching again, and the patience paid off: he had a great comeback season, the best on this chart. but saberhagen didn't recover effectiveness until nearly 3 full years after his surgery; if it take mulder that long, his contract will be expired before he's a useful player again. ramon martinez, pedro's older brother, was at the peak of his career when the injury hit him; after his 6.13 era in his "comeback" season he stopped playing. justin thompson was a 15-game winner and former all-star whose big-league career was essentially ended by this surgery; in the 3 years following his operation he only took the mound 3 times, all in the minors. dave fleming went 30-15 over his first two-plus seasons but never threw a single pitch after his rotator-cuff operation. carlos hernandez's promising career had just begun; now it may be over.
it's not an encouraging track record, at least where starting pitchers are concerned. (i didn't look closely at the many relievers who've come back from this surgery.) aside from clemens, all the guys who resumed pitching less than 11 months after rotator-cuff surgery pitched abysmally for the first 2 to 4 months, at least, post-surgery; those who took longer to come back have what could generously be described as a spotty record. maybe mulder will be a rare case; maybe he'll come back in july and go 8-4 with a 4.25 era the rest of the way. but the odds are strongly against it, based on the evidence i've been able to find so far. for that matter, the odds are strongly against mulder's ever regaining his former level of ability, or even coming close to it; those few pitchers who played a number of years after the surgery (hershiser, hamilton, el duque) came back greatly diminished, although el duque was able to regain his old form for half a year. only clemens has been able to get back to his former level and stay there --- and he was 22 when he had his surgery.
and was roger clemens.
conclusion: mulder shouldn't be counted on to provide any help in the short term, ie in 2007. if we're lucky, he might start pitching at a league-average level by august --- but it would be imprudent to depend on that. so the rotation remains a big problem. having looked at all these rotator-cuffers, i have to wonder why the cardinals considered mulder a better gamble than john thomson. thomson has shoulder issues too, but he's rehabbing them nonsurgically; he'll be ready to pitch opening day, and he only cost $500,000 guaranteed, plus incentives.
as for the other pitcher the cardinals signed yesterday --- ryan franklin, for a $1 million guarantee --- i actually like that signing quite a bit better than the mulder deal. to my eye, it's 50-50 that franklin outperforms mulder in 2007.
0 recs |
108
comments
Comments
mulder / franklin
But will either Mulder or Franklin outperform what we would have gotten from Thompson / Narveson (for chump change)?
by jjray on Jan 11, 2007 9:40 AM EST 0 recs
i don't know
this just looks like a large longshot bet to me ---- prob'y a lot of money spent to make the team nominally better, if at all.
by lboros on
Jan 11, 2007 9:47 AM EST
up
0 recs
mulder
by jjray on
Jan 11, 2007 10:50 AM EST
up
0 recs
Good Research
by liam on
Jan 11, 2007 9:44 PM EST
up
0 recs
The Upside for This Deal is Long Term, Not Short
As LBoros has convincingly demonstrated, there's a reasonable chance that he improves the team--substantially, not nominally--in 2008. But in order to obtain that benefit, we likely need to give Mulder the year off.
My point: The job of fashioning an '07 rotation remains incomplete. We need another starter.
by Titus Pullo on
Jan 11, 2007 11:18 AM EST
up
0 recs
well said...
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 11:21 AM EST
up
0 recs
well said
"a mulder signing would be worse than no signing at all, imho, because it would make the cards apt to sit back and count on mulder for their midseason rotation boost, instead of aggressively pursuing walk-year pitchers who hit the market as the trade deadline approaches. jake westbrook and mark buehrle are both pending free agents and prime candidates to be moved; see derrick goold's entry at Bird Land today for a long list of other players who might shake free on that basis. if they have mulder in their hip pocket, the cards won't feel the same urgency to bring in reinforcements. but mulder, whenever he returns, is just as likely to undermine the rotation as stabilize it. . . . "
sorry to keep repeating myself.
by lboros on
Jan 11, 2007 11:23 AM EST
up
0 recs
It needs to be repeated, Larry.
I am cautiously optimistic about this signing. It will all depend on the medical staff's rehab philosophy.
The Franklin signing is great and good...but Goold seems to think that they will still go with a "bullpen start" for the 5th spot "until Mulder is ready." And this scares me.
I wonder if Weaver will be pursued at all by the Cards anymore. My guess would be no. But Jocketty better not stop shopping around.
Man I hope they are going to stay conservative on this one.
by silent_bob on
Jan 11, 2007 12:30 PM EST
up
0 recs
Rehab philosophy
by blove121 on
Jan 11, 2007 2:04 PM EST
up
0 recs
at least...
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 2:08 PM EST
up
0 recs
Matt Morris
by wannabeGedman on
Jan 11, 2007 3:14 PM EST
up
0 recs
It's pretty obvious
The problem that may arise, in my medical opinion, is that Mulder will likely "feel great" before his shoulder is completely sound. And a mistake could be made, AKA him taking the mound before August.
I say this because if you remember, Mulder denied feeling any shoulder discomfort while pitching last year, despite having a torn tendon. Usually with impingement and rotator cuff damage, there is significant pain with overhead movements, and especially with the "late cocking" stage of throwing.
by silent_bob on Jan 11, 2007 9:47 AM EST 0 recs
silent bob, thanks
by lboros on
Jan 11, 2007 9:49 AM EST
up
0 recs
I looked before,
by silent_bob on
Jan 11, 2007 9:50 AM EST
up
0 recs
thanks a lot for all the injury info..
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 10:27 AM EST
up
0 recs
But,
Didn't he have labrum issues? Is that the "torn tendon" you're talking about? Now, I don't know for sure, but doesn't a labrun tear itself not cause any pain? I've played with guys who had torn labrums and didn't realize it for awhile, until they started unconsciously compensating for it, which caused a different injury, which led the doctors to find the labrum tear.
Again, I have no actual idea, this is pure speculation. But I'm still in favor of the Mulder signing.
by Jhusk on
Jan 11, 2007 2:16 PM EST
up
0 recs
NO TORN LABRUM
by silent_bob on
Jan 12, 2007 12:46 PM EST
up
0 recs
A Competitor
Here's hoping Carp and the entire organization have learned the lesson from that and will make sure Mulder rehabs carefully.
"Make speed without haste."
by liam on
Jan 11, 2007 9:52 PM EST
up
0 recs
John Thompson
All we are asking him to do this year is be a #4 starter. If we can find our way into the post season and he is doing well, he can take Wainrights rotation spot and we can have a lights out bullpen again.
by Born in 82 on Jan 11, 2007 9:48 AM EST 0 recs
but thomson will have to pitch
by lboros on
Jan 11, 2007 9:49 AM EST
up
0 recs
True...
Could we get an updated roster matrix to confirm that?
by Born in 82 on
Jan 11, 2007 9:51 AM EST
up
0 recs
I'll tell you
Todd Stottlemyre.
When he went to the D'backs after his stint with the Cards, he had "shoulder issues" that he "repaired nonsurgically" with weights, thera-band, etc. The only problem was, after that, he sucked, and he ended up having to have surgery anyway.
by Jhusk on
Jan 11, 2007 2:17 PM EST
up
0 recs
Its risky,
but I'm also encouraged by his low pain levels and ability to pitch while the tendon was obviously torn. Mulder is also relatively young, and he, from all indications, is a superb athlete. I've found that young, naturally great athletes tend to have a more favorable outcome from these types of surgery.
by silent_bob on Jan 11, 2007 9:53 AM EST 0 recs
Franklin/Thompson/Looper
by cardsfanindenver on
Jan 11, 2007 10:21 AM EST
up
0 recs
good theory
by john vb on
Jan 11, 2007 10:31 AM EST
up
0 recs
no doubt they have better information
by lboros on
Jan 11, 2007 11:19 AM EST
up
0 recs
i concur
by jose smokeindo on
Jan 11, 2007 11:16 AM EST
up
0 recs
Why Franklin?
-a consistantly below-average K/9 rate
-a walk rate that has increased every year for 5 years running
-a consistantly high HR/9 rate
-historical flyball tendancies
I would rather give the youngsters a shot.
by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 10:23 AM EST 0 recs
Agreed
by Lawless on
Jan 11, 2007 10:29 AM EST
up
0 recs
Then again
by Lawless on
Jan 11, 2007 10:30 AM EST
up
0 recs
I'm with you...
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 10:34 AM EST
up
0 recs
perhaps
by Birds on the Matt on
Jan 11, 2007 10:38 AM EST
up
0 recs
yeah, I guess...
Plus I feel like...
Narveson
Tankersley
Hawksworth
Thompson
Looper
could all be as good as Franklin. I suppose in baseball dollars $1MM isn't that much.
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 10:42 AM EST
up
0 recs
Pitch to contact...
Sorry I'm such a negative Nancy.
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 10:37 AM EST
up
0 recs
Well, quite Frankly... (I made a pun!)
the bullpen than as a starter. We'll certainly
see Franklin compete for the #5 slot in the
rotation... as he should. But I'm already seeing
everyone freak out that Fanklin is going to steal
time from Reyes/Nav'/Wainer; this isn't necessarily
going to be the case. Depending on how spring
training goes, I think we're going to see our
young guys have a legitimate shot at the rotation.
Franklin is basically an insurance policy. If we
don't use him as a starter, he'll work out of the
bullpen... and will likely perform better there.
For $1Mil, I've seen worse uses of a BP spot.
I guess what I want everyone to hear is that just
because Franklin has a history of starts does not
automatically mean our young guys are going to
lose opportunity to make starts.
-ShawnD
by lostraven on
Jan 11, 2007 10:51 AM EST
up
0 recs
do we have room in the bullpen?
Hancock
Thompson
Looper
Johnson
Rincon
Flores
Isringhausen
Springer...
I suppose its a good problem to have.
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 11:05 AM EST
up
0 recs
Simply amazing...
by ilillillli on Jan 11, 2007 10:31 AM EST 0 recs
how?
by Birds on the Matt on
Jan 11, 2007 10:40 AM EST
up
0 recs
$13million
$13MM is more than the ammount we were short on trading for Vazquez and signing Burnett last offseason. This organization's pockets are deep, but they aren't bottomless. $13MM will make a difference.
And if we're talking marquis... $6.5MM annually is only $500k short of what Marquis' new contract is worth. He is, if nothing else, healthy.
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 10:46 AM EST
up
0 recs
NO
They passed on Burnett because it was $55 million over 5 years. That's not even close to 2 years, $13 million.
The Cards had $16 million "left over". Maybe they shouldn't have spent it on Mulder (if that's your opinion that's cool), but to say they can't afford that is silly in my opinion.
by themang on
Jan 11, 2007 10:57 AM EST
up
0 recs
Burnett, etc.
I understand that in todays market $13MM is relatively small, but it isn't worthless. Think of it this way... we're paying 30% more from 1.5 questionable seasons from Mulder than we are for 3 full seasons of a now healthy Adam Kennedey.
I'm just saying I see your point, but I'm never going to say that $13MM doesn't matter.
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 11:08 AM EST
up
0 recs
Except
With that said, this market makes me sick. All of my kids will be lefthanded.
by Alxfritz on
Jan 11, 2007 10:42 AM EST
up
0 recs
fair points...
I suppose I was just hoping that in a world where Barry Zito cleans up because of his money-in-the-bank consistancy, the oposite would be true as well... that is to say that because Mulder is such a question mark the discount would be pretty severe. I suppose, though, that in this market, a $6.5MM middle of the rotation starter is a discount. I just think we should've gotten a better deal for taking such a risk.
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 10:51 AM EST
up
0 recs
the odds are against
by lboros on
Jan 11, 2007 11:27 AM EST
up
0 recs
Right
(wow. lot of numbers in that paragraph. kind of confusing.)
Although, when a "could be worse" is the reaction to what is probably the second biggest signing of the off-season (with Carps ext being a cautious "WooHoo" being #1, and Jimmy's sentimental 2 year deal #3), that's not the greatest off-season in recent memory.
On the otherhand, my SI commerative '06 World Series book came yesterday.
by Alxfritz on
Jan 11, 2007 12:11 PM EST
up
0 recs
Anyone hear
Scraping for some optimism, here...
by Red in Chicago on Jan 11, 2007 10:56 AM EST 0 recs
Agreed
by Edmonds is baseball on Jan 11, 2007 11:04 AM EST 0 recs
OK...
Like I've said before, at least Narveson and the kids are inocent until proven guilty.
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 11:10 AM EST
up
0 recs
Thats not what I am saying
And as for the overloaded bullpen, that is a great thing. Now whoever doesn't do their job can be shipped out and traded for some new blood. I see a deal around the deadline that moves some of the overloaded bullpen for a bat that helps us down the stretch.
by Edmonds is baseball on Jan 11, 2007 11:23 AM EST 0 recs
are we not saying the same thing?
I would rather have not speant the money on Franklin.
Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.
by ilillillli on
Jan 11, 2007 11:30 AM EST
up
0 recs
It's 1% of the payroll
by plh903 on
Jan 12, 2007 12:08 AM EST
up
0 recs
i rather like the thought...
by jose smokeindo on Jan 11, 2007 11:30 AM EST 0 recs
Does Franklin bring his steroids with him
:D
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 11, 2007 11:31 AM EST 0 recs
I am looking forward to Mulder in 08 and 09
Also, Bernie has some TLR insight today about the rotation.
It sounds like they view the 5th spot largely as a competition between Franklin and Looper with Thompson really only having an outside shot. It also sounds like Hawksworth is the dark horse.
by OCCardsFan on Jan 11, 2007 11:33 AM EST 0 recs
Hawksworth intrigues me
And Looper is honestly weird enough that I think they might smell a Bottenfield situation. I don't believe it's going to happen, but I don't think they would have carried the joke this far unless they're sure they've got something.
by DanUpBaby on
Jan 11, 2007 3:24 PM EST
up
0 recs
according to bernie
ideally, i'd like to see them give hawksworth at least another 1/2 season in the minors; he is, after all, only about 12 starts removed from class A. but, you know, another month at double A, a couple months in memphis; then see where they are in the standings and call him up if they need him.
until that point, franklin's a cheap insurance policy.
by lboros on
Jan 11, 2007 3:47 PM EST
up
0 recs
Good column...
As for Franklin, I think he looks pretty done. I just see this as $1M throw away.
by Zubin on Jan 11, 2007 11:35 AM EST 0 recs
Have the Cardinals had a press conference
by Hardcore Legend on Jan 11, 2007 11:45 AM EST 0 recs
I remember one with Kennedy and Wells...
by GForce9 on
Jan 11, 2007 1:39 PM EST
up
0 recs
Kennedy Uni #
Aaron Miles wore #6 with the Rockies, but that number's claimed in this organization.
by liam on
Jan 11, 2007 10:10 PM EST
up
0 recs
Medical literature
See this article for information about partial labral tears.
The sample sizes on all these medical studies are small, but they have looked at baseball players and throwing injuries quite a bit.
Sports med types may want to take a crack at the Medline search engine.
by Red in Chicago on Jan 11, 2007 11:48 AM EST 0 recs
different injury
by lboros on
Jan 11, 2007 12:29 PM EST
up
0 recs
I know
http://www.slate.com/id/2100895
the relevant quote:
"Position players have labrums too. Angels third baseman Troy Glaus may miss the rest of the year with his "frayed" labrum (there's no difference between a fray and a tear)."
That quote doesn't make me feel better about Mulder if he does indeed have a "frayed" labrum.
by JMedwick on
Jan 11, 2007 12:48 PM EST
up
0 recs
Correct - but...
by silent_bob on
Jan 11, 2007 12:51 PM EST
up
0 recs
Either way
by JMedwick on
Jan 11, 2007 1:09 PM EST
up
0 recs

