Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Doug Flutie's Hail Mary, And Why College Sports Matter

A-Rod or Cabrera?

I'm kind of surprised about how little discussion there's been here of A-Rod's soon-to-be-signed contract - 10 years/$275 million. I find this particularly strange in light of all the discussion about Rolen's availability via trade. The re-signing of A-Rod will take 1 3B off the market and 1 team who needs a 3B out of the running for one. That leaves the Dodgers, the Angels, the Red Sox, Braves, Phils, the Twins maybe. Who else? The Sox'll probably re-sign Lowell unless one of the others panics at losing the opportunity to bring A-Rod westward and throws a mountain of money at him.

Is anyone more likely to panic now and trade for Rolen? I doubt it but it does increase the price in the trade market for Miguel Cabrera. The news on A-Rod somewhat spoiled my idea for today's post but I'm going to go ahead anyway. A-Rod's contract is huge - much higher than the 2nd highest contract in baseball. We don't yet know the details but we do know the framework has been set for a 10 year contract that will average $27.5 million per season. Interestingly, Pujols made $15M last year and will make $16M in '08. So A-Rod's contract will earn him 72% more money than Pujols will make next year. He'll be under contract until he's 42 years old - the age Barry Bonds was when the '07 season started.

We could see this coming. We all knew that A-Rod was going to get at least 8 years and at least $200 M. To me, this contract isn't surprising at all. But it's still a huge chunk of money. Some have made the argument that he's worth it and the Cards should've found a way to make it work. Wouldn't A-Rod and Albert be great in the lineup together for the next 10 years? Of course they would but Albert's contract expires after 2011 - the Cards have an option they'll almost certainly exercise if Albert continues to stay healthy and produce and then he'll earn an A-Rodian payday. The Cards surely couldn't afford 2 $25-30 M players at once.

Others will say A-Rod's not worth it - no player is. Setting aside all the "he chokes in the postseason stuff", the primary argument would be that most teams can't spend a 20-25% of their payroll on 1 player and expect to remain competitive. The Yankees could do it b/c they're the Yankees but other teams would have to forgo something else of value in order to pay A-Rod the king's ransom that he's set to receive. These are valid points, of course.

A-Rod's primary competition in the 3B market, however, was not from another free agent, but from Miguel Cabrera. The Marlins appear set to trade him and, if anyone was going to diminish his market, it would have been him. He is, of course, a spectacular hitter - one of the 4-5 best in the majors. Some make an issue of his weight or defensive liabilities, but the guy can rake. He should be moved to 1B, sooner rather than later, but, even playing a poor 3B, he's still worth a ton of loot just from his ability to hit the baseball. Some complain that he's "just going to be another Manny Ramirez" as if that's a bad thing. ManRam is headed to the Hall of Fame, dreadlocks and 7th inning stretch piss-breaks notwithstanding.

But while A-Rod is 32, and will be 33 in July, Cabrera will turn 25 in April. He's got 2 years until free agency and will probably earn less than half of what A-Rod's set to earn in the next 2 years. There are a lot of reasons to like Cabrera more than A-Rod. Move him to 1B and he's about as good as Pujols, at least offensively. So teams like the Dodgers and Angels would have had to decide whether to make a run at A-Rod or try and trade for Cabrera.

That's the scenario I intended to throw out there this morning. Which is better? The problems w/ signing A-Rod are that he's already 32 and will be paid until he's 42 and that he's set to make more money than the GNP of most of the countries in the world. The main problem w/ Cabrera is that a team would have to trade for him - and he won't come cheaply. According to the Palm Beach Post , the Marlins want Howie Kendrick, Nick Adenhart, and 2 others from the Angels for Cabrera. From the Dodgers, they're asking for 4 of Billingsley, LaRoche, Kemp, Loney, and Kershaw. Of course, they won't get that much but it probably would mean 3 of the 4 from either team in order to receive Cabrera. Is it worth it?

The only way a Cabrera trade makes sense is if the team is also able to re-sign him long-term. There is a lot of talent on the 2 teams' lists and 2 years of Cabrera, I don't care how much he hits, isn't worth all that. But what about 12 years of Cabrera - 2 and then a 10 year contract along the lines of A-Rod's? That's what he'll get when he becomes a free agent - 10+ years and $250-300 M. We can quibble about exact dollar amounts but that's not really the point. He'll get a lot of years and a lot of money - he'll just be 27 when he's a free agent - not 32!

Still, if you had the choice between A-Rod or Cabrera, which would you choose? And, make no mistake, before A-Rod agreed to re-sign w/ the Yanks, when it appeared the Yanks were completely out of it, these teams did have the choice b/c they had the money and the prospects to make either happen. In fact, the Yanks probably also had the choice. They could've given up Hughes, Kennedy and Melky Cabrera or Cano or whatever and gotten Miguel. They certainly could've backed up the armored car and signed Miguel to an extension. They chose A-Rod! Did they choose wisely?

My view is that they did. Say what you want about A-Rod, but he's a certain hall-of-famer and will go down as 1 of the 3-4 best players of his generation. His postseason OPS is basically the same as the great Derek Jeter's (.844 to .846). He's a tremendous hitter who could easily transition to 1B and then DH and hasn't played fewer than 148 games since 1999. If anyone's worth $27.5 M per year, it's A-Rod. MORP has him worth about $44 M last year and the Hardball Times' Fair Market Value Calculator has him worth about $38 M. He was tremendous last year, of course - possibly his best year in a career of outstanding years - but with all the talk of teams overpaying for free agents, he seems to be one who will probably be underpaid during the course of this contract. Even if he is hurt and unproductive in his last couple of years, the surplus value the Yanks will probably receive from the first 7-8 years will, in all likelihood, make up for his diminished production in the last couple.

Still, Cabrera's 7 years younger. But will he save the team any money? No. He's going to get that A-Rodian contract I referred to earlier. As I said, I'm not that worried about the D as he could be moved to 1B by any team that trades for him. He won't be Albert over there but he would be passable. He's going to terrorize pitchers for a long time if he's able to stay healthy and there's nothing in his past to indicate that that might be a problem. But the problem for me lies in trading Kershaw, Kemp, and Loney; or Kendrick, Adenhart, and E. Santana; or whatever the Marlins will receive in exchange for Cabrera. That's 15-18 years worth of a huge amount of talent just for the right to have Cabrera for 2 years and, hopefully, pay him King Midas' fortune for 10 more. Is Cabrera worth it? 12 years of Cabrera in exchange for 16 years of Kershaw, Kemp, and Loney? Maybe so - but A-Rod, despite the enormous contract, is still a better value. Had the Dodgers signed A-Rod, they would have gotten A-Rod PLUS Kershaw, Kemp, and Loney. By re-signing A-Rod and not trading for Cabrera, the Yankees got A-Rod, Hughes, Kennedy, and Melky Cabrera. They also retained the possibility, however remote, that they might be able to also sign Cabrera in 2 years. Which would you rather have - A-Rod, Hughes, Kennedy, and Melky Cabrera; or Miguel Cabrera? To me, it's a no-brainer. That's a 4 for 1 trade I'd make any day of the week, despite the 10 years and $275 M.

On an unrelated note, David Eckstein appears to be open to playing 2B and has met with the Mets to discuss filling that void in Flushing. This is a smart move on his part as the SS holes have all but dried up and this is a way to increase his market power. He's now looking for Julio Lugo-esque (I think I just threw up a little in my mouth) type contract - 4 years, $36 M. Do not adjust your monitor! You read that correctly. 4 years, $36 M for David Eckstein. It's been great knowing you, David. You're a little sparkplug - plucky and spunky and all those things that fans like. Thanks for the World Series title! We'll remember you fondly. How we'll replace him, I don't know. God help us if it's Cesar Izturis! This Alexei Ramirez intrigues me a little. He's a 26 year old Cuban defector who was 6-16 in the World Baseball Classic - plays SS and CF. He may or may not be ready to play in the big leagues. A couple years ago, Clay Davenport at BP compared Cuban baseball to to short-season A ball . Might be worth a flyer! Erik suggested D'Angelo Jimenez in this diary . I've heard worse suggestions! (I'm looking at you, Cesar!). Then there's this Brendan Ryan guy - nah, nevermind. Let's not even go there.

0 recs  |  Comment 68 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

No thanks on Jiminez--
one of the worst defenders I've ever seen. Clumsy and foolish looking on the field. Give me Ryan.
On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Nov 18, 2007 2:11 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

If you sign Alexei
I don't see how he figures in until at least 2009, but what do I know about Cuban baseball.

As far as Cabrera and Arod, I'll take neither. Cabrera needs to be a DH or 1B immediately. He'll cost a shitload in pre-arb talent. He becomes a free agent in, what, 2 years? If you want to keep him you'll probably have to pay him a Manny contract on top of premium talent and the 15-20 million he makes in the next two years.

I understand why it could theoretically cost that much in talent. That's the superstar premium. That kind of offense coming from one roster spot is just flat out scarce. Same goes for Arod.

Arod already plays a mediocre 3B. He's past his prime. He has a career .323 EQA (147 OPS+). (Pujols .338 EQA, 167 OPS+). If you want to keep him healthy and hitting, and if you don't want his defense yo become a liability then you have to move him to 1B or DH halfway through the next decade. Then what do you have?

Well, in 2012 you have a 36yo first baseman who's on the downslope of his career. PECOTA thinks he'll put up a .300 EQA or so at that point. That's like paying BJ Upton $30 million to play first base for you this year, then expecting him to get worse for the next five years when you (presumably) owe him $30 million per until he's done.

Arod's an elite player so his career could take an unprecedented path like Barry Bonds, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I don't know which I'd rather do, if I had to choose. Depends on if I'm the Yankees. Kershaw should be good, but you're trading future for known superstar performance. You are probably going to have to ALWAYS going to have to overpay in (ceiling, probable, whatever) future performance. Kemp and Loney are not that special, although I like both of them just fine, they are replaceable.

So I'd say that I'd rather trade replaceable pieces and future performance than sign a possibly franchise-crippling contract, if I'm not the Redsox/Yankees.

And really, I'll believe one of these huge talent hauls for 1 or 2 years of a player when I see it.

by plh903 on Nov 18, 2007 3:23 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

USA 6, Cuba 3. Rasmus named best CF in tournament.
The USA team won the gold medal today at the World Baseball Cup games in Taiwan, defeating Cuba 6-3 in the finals.

Colby Rasmus was named the best center fielder in the tournament.

Jayson Nix hit a home run for USA in the final game. He was named the tournament's best second baseman.

Taken from the live Stadeo.TV broadcast of the Baseball World Cup final game and closing ceremonies. http://stadeo.tv/

11/18/2007 7:21 AM ET
Team USA wins gold at World Cup
Ends Cuba's 25-year tournament run with 6-3 victory
By Daren Smith / MLB.com

[Excerpts]

Team USA ended a 33-year drought -- and Cuba's 25-year dominance -- at the IBAF World Cup with a 6-3 victory in the gold medal game on Sunday in Taiwan.

Rays outfield prospect Justin Ruggiano collected three of Team USA's 14 hits.

Rockies prospect Jayson Nix and Phillies farmhand Jason Jaramillo each had two RBIs for the United States, which built an early five-run cushion and held on to win this biennial tournament for the first time since 1974.

Angels farmhand Steven Shell (1-0) got the win in relief, allowing one run on two hits with three strikeouts over three innings. Jerry Blevins (Athletics) retired both batters he faced and Jeff Stevens (Indians) got the final two outs.

Stevens was mobbed at the mound after Rays prospect Justin Ruggiano caught Ariel Pestano's fly ball to right field to end the game.

After losing to Italy, 6-2, on Nov. 9, Team USA outscored its opponents, 45-16, during a seven-game winning streak.

by CardsWin on Nov 18, 2007 8:46 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Boxscore isn't up yet
what did Colby do in the final?
"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 18, 2007 9:51 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

take it all Cuba!
SO how did their SS/CF guy do ? ;-)

by jealousblues on Nov 18, 2007 2:32 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Final stats for Rasmus in World Cup Baseball Cup
Final stats for Rasmus in World Cup Baseball Tournament:

OBP .459
SLG .613
OPS 1.072

Colby had 6 walks vs. 4 strikeouts.
Over half of his hits were for extra bases.

AB 31
H 11
2B 5
HR 1
BB 6
K 4
RBI 5
SB 2
CS 1
DP 0

No errors

In today's win over Cuba Rasmus had one single and an RBI in 4 AB, and he was caught stealing.

Bryan Anderson and Chris Perez did not play.

Rasmus and Anderson were the youngest players on team USA.

Box score here:
http://mlb.mlb.com/usa_baseball/downloads/y2007/wc_box_111607.txt

by CardsWin on Nov 18, 2007 2:58 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Why not Ryan again?
If even for a stopgap? He's cheap, young, speedy, full of energy - he buys you some time and allows you to spend more money elsewhere (right handed hitting outfielder, starting pitching, etc).  I just really don't get the "let him sit on the bench for a year soaking things up" plan - I know it's Tony's M.O., but c'mon - the kid's full of LB's "opportunity cost".

Anyway, back to the post, you're absolutley right, IMO.  You can't look at it as only ARod for $275 mil - it's ARod plus hanging onto your prospects (Hughes, Kennedy, and Melky Cabrera) for $275 mil - and that's a much better deal than just Cabrera.

As for the Cards, while both are talented players, neither one is really a good fit here, mainly for the reason named Albert Pujols.  As you said, can't aford both (ARod), and if Miggy C is moving to 1B, then the point is rather moot.

Good post!

by SmashedAtoms on Nov 18, 2007 10:02 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

crazy, but
whatever happened to edgar gonzalez (adrian's little brother)?  a lifetime .820 ops in like 8 minor league seasons isn't too bad, and last year was even better.  i've always heard his defense was bad, he's already 29 years old, and not with the club. what's the deal with him?  

by birdsonthebat on Nov 18, 2007 11:07 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

edgar V gonzalez
(I just like to add the "V") was a poor defensive 2B/3B in the minors.  There's little chance of him being a good defensive SS.

Anyway he's a minor league free agent and after not being called up despite Rolen breaking down and Kennedy's complete lack of output this season I can't see him coming back to our club.  Our bringing in the inferior Cairo as a backup infielder instead of promoting him was the straw that broke the camels back, and IIRC he asked for his release early.

It's easier not to make the mistake than to make the mistake and try to fix it. -Mo

by SleepyCA on Nov 18, 2007 2:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

of course
if we offered him a guaranteed MLB job i'm sure he'd take it, but if we gave him an NRI to spring training we'd probably be low on his list.
It's easier not to make the mistake than to make the mistake and try to fix it. -Mo

by SleepyCA on Nov 18, 2007 2:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

thanks
i knew he was bad defensively, but to pick cairo over him for september 2b and 3b ...he must be atrocious.  

by birdsonthebat on Nov 18, 2007 3:13 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

no wonder
nobody talks about him.  thanks for the info.

by birdsonthebat on Nov 19, 2007 12:43 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The comment about Ryan
was sarcastic. He's better defensively than Eckstein and would be at least passable defensively. I'm not sold on him as a starter but I'm not opposed to seeing if he can do it either. But Tony and Mozeliak are opposed to that as they've made several comments this offseason alluding to their belief that Ryan isn't ready to be a starting SS. It doesn't matter if he's the best guy, it won't be him. They're going to go w/ Izturis before Ryan.

by chuckb on Nov 18, 2007 12:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Izturis before Ryan.......
my head is spinning.  I do think that Ryan IS a better option than Izturis and a lot less money too.

by jillsinmo on Nov 18, 2007 1:13 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed
"Izturis before Ryan" is an absolutely disgusting philosophy.
On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Nov 18, 2007 4:36 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

a-rodian logic
i agree on the a-rod contract only being of this value to the yankees (or other high payroll team).  if you have a $60M payroll (e.g., marlins) with a-rod getting half of that, then there is no reason for opponents to pitch to him in any situation where you would want him to earn his money (pitch to the $500k player).  the higher the payroll, the more likely one is to get value from a contract like this.  for most teams, they would be better off with two andrew jones, etc.  harder to pitch around 2 guys than one

by sportsman on Nov 18, 2007 10:51 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

The Yankees have a win goal of
around 95 wins.  In the AL with the Angels, Tigers, Red Sox and Indians, they need to win considerably more than what it takes to make it in the NL Central.  The marginal gains to get those last 5 wins are always more expensive than getting 80-90 wins.  Yes the contract is large.  No, it's not going to cripple the Yankees payroll.  Yes, they're balancing the team with young players.  No, A-Rod probably won't be worth the money he's making in 6-7 years.

The marginal gains by retaining ARod and making the playoffs are probably worth $300M over 10 years to the Yankees.

by azruavatar on Nov 18, 2007 11:55 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

miggy
Why not LA?  Florida must be asking the moon for Miggy and rightly so, but both LA teams have a lot of prospects and money to keep the conversation going.  If he does not end up in LA by the end of the offseason, I would be one pissed off LA fan.  The Angels were notorious under Stoneman for over-valuing their prospects and Colletti has already complained publicly about Florida demands but I don't see how these teams can't find common ground.  Both LA teams have several guys in AAAA status.  It's time to fish or cut bait.
All my friends became Cardinal fans and grew up happy and liberal. I became a Cub fan and grew up embittered and conservative." -- George Will

by wannabeGedman on Nov 18, 2007 12:35 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

LA Teams
The Dodgers would be absolutely nuts to accept that Kershaw/LaRoche/Loney/Kemp deal that was supposedly what the Marlins wanted.  Out of that list, the only guy who is potentially a AAAA guy is Kershaw, and only b/c he's a 19 year old in AA right now, where he put up a 10+ k/9.  LaRoche is probably the top 3rd base prospect not named Evan Longoria, Loney has a perfect swing, hit .331 and OPSed at 900+ as a rookie this year, and Kemp, when he actually played, has done quite well.  I don't care how good Cabrera is, that trade would cost the Dodgers and one outstanding hitter, two potentially outstanding hitters, and one potentially great pitcher.  

The Angels, on the other hand, may be the ones to pull the trigger on this one.  They desperately need another bat to help out Guerrero, and have the kids to pull this deal off.  Santana is a huge talent who's been enigmatic his whole time there, and would probably be a good center piece for a Cabrera deal.  

by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 18, 2007 2:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Loney's upside is
Mark Grace. I'll be surprised if he slugs .500 consistently. You mention that he hit .330/.381/.538 for LA this year in 340 at-bats, but he also hit .279/.345/.382 in 230 at-bats this year for Las Vegas.

Kemp strikes out too much to hit .300, and his so-far OPS+ of 111 is powered by an unsustainable .430 on-contact BA. He has an isoD of .30.

by plh903 on Nov 18, 2007 8:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

on the other hand...
Cabrera is an amazing player. Absolutely. And If I'm the Marlins I'm going to ask for a boatload of talent for him of course.. but be careful what you are getting here. Yes his talent is huge...but so is his waistline.  His work habits are NOT something that he is known for and his overall attitude has taken a slide for the worst in my opinion over the last year or two. Now perhaps a new enviornment will change all that towards a more positive direction, but ...you could be taking on a huge distraction and cancer in this guy too.

by Timbo02 on Nov 18, 2007 1:57 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

This is hilarious
re: Eckstein . Wish I had found it last night.

by chuckb on Nov 18, 2007 2:03 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Lol I saw that too
Look, I'm as big a fan of Eckstein as anyone.  The fact that he's a decent MLB player is remarkable considering what he's been given to work with.  But Eckstein and ARod don't even compare, and anyone who says they do is dumber than a box of fucking rocks.  

by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 18, 2007 2:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Ken Tremendous is the best
I go to that site almost every day.
It happened on a Sunday afternoon, August 22, 1982.

by Glenn Brummer stole home on Nov 18, 2007 2:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

That. Was. Awesome.
I highly recommend that it be required reading for our new GM.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Nov 18, 2007 4:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

they love
talking about eck over at FJM. always good stuff.

by jeff abs on Nov 18, 2007 5:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Post-season splits,
Eck is a "terrible" hitter, Arod is the "best hitter on the planet."

Someone should start a site ripping FJM's analysis.

by plh903 on Nov 18, 2007 8:22 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

That is so arrogant and stupid
"And if your team makes it to October despite his mediocre/bad play, he will totally help you win in October, with his career .278/.333/.335 line in the postseason."

He also has a WS MVP and two WS rings, which is one and two more than A-Rod. Say what you want about his numbers, but him "totally not helping you win" is just a stupid and mean-spirited thing to see. As much as the stat nazis refuse to admit it, there ARE such things as intangbibles. I also love how people criticize Eckstein for being "scrappy" and "hustling" -- as if those are bad qualities -- and then turn around and criticize people like Juan E. or Miguel Cabrera or whoever else for being lazy.

Eckstein isn't a 4/$36 million player to be sure, but he has had an outstanding career for someone who had to walk on his college team, and he will always be a more LIKABLE player than jerks like A-ROD. The fact is, there are some people who care about people as opposed to just raw numbers. The cynical, negative attitude people show toward players like Eckstein is just a drag.

And Keith Law has to be the most joyless baseball writer there is. Leave it to him to make writing about the world's greatest game seem about as much fun as drafting a coroner's report. I've said it before, but his writing (and that of this Ken Tremendous jerk) at least gives the IMPRESSION that he a) doesn't like baseball and/or b) doesn't get what it is that makes the game fun, interesting, or compelling. What a killjoy.

by willievinceterry on Nov 18, 2007 9:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, actually what
I meant was those things I quoted are quantifiably, sabermetrically, wrong. That's stupid because he's saying that his postseason splits are predictive.

I could give a shit about the intangibles, actually. The fact is that Eckstein has usually put up good UZRs, and has an average EQA and he plays SS. For a small amount of money, he's not a bad player.

It's the second time he's said Eckstein is "terrible" and the millionth that he's said Arod is the best hitter on the planet, and those things just aren't true.

I just had an interesting email exchange with him about it, actually. He said it's a humor site and he's hyperbolic at times, etc.

by plh903 on Nov 18, 2007 10:13 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

that's unfortunate
being a "humor site" doesn't excuse poor analysis.  That's a catch-all excuse that could be used for anything.
It's easier not to make the mistake than to make the mistake and try to fix it. -Mo

by SleepyCA on Nov 18, 2007 10:38 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Just to clarify, plh903
I hope you realize I was referring to that other site and not you in my post. I was agreeing with you. I couldn't tell if you caught that or not...but I certainly wasn't calling you arrogant and stupid.

by willievinceterry on Nov 19, 2007 12:45 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, I totally didn't think
you were. I was just saying that I was perturbed (with FJM) for slightly different reasons then you were. I did laugh a little when I saw the headline to your reply at first, though. I thought, "who would get so mad at me for saying that Pujols is a better hitter than Arod and Eckstein isn't the worst player in MLB -- on a Cardinals site?!"

by plh903 on Nov 19, 2007 1:34 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Unfortunately, he quotes...
Keith Law as the voice of reason.  That is metaphysically impossible, so I'm not sure what to think about the rest of the analysis.  Although this time Law is relatively correct a/b Eckstein, except where he goes WAY too far.  He knocks Eckstein for his OBP and his inability to work the count.  Eck has a fair OBP for a leadoff man (in the .340 range) and, really, the one quality he brings to a lineup is his ability to work a count.  D.GOOCH

by GOOCH24 on Nov 18, 2007 5:10 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Law is right
This is from today's FJM post:

"Eckstein's 3.64 pitches per plate appearance would have ranked him #123 among MLB players in that category last year. I say "would have," because he was injured so much he didn't have enough AB to qualify. In 2006, his 3.75 was good for 95th."

Hmmmm.

by jdub176 on Nov 18, 2007 5:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

p/pa for 2007 "starting" players
on our team:

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/comments/2007/10/12/142836/58/2#2

eck isn't even one of the better players on OUR team in terms of p/pa, and we were awful as a team.

It's easier not to make the mistake than to make the mistake and try to fix it. -Mo

by SleepyCA on Nov 18, 2007 5:56 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

True...
But that makes the same mistake that comparing Eck's OBP makes...comparing him to every offensive player in baseball.  But we should compare apples to apples.  Compare Eck to other leadoff hitters...not to slugging clean up hitters.  D.GOOCH
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Nov 18, 2007 5:36 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

OK
Point taken, but I think the gist of the FJM post is that the media refers to Eckstein as the "master of the contentious at-bat," when he's obviously not.  

by jdub176 on Nov 18, 2007 6:02 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Ummm...no, it isn't
You have it backwards.

Claiming that we can't compare Eck's P/PA to the league average "because" he's a leadoff hitter is quite a stretch.

One doesn't look at the lineup position to determine how to judge the stats...one looks at the stats to determine the best lineup position.

The fact is, this urban legend that Eckstein "always works the count" is simply not correct (at least in the last two years...he did okay in 2005) and needs to go away.  He has been BELOW average in working the count the last two years.

His OBP (.356 in 2007), on the other hand, is fairly good for today's leadoff hitters, since it's increasingly rare to find an OBP in the #1 spot above .360 these days.  Indeed, the average NL OBP from the #1 spot in the lineup for 2007 was: .341.

So while Eck's OBP is decent, his P/PA is still below average.  Furthermore, his speed is insufficient to steal many bases (he stole all of 10 last year, way below the average leadoff hitter), and his power is also below average for leadoff.  Even with his slightly higher than average OBP, his OPS was 30 pts below the AVERAGE #1 hitter, due to his 45pt SLG deficit.

So let's recap:  

ECKSTEIN vs. Avg NL Leadoff Hitter
 OBP:     Above Avg
 P/PA:    Below Avg
 Speed:   Below Avg
 Power:   Below Avg
 OPS:     Below Avg

ECKSTEIN vs. Avg NL Shortstop (Defense)
 Range:   Below Avg
 Arm:     Below Avg
 Overall: Below Avg

Ipso facto, Eckstein is not a good leadoff hitter, and not a good shortstop.  He might be passable at 2B and hitting in the #8/#9 slot, but NOT for the money he's looking to get this offseason...unless you significantly overvalue AlxFritz's GPI+ (Grit Per Inch) stat, of course.

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

by Mr Clean on Nov 18, 2007 6:22 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

given that
he's played in significantly fewer games than JD Drew the last 2 years, and he's missed games for things like "sore back" and "bruised bicep", I'm not even sure he's that high on the GPI+ scale anymore.
It's easier not to make the mistake than to make the mistake and try to fix it. -Mo

by SleepyCA on Nov 18, 2007 6:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes...
...it is.  :P

You go to war with the lineup you have, not the lineup you want.  Eckstein is a middle infielder and, like most such starting players, ends up at the top of the order (when they don't suck offensively...which is when they lineup at the bottom of the order).  So among middle infielder / center fielder types...we're already comparing Eck to the good ones (i.e. the ones that make it to the top of the order).  

Saying that Eck is 'below average' is simply an unrealistic evaluation of what Eck brings to the table.  The fact is, you can't field a team of first-baseman.  And including them in comparing what Eck brings to the table is just silly.  Among players that play Eck's position and hit where Eck hits, Eck is NOT below average in taking pitches.  For example, Eck ranked 9th in P/PA in 2006 (and was just a few hundreths of a point off of 6th).  He has ranged from very good (4.01), when he was first in all of baseball in P/PA among shortstops, to the middling numbers he's put up recently (3.6).  He is not, however, below average unless you throw in the 1st baseman, corner outfielders, and DH's hitting in the middle of the order and racking up P/PA due to pitcher's fear of their power.  

There aren't too many power hitters hitting at the top of the order as a table setter.  And there aren't too many power hitters playing at SS.  When you compare Eckstein against the players he is truly replaceable by, we see that his P/PA is an asset (if a declining one).  D.GOOCH    

Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Nov 18, 2007 8:37 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

well....
Eck was 11th out of 21 in the NL in 2007 among SS who had 200 or more PA's...his worst year to date.  I don't know how that qualifies as 'below average' in your book...but that's smack dab average in mine.  D.GOOCH  
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Nov 18, 2007 8:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

No offense, GOOCH...
...but you're kind of all over the place here in your attempt to justify your earlier statement that Eck "works the count."

Before, you said that "the one quality he brings to a lineup is his ability to work a count."  That doesn't say anything about 'only among shortstops.'  In fact, "brings to a lineup" implies 'stick him anywhere and his scrappy, high P/PA at bats will benefit the team.'  Sadly, this is not, in fact, the case.

And when I took issue with that and pointed out that his P/PA were below average for the league, you switched to "[Y]ou can't field a team of first-baseman.  And including them in comparing what Eck brings to the table is just silly. Among players that play Eck's position and hit where Eck hits, Eck is NOT below average in taking pitches." Which conveniently ignores my earlier point that Eck WAS below average for leadoff hitters in P/PA.

Here it is again:

NL LEADOFF HITTERS (w/ 200+ PA hitting #1):
 Of the 21 #1 NL hitters w/ 200+ PA hitting leadoff, Eck ranks 15th in P/PA
 Willie Harris is #1, with a P/PA of 4.31
 Norris Hopper is #21, with a P/PA of 3.28
 David Eckstein is #15, with a P/PA of 3.66
 Average for NL #1 hitters: 3.76

For those of you scoring at home, that's below average.

Want to try looking only at just NL Shortstops?  Okey-dokey.

NL SHORTSTOPS (w/ 200+ PA as SS):
 Of the 20 NL SS w/ 200+ PA, Eck ranks 11th in P/PA
 Felipe Lopez is #1, with a P/PA of 4.01
 Cesar Izturis (!!!) is #20, with a P/PA of 3.43
 David Eckstein is #11, with a P/PA of 3.64
 Average for NL Shortstops: 3.71

So, yes, David is closer to average in that he falls 11th out of 20 when you look ONLY at NL shortstops, but he's still below average.

Note that if you combine the two and make it NL Shortstops who also had 200+ PA batting #1, he's actually dead last in P/PA (6th out of 6, although only by a tiny amount).

I suppose if you keep looking, you might find a split where he won't be below average...say Shortstops under 5'8" hitting leadoff for teams with bird mascots...I bet he's the best in the league in that group!  However, I think that would be missing the point.  That point is that Eckstein was above average in P/PA in 2005.  In 2004, 2006, and 2007, he was not.

So while I personally disagree with your assertion that you "can't compare him to other kinds of players when claiming that he sees plenty of P/PA," even if you DON'T compare him to other kinds of players, he's STILL below average.

And for the record, whenever his "scrappy at bats" are referenced (by Dan, Al, or whomever) I've never YET heard anyone describe Eckstein as a "pesky at bat who can really work the count...for a shortstop hitting leadoff."  I wonder why not?

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

by Mr Clean on Nov 19, 2007 2:38 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Putting words in my mouth...
...simply because I didn't say among shortstops or among leadoff hitters doesn't make me "all over the place."  I assumed that knowledgeable posters would understand that that is the case.  Especially in the context of talking about what Eckstein brings as an acquisition.  Since we aren't talking about bringing Eckstein in to play 1st base or the outfield, but rather a middle infielder position...then his appropriate comparables are to middle infielders and lineups.  IOW, Eckstein should be comapred to the players who could conceiviably replace him, not to players who obviously cannot.  

Eck is 11th out of 21 among shortstops in the WORST P/PA season of his career.  In an injury shortened season.  The fact that there are a few outlier P/PA above him doesn't make Eck 'below' average.  The mean is influenced by outlier observations.  IOW, it doesn't make sense to argue that Eck is a worse player because Lopez and Harris took a few more pitches.  Eck was average among shortstops.  He was near-average among leadoff hitters.  In his worst P/PA season to date.  

P/PA is an Eckstein asset in most seasons.  At worst, he's been smack dab in the middle.  Nuff said.  D.GOOCH

Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Nov 19, 2007 9:24 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

And to put the cherry on top...
To illustrate my point, Clean cites a 3.76 average for leadoff hitters, but the median P/PA for leadoff hitters was a 3.705.  The descrepancy is due to the unusually high P/PA among just a couple of those top players (i.e. the ridiculous 4.31 of Harris).  The difference b/w 3.66 and 3.705 is 0.045 pitches.  To put it in real numbers, assuming 200 plate appearances, Eck would see 732 pitches while our hypothetical median leadoff hitter would see 741.  A difference of seeing 9 more pitches over the course of 200 plate appearances.  Extrapolated out to a 500 a/b season, the median leadoff hitter would only have seen 23 more pitches ON THE ENTIRE SEASON than Eck did.  I'm not going to work out the confidence intervals, but I strongly suspect this is an isignificant difference.  Eck was basically average among leadoff hitters last season.  And since he's smack dab on the median for short-stops, he was average among short stops.  Again, 2007 being his worst P/PA of his career.  D.GOOCH
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Nov 19, 2007 10:13 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Ipso facto
I'd like to see the variance on his pitches per plate appearance. It's possible that he goes very deep into certain counts and therefore has a large share of "contentious at bats" but also strategically goes after the first pitch in other at bats, thereby bringing the average down. Not saying he does, but it's possible.

On the anal-retentive Latin phrase tip, I'm not sure ipso facto is the one you want there ... unless it's a sarcastic/intentionally wrong usage a la Ricky Gervais in The Office, in which case I apologize.

by willievinceterry on Nov 18, 2007 9:13 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

What are you basing
the defense on? Just this past year? How he looks? Other than 2007 he does well, particularly in UZR. Averaging about +10 runs a year IIRC.

I don't really care about the lineup discussion. You want to optimize your lineup to give you a few runs here or there, but realistically all you care about is judging him against the players that play his position. Find the best 8 you can, then figure out the lineup (which doesn't really matter that much).

So how does Eckstein stack up against other shortstops? Last year, shortstops as a group (18,000 AB) put up an EQA of .255. Eckstein posted a .267. His unadj career mark is .256 (essentially average) and adjusted it's .262. Basically a league average hitter overall.

OBP matters more than those other categories. Also, it matters how many outs those dudes are making on the basepaths. Power matters too, but not as much. That's why we have fun stats like EQA that wraps it up in a neat package.

So, I don't think he's just "passable" at 2B. I think he's fine at SS for the right money and years, assuming he just had a down year defensively (which happens to good defenders all the time).

You can't just say "(Defense) overall: below avg" and make that his true talent level.

by plh903 on Nov 19, 2007 4:18 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It was based on 2007
It was UZR that showed he was one of the very worst shortstops this past year.  I don't know if it was injury related or because he's "lost a step" (and didn't have much margin for error), but he definitely fell off a freakin' cliff this year.

For any athlete with marginal skills, especially an aging athlete with marginal skills, that scares me.  Add to that the fact that he's missed significant time to potentially chronic injuries the past two years, and it doesn't make for a very high confidence level in his likely production at Shortstop next year.  Plus, he'd have at LEAST 10-20 more errors every year if Albert weren't over at 1st base constantly picking his poor throws out of the dirt or jumping around to snag his errant tosses.  If he goes somewhere else, that team better have a damn good 1B, or else Eck's defense will be seen as significantly worse.

As for 2B, I have no idea if he would be "good", since I've never seen him play 2B - and apparently neither has anyone else, for that matter...I just looked and he's had all of 14 games starting at 2B in his career.  (Interestingly, in those 14 games at 2B, he has 3 Errors in 59 Total Chances, which isn't very good.)  But I can easily assume he'd be "passable."

Don't get me wrong...I like David's decent OBP, his ability to make contact, his attitude, etc.  I just think that with the possible exception of his above average OBP, he's relatively easy to replace for the most part, and for a LOT less.  AND I really dislike this completely erroneous (and maddeningly pervasive) misperception that he sees a ton of pitches and is great at "working the count."  The facts simply don't support it.

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

by Mr Clean on Nov 19, 2007 5:23 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

And checking...
Checking, Eckstein was 12th in MLB in 2006 of leadoff hitters with his 3.76 per plate appearance.  And his career high 4.02, would have qualified him for 2nd.  Eck's patience is an asset (though certainly a declining one) and doesn't belong in a discussion of his weaknesses.  Those are, in order: lack of power, lack of defensive range, weak arm, and no stolen base threat.  His assets are middling on base skills and working the count (i.e. 'pest' skills).  D.GOOCH
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Nov 18, 2007 5:52 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Please stop propagating this ERROR
Eck has been BELOW LEAGUE AVERAGE for 3 out of the last 4 years in P/PA.  Below league average means "Worse than most," as in "Eckstein is NOT very good at working the count."

Ergo, "working the count" is NOT an asset of his.

He did okay in 2005 w/ his P/PA, and now everyone seems to think he's forevermore a pesky, ultra-patient hitter.  HE IS NOT.

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

by Mr Clean on Nov 18, 2007 6:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You gotta appreciate
being able to correctly use the word "ergo" in a post! Kudos, mr. clean.

by chuckb on Nov 19, 2007 12:20 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Houston
Nice main post.

I will be reading next Sunday.

So you have at least 1 Cardinal fan who thinks what you write is "important"

by Harknights on Nov 18, 2007 6:36 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Uhh....
It's not an error.  I just cited the numbers.  LOL.  
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Nov 18, 2007 8:24 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

you
have got to learn 'reply to this,' seriously. and i know it's annoying of me to point it out, but your comments are lost in cyberspace.

by baw on Nov 18, 2007 8:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Or....
I can just post as I see fit.  Thanks, though.  D.GOOCH  
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Nov 18, 2007 8:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Post it anywhere you want
but nobody knows which comment you're referring to when you just post randomly. I really have no idea which numbers or which errors you're referring to. As I said, post it whereever you want but if you want anybody to know what the hell you're talking about, you're going to have to hit the "reply to this" link.

by chuckb on Nov 19, 2007 12:22 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, it IS an error...
I didn't dispute the numbers, I disputed what you said after them:
"His assets are middling on base skills and working the count (i.e. 'pest' skills).  D.GOOCH"
As I cited above, being below average 3 out of the last 4 years means "working the count" is clearly NOT one of his assets.

Decent OBP, yes.  P/PA, no.

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

by Mr Clean on Nov 19, 2007 1:31 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Ay...
You can keep saying he's below average but as the numbers demonstrate, he is NOT below average.  He has NOT been below average 3 out of the last 4 years.  At his worst (last season) he was average.  At his best, he was the best at his position in P/PA.  Sheesh.  D.GOOCH
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Nov 19, 2007 9:15 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

We'll have to agree to disagree...
No disrespect intended, but you keep squeezing the numbers until they (almost) match your statement.  Your argument is strained, I'm afraid.

You've gone from parroting Dan and Al's unqualified "he really works the count" to a tortuous definition of who he is eligible to be compared to, and even under that more limited case, he barely cracks average.  For the record, even if you limit the pool to blonde middle infielders named David, an average P/PA does not mean "he really works the count."  You then decry the unfair "outliers" who artificially raise the mean.  But when YOU are the one to limit the statistical comparison from the entire league to only 20 players, you don't get to cry about the more talented players that also play David's position and then try to justify their exclusion, too.  What's next?  Lamenting that Pujols' numbers are way outside the norm, so he qualifies as a "statistical outlier" and other 1B shouldn't have to be compared to him?  Come on.

At any rate, from this point on every time you advocate for Eck's 'awesome P/PA skills', I expect you to qualify your "he really works the count" with the required "for a middle infielder hitting leadoff" or whatever your very limited criteria are.

For me, I'll keep comparing P/PA to the league, since that's what most people do.

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

by Mr Clean on Nov 19, 2007 2:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'll agree you've been disagreeable
This response is a cornacopia of bad reasoning.  
  1. False historical record.  Recall:  this post did not begin with Al or Dan (lol).  It began with Keith Law arguing that one of Eckstein's weaknesses was his P/PA.  As I argued, that is an asset of Eck's (if a declining one).  It is NOT a weakness.  
  2. Selective use of data.  Whereas I have made an effort to restrict Eck comparisons to his real competition (unless someone is going to suggest that Carlos Delgado is going to be at short and leading off for the Mets next year), you have artificially restricted our comparisons of Eck to this year.  In 2005 he led the league in P/PA for his position and his spot in the lineup.  In 2006, an injury year like 07, he was smack dab league average, again for his position and/or lineup spot.
It's important to understand why looking at Eck versus simillarly situated players is not arbitrary domain restriction.  We aren't talking about who is the better offensive player.  We are talking about what value Eck has for a team.  That is necessarily dependent upon what position he plays and where he slots in your lineup.  If we could field a team of Mark McGwires at every defensive position we would.  We can't.  Eck plays shortstop and leads-off.  Those are his comparables.  
  1. Mathematical ignorance.  If you don't understand my point regarding means and medians, then I'd reccomend you not try and ridicule them.  Limiting our sample to Eck's relevant comparables has nothing to do with the statistical argument I made regarding outliers.  Hence your response there is a non-starter.  As is your example of Pujols.  We are not comparing one player to another to see who is the better offensive player.  We are comparing Eck against those who play his position and hit where he does in the lineup to see how he stacks up as an acuisition and what his relative attributes are as a player to that average.
  2. Exaggeration.  I think the fact you don't have the facts on your side is illustrated by the straw man you've made of my point.  I didn't argue Eck had "awesome" P/PA skills.  I argued his P/PA skills are an asset (if a declining one).  Eck has been above average in P/PA skills for his position in his career.  His recent decline has him with an average P/PA.  If you're going to list his weaknesses as a player acquisition, listing his P/PA is silly and wrong.  D.GOOCH
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Nov 19, 2007 3:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The House that A-Rod Built.
With the new stadium in the Bronx, they need A-Rod to set new records in it.  They didn't have to give any talent up to the Marlins, just cash.  And long term for the Yanks, this deal will look cheap.

(here is to hoping he never does get a WS ring).

Thanks for another good thread HC.

Watching the Playoffs as Reigning Champs is not a bad thing.

by Birds on the Bat on Nov 19, 2007 12:54 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

nice way to look at this H-Town
another good sunday read.

i guess i also think ARod is worth more than Miggy. but unlike you i dont think in 2 years Miggy will get an ARod type contract. as a one dementional player he simply isn't worth $200-$300 Million dollars. all he can do is hit. which like you said ain't that bad of a thing. but still, would a team really be that stupid to pay a guy $300 million when all he can do is hit?

one reason is he's put on a few pounds the past few years & he's a libility at 1st, 3rd or a corner outfield position. he seams down right uninterested when he plays defense. it appears he has a bad work ethic. and thats why so many posters here think it would be good for him if he played along side of Albert in the hope that some of Albert's famous work ethic would rub off on Miggy.

Miggy's like a right handed david ortiz. and he only got a 4 year $52 million dollar contract when he signed his extension. granted ortiz is ARods age, but he signed that in april of last year.

i hope GM's see that Miggy has become a one dementional player and that he's not worth half the money ARod will get. ARod is worth so much party because he is a gold glove defender at SS & 3rd. if Miggy keeps going down the path he's currently on it's clear he'll never win a gold glove. so why would you pay Miggy the same amount of money you'd pay ARod when you are not getting the same caliber of player?

its stupid to give up so much talent for a guy like Miggy. sure he can rake, but he's not worth so many top prospects. maybe one or two but if a GM was smart, he'd not go nuts and offer half his farm system. instead he'd wait for the Fish's asking price to come down. and if that didnt work the team should just wait till he hits free agency & give him $60-$100 million over 8-10 years. because he will hit free agency. i cant see him taking an extension on his current deal if he gets traded. i think he'll be disappointed by the offers, but he'll still test the free agency waters.

of course i'm usually wrong about every thing & i'm sure this time is no different.

OH on the ECK front. if the mets want give him $36 million to play 2nd, then i only have one thing to say.

thanks for the memories ECK. good luck & GOD bless.

I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Nov 19, 2007 3:24 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

But didn't the Mets just resign Luis Castillo...
As their second baseman? I have to think they took on look at Eckstein's demands and said no.

I know I would.

by matt reeder on Nov 19, 2007 7:05 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

If those are Eck's demands
surely he stands a good chance of being homeless come March.
"Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." --Churchill

by lordsummer on Nov 19, 2007 9:16 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Pujols...
I know I'm getting in late, but is now a good time to extend AP?  He's set to make $16mil/season thru 2010 and his 2011 $16mil option is a no brainer (unless he can't play).  Do we try today and extend him another three years or so?  A new deal something like:

2008-2011 - $18mil/season = $72mil
2012-2014 - $20mil/season = $60mil

Unless the mang is injured and his play is severely effected he'll probably be looking at 8-10 years at $25mil each when he hits free agency...this adds $2mil/season for 4 seasons in order to get a 3yr/$60mil deal at the end.  He'll be 35 (I believe) going into 2015.

Maybe going into 2013 you add another 3 years with a new 5yr/$119mil extension.

by cardzfanbub on Nov 19, 2007 8:26 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

I dunno
Albert has seemed gimpy enough the last couple of years that I'd wait to 2009 at least to gauge his health.

(10 year contracts for professional athletes are nuts.  I don't care if it's A-rod, I don't care if it's freaking Babe Ruth, Hee Sop Choi can run into him and knock a random limb loose at any point.  If I were Bill DeWitt, I'd probably moan in my sleep about Scott Rolen and setting fire to 12 million dollars and wake my wife up every couple of weeks.

I suppose that's one of many reasons why I don't own a major league franchise.)

"Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." --Churchill

by lordsummer on Nov 19, 2007 9:24 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Please refer to Mr. Choi
in the proper terms:
"That G*dmnd 6'5" sonufabuck that ruined Rolen's shoulder"

All further mentions of Mr. Choi should also include a clause that he ruined numerous fantasy teams and is a stiff defensively.

Thanks. :)

there is no secret weapon...there is only Oquendo.

by bukowski on Nov 19, 2007 2:57 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah
Maybe you are right, who knows.

by enochyukt on Nov 23, 2007 9:24 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.
Start posting about the Cardinals »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
How to EASILY make tables for Fanposts
1753738656_110919ebe9_o_small
2010 Hot Stove Post #1: CHONE hitter projections

Recent FanPosts

Arch_small
Number 15
Small
Some thoughts on Holliday (and potential replacements)
Small
Ok let me try this again...
Knights-09_small
Disenchanted Blue Jays Fan Looking For A New Team
Painterlance_small
The Holliday Dilemma (Rocks Fan Perpsective)
375830-r1-025-11_011_small
Anybody read Bob Gibson's new book yet?
Flanders_small
Yadi2first
Small
40 Man Question..

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Jack_benny_small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bender1_small azruavatar

Adam1_small chuckb

Kid-a-bear_small the red baron