Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Jays Stun Rays With Walkoff Granny Bar-right-arrows



giant implications II

little-known fact: the cardinals still hold an option on anthony reyes. this was pointed out to me by a member of the cardinal front office, who provided this link to explain the circumstances:

A player may be eligible for a fourth option year if he has been optioned in three seasons but does not yet have five full seasons of professional experience.
reyes has less than 5 years of pro experience --- he was drafted in 2003 but didn't debut until 2004. so even though the cardinals have used up their 3 standard options on him (in 2005, 06, and 07), they can still option him to memphis in 2008. that changes the calculus quite a bit; if the cards can't get fair value for him in trade, they can send him down to memphis without having to expose him to waivers. now mind you, i don't think the kid should be at memphis; 2-14 record and all, i still think he's better than the likes of josh fogg and kris benson, who represent the class of pitchers the cards are now considering (per joe strauss's sunday article). but that argument has been done to death; tony / dave don't want him, and they're the ones who get paid to make the decisions. the 4th option on reyes is still good news because it provides one last chance for the cardinals to salvage some value out of this once very valuable asset. maybe he'll pitch his way back into the organization's plans; maybe he'll or makes himself a more attractive trade target. either outcome would be better than having to trade the kid for nothing or lose him on a waiver claim.

i used to edit a history journal, and i ran an article once about a guy who got rich mining the slag heaps in central city, colorado, during the gold rush --- squeezing the last few ounces of paydirt out of the discarded ore. reyes is now slag-heap material --- not the shiny vein we hoped he might be, but still potentially profitable. the 4th option gives st louis a chance to mine whatever's left in the resource.

the strauss article also made passing mention of a scenario that had the cards trading all of their good prospects for erik bedard. while it's dismaying even to see such a suggestion in print, i don't take it very seriously. that little item fell in the 18th paragraph of a 22-graph story --- not exactly front-burner stuff. contrast that with the coverage in cincinnati, where the trade-for-bedard discussion is serious enough to merit its own article and an accompanying blog post. meanwhile, mariners beat writer geoff baker of the seattle times has been all over the bedard marketplace for days at his blog; an orioles team official told the baltimore sun that the mariners have emerged as one of the front-runners to land bedard by dangling cf prospect adam jones. here is how baker sizes up the situation: "The Orioles are feeling out offers and trying to figure out what they'll settle for." that is probably all the rasmus-for-bedard thing amounts to --- a blip in andy macphail's market research.

let's hope so. bedard is a wonderful pitcher, but the cards can't afford the cost in terms of talent; a trade like the one sketched out in the strauss article would set the organization back several years. i don't see it happening.

the paragraph after the rasmus / bedard mention is what caught my attention. it says: "Unable to decide whether Rolen is coming or going, the Cardinals are unable to deal either of their power-hitting, lefthanded-hitting outfielders, Chris Duncan or Rick Ankiel." poppycock. duncan and ankiel are the two most redundant players on the team --- they are the most tradeable commodities, not the least. the cardinal roster has three left-handed power-hitting outfielders (duncan ankiel and edmonds), and a 4th (rasmus) will probably be ready to join the club by midseason; skip schumaker (another lhb of) is also on hand for short-term duty / bench help. if the cardinals can even remotely conceive of trading rasmus, then duncan and ankiel have to be considered "touchable" as well. i'm still mystified that the cards haven't approached the giants, who are chockablock with young pitchers and desperate for young position players. san francisco currently lists dan ortmeier (a john gall knockoff) as their starting first baseman and have nobody on the horizon; duncan would solve that position for them for four years, while a guy like matt cain or tim lincecum (both of whom seem to be available --- their names appeared frequently last week in winter-meeting rumor roundups) would fill one of the cards' rotation holes. i doubt that duncan alone would be enough to land either of those pitchers, but he'd be a good start; if the cards added ankiel and / or reyes, or perhaps some prospect(s) outside the cards' top 4 (rasmus anderson garcia perez), it just might work. and if it didn't, the cards could still offer duncan in exchange for one or more of the less studly, but still useful, cost-controlled pitchers from san francisco's stable (as proposed here weeks and weeks ago).

we know the cards and giants have discussed rolen, but i've never read a report that duncan's name came up between the two clubs. if it hasn't, it should.

if the cards dealt duncan, who then would play left field in 2008? first of all, i'd pencil in rasmus for a 2d-half callup --- that'd take care of 1/2 of the vacancy. they could start the season with schumaker / barton time-sharing in left, with edmonds in center and ludwick platooning with ankiel in right-field. alternatively, they could sign a one-year free-agent rental. my first choice for the latter, milton bradley, signed with the rangers yesterday (after a near-miss with the padres), but there are plenty of candidates still out there --- cliff floyd, shannon stewart, luis gonzalez, brad wilkerson, shawn green, geoff jenkins . . . . just go down the list and sign the best one who will agree to a 1-year contract. here's how that roster matrix might look:

2008 ROSTER MATRIX
MATT CAIN FANTASY SCENARIO

STARTING 8 BENCH ROTATION PEN
molina c
$1.2m
spiezio ut
$2.3m
wainwright rhp
$600K
is'hausen rhp
$8m
pujols 1b
$16m
barton of
$400K
cain rhp
$900K
franklin rhp
$2.3m
kennedy 2b
$3.5m
ryan if
$400K
looper rhp
$5.5m
springer rhp
$3.5m
rolen 3b
$12m
larue c
$850K
pineiro rhp
$5m
flores lhp
$1m
izturis ss
$2.9m
ludwick of
$400K
mulder lhp
$6.5m
johnson lhp
$400K
green lf
$7m
miles if
$1.2m
carpenter rhp
$10.5m
wellemeyer rhp
$900K
edmonds cf
$8m
rasmus of
memphis
hawksworth rhp
memphis
thompson rhp
$450k
ankiel rf
$1m
encarnacion rf
$6.5m
parisi rhp
memphis
cavazos rhp
memphis
TOTAL
$51.6
TOTAL
$10.8m
TOTAL
$29m
TOTAL
$16.5m
OVERALL PAYROLL: $107.9m

under this rosy scenario you end up with tremendous stability at the front of the rotation --- wainwright, cain, and carpenter all under club control through 2011 --- plus a lineup that's getting younger (five regulars under age 30, once rasmus arrives), and lots of flexibility for 2009 and beyond. if matt cain proves unattainable and you end up with (let's say) noah lowry plus jonathan sanchez instead, the team still comes out ahead --- it expends a replaceable commodity (left-handed outfield power) for a hard-to-find one (cost-controlled starting pitchers).

you trade from your depth. duncan's a good player, but easily replaceable from within. if he's not on the trading block, he damn well should be.

0 recs | Comment 183 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I agree
It seems hard to get a handle on what kind of GM Mozeliak is going to be.  If most of these rumors are true, then it's not an optimistic sign.

I still have problems believing the organization would move Ankiel after all that has been invested in him, but Duncan should be moved for pitching.

It seems so obvious to us, it makes me wonder what the front office knows that we don't.

by Cardinal70 on Dec 10, 2007 9:23 AM EST   0 recs

It's a sunk cost
I don't think the organization falls into that trap saying we spent so much time and effort on Ankiel thus we cannot trade him.  It makes no difference right now how much was invested, we've already paid that money regardless, just what they can produce.

In terms of the organizations supposed unwillingness.  Didn't we offer Jack Wilson for Duncan to the Pirates and the Pirates turned us down?  That's suggesting to me we are overvaluing these two guys more so than the market actually does.

by enoscountry on Dec 10, 2007 9:37 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

i thought it was the other way around
i thought we asked for jack wilson, the pirates asked for duncan, and the cards said no.

by lboros on Dec 10, 2007 9:51 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

replying to myself
here's a direct quote from the pittsburgh post-gazette:

"The Pirates discussed a deal with St. Louis last month that would have sent shortstop Jack Wilson to the Cardinals for outfielder Chris Duncan, but that is no longer in play."

you can't tell from that report which team brought up duncan, or which team rejected the proposal . . . .

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07340/839587-63.stm?loc=interstitialskip

by lboros on Dec 10, 2007 9:55 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Yes...
Common sense tells you which team put the nix on that deal.
"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:00 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Unless
we're just over-valuing Duncan, which I think we are. After releasing Cesear, the Pirates essentially committed to Wilson at least for another year--there's nobody in their system who can take over full-time next season.

by Forsch31 on Dec 10, 2007 1:56 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Duncan...
Not worth Jack Wilson?

Come on, that's not even worthy of a debate.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 3:43 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

You're right
I guess it's not clear whether the Cardinals made the offer or the Pirates proposed it.

Although, I would point out the Ankiel vs. Duncan debate below wasn't too favorable for Dunc.  I just don't think either is as valuable of a trade commodity as we make them out to be.  Let's face it, they're the best young redbird hitter - but that's not saying much.

by enoscountry on Dec 10, 2007 5:40 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

In the case of Duncan
I still wonder how delicate that situation with the older Duncan fellow. Imagine for a second that he doesn't want to see his son leave. Then imagine being Matt Cain, traded for your now-disgruntled pitching coach's son. I'm not saying Duncan is going to sabotage him or anything...it just seems like an uncomfortable situation. It's possible Mo is steering clear and that, in the end, Duncan's not going anywhere because Mo doesn't want to piss off the latter half of LaDunc.

by mojowo11 on Dec 10, 2007 9:40 AM EST   0 recs

What's he going to do? Quit?
On no!  We'll have to find a pitching coach without a dogmatic blindness toward methods of pitching that aren't his own!  Please God, not that!  

There's already far too much power over personell moves being conceded to the on field managers.  If this organisation is really so worried about keeping a couple of angry, bitter old men satisfied with the state of things that they refuse to explore all possible avenues for actually improving the team, then we're pretty much sunk anyway.

I'm so tired of the LaRussa/Duncan filter being applied to everything that I could vomit.  

Also, mojo, please don't think I'm trying to lambast you here.  Unfortunately, what you say about the state of things is probably pretty accurate.  I just think it's a bad way to run an organisation.  

Punch. Drink. Cry.

by the red baron on Dec 10, 2007 9:55 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Agreed
Not the way to go about things...at all.  

Is Matheny looking for a job?

by Beware the Molinas on Dec 10, 2007 10:06 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

double agree
I really enjoyed (and gave an UP fist to) red baron's rant above.  Even tho' I am not that much younger than TLR and Dunc, and therefore in some ways sympatize with them... I don't think they have adjusted to a changing game (altho both would still be terrific scouts.)

AND... Mike Matheny or Ken Oberkfell have been my 1-2 choices for new manager for over a year now.

by the Tewk on Dec 10, 2007 4:23 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

wow
The guys are one year removed from winning a World Championship and now they can't change with the game?

It's amazing how short an attention span some have or how unrealistic expectations are in today's world.

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

by beanocook on Dec 10, 2007 5:06 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

New Manager
I've been quietly campaigning for Phillip Wellman ever since this video came out.

Like many others around here, I buy into the school that managers, on average, harm their teams more often than help them. Tony La Russa is a good manager because he noticed early in his career how to put players in positions where they would tend to succeed. (Correctly by leveraging platoon splits, incorrectly when relying on individual batter-pitcher samples). But any manager can hire a wiseguy to feed him the right data to make those decisions.

You need a guy with a good spirit to hold the team together—Phillip Wellman looks like a great guy for the job, in that limited sample that I know of him. (When he buries home plate and draws another one two baseballs wider to show his disdain for the homeplate umpire's zone, it warms my heart-cockles.)

by liam on Dec 10, 2007 8:35 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

how about
army crawling to the mound and launching the "grenade" at the home plate ump?  hysterical.

what do you think was going through his mind?  "boy, i must look like a jack-ass right now."  or was it "am i going to have  job tomorrow?"  or "the guys are never going to let me forget this, might as well make it one for the ages."  or better yet, "lou piniella ain't got shit on me!"

great video.

by birdsonthebat on Dec 10, 2007 10:14 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Those thoughts from his mind...
just got funnier and funnier with each and every one.  Thank you.

stlfan

by stlfan on Dec 11, 2007 9:13 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

duncan/duncan
the topic has been occasionally discussed before and it wouldnt seem to be a problem if little dunc was to be traded.  in fact, it was argued that it might be better for him under the reasoning that there was added pressure playing under his dad and lots of scrutiny about the whole nepotism thing.

by dmb60614 on Dec 10, 2007 10:08 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Or, how about if we imagine
for a second that Duncan Sr. does NOT feel that way, and that while he would feel some natural disappointment at the departure of his son, he is a baseball lifer and knows that players move around, and would accept it philosophically and then move on and do his job? This scenario, after all, is far more likely.

Where does this idea come from that we have to keep baby Dunc so his old man doesn't get upset?

by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 10, 2007 10:08 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Good point...
...it's not like Dave is crying in his beer b/c Shelly is playing for the Yanks.  And we know Dave's career is only going to last as long as Tony's.  So we're talking 1-2 seasons more, and Dave can go see his sons play at his leisure.  I just don't think this is much of a factor at all.  I think they want to hang on to Duncan b/c they are really high on him.  D.GOOCH
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Dec 10, 2007 10:23 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Yes
But it is all, as you say, just a scenario. Who knows what's actually going on? Who knows what Duncan has asked Mozeliak behind closed doors?

I think Duncan is probably grounded enough to understand his son may be traded. But maybe not. Who knows.

by mojowo11 on Dec 10, 2007 11:08 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

In 2006...
Dave Duncan made the comment somewhere that he would have no problem with his son being traded elsewhere. Although this was before Chris was moved to the outfield, I doubt his father would protest to a trade. They're a baseball family, and they understand how these things work....

by Forsch31 on Dec 10, 2007 1:59 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Trade him! Trade him Now!
I brought this up in one of the Hot Stove diary threads, and I stand by my earlier assertion.  You go to the Giants.  They're strongly considering moving Lincecum straight up for Alex Rios.  The Giants desperately, (and I do mean desperately; we're not well acquainted with a team as truly miserable on offense as that particular outfit) need offensive help.  In that ballpark, lefthanded hitters have the definite advantage, and thus, are more valuable.  You move Duncan in to fill the now vacant left field position.  He's got a great stick, and the Giants have had Bonds patrolling left for the past couple of years, so they're used to making due with so so defense out there.  In the package, you include Mark Hamilton.  Lefty hitter, plays first base, so he's a great fit for them, with absolutely massive power.  That's two bats, which together are much more valuable than Rios alone.  If they ask for a little more, throw in a reliever, I don't mind.  Luke Gregerson or someone comparable.  That has to be an awfully attractive package for a team with such significant offensive needs.  

Approx. ten years of lefty power bats at positions they have no one else to play, plus any kind of throw in they could pull out of the Cards.  The Cardinals get one of the most promising young pitchers in the game.  It's a great move for both sides.  

P.S. If you really prefer Cain, just switch his name in.  It's essentially the same deal, I'm sure.  I just happen to like Lincecum better.  (A little; both are wicked talented.)  

Punch. Drink. Cry.

by the red baron on Dec 10, 2007 9:50 AM EST   0 recs

pitcher
i've read the giants were looking for a major league ready pitcher to go along with rios.  maybe rolen/reyes or duncan/reyes would interest them.  if i were the giants i wouldnt do either of those deals though.

by dmb60614 on Dec 10, 2007 10:11 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

+1
Seriously, if there's a chance you can get either Cain or Lincecum (my preference) for just Duncan and Reyes or Duncan and minor prospects (i.e. not Rasmus or Anderson), then by all means GO FOR IT and be knocking on SF's door to get a deal worked out.  

by Recon on Dec 10, 2007 10:25 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Duncan + Reyes + Hamilton for Lincecum or Cain
would make me jump with orgasmic joy. The Giants would have to be pretty desparate to do this.

by Hungry Jack on Dec 10, 2007 11:35 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I have to admit
If the Giants considered any of the above trade suggestions without laughing in our face I'd be shocked.
Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Dec 10, 2007 11:56 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Heh
Lincecum has to be one of the most valuable commodities in baseball.

BTW, the Jim Edmonds HOF piece is one of my favorite Cardinals related pieces of baseball writing.  

by plh903 on Dec 10, 2007 2:48 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

thanks plh...
too bad edmonds has experienced such a rapid decline -- he's probably destined to join guys like Lankford and Lou Whitaker in the Hall of the Very Very Good
Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Dec 10, 2007 3:24 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

brian and plh, no argument re lincecum
but the giants seem not to recognize what they have. they're considering trading him straight up for alex rios.

i wouldn't suggest that the scenario i've sketched out was worth discussing if not for the sabean factor.

by lboros on Dec 10, 2007 7:09 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

If Sabean makes that trade,
I would fire his a**!  You don't give up young studly pitchers for anything other than a young studly player.  Alex Rios is a nice player, but it's not enough return for either one of them.

I don't think Mr. Duncan could resist tinkering with Lincecum's delivery.  He may not be as good for us as he has been (so far) with the Giants.  Lincecum looks like a tinkertoy man when he throws.  It's fun to watch though.

by jillsinmo on Dec 10, 2007 7:30 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I think the
market will save him from himself, if he's truly that delusional, but maybe more likely that they are floating something to gauge interest.

Teams (or at least fans) have to be saying, "Rios for Lincecum, we could beat that!"

I also think that Duncan is a liability anywhere on a National League team, and isn't going to be an elite DH, but who knows what teams recognize this. I guess all it takes is someone overvaluing your guy.

I don't see it happening, but I do realize the context of your post, which was a good one as always.

by plh903 on Dec 10, 2007 7:45 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Agree
First of all, I think Sabean does realize, to some extent, what he has in Cain and Lincecum.  Until recently he'd been singling them out as untouchable.  Secondly, I don't think Duncan and Rios are all that comparable, esp in terms of perception -- they're the same age, but Rios is a two-time All-Star with a far broader skill set than Dunc who's been worth a couple wins more per year.
Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Dec 10, 2007 7:52 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I'm looking
at ZiPS and Rios' last couple of years, and a .300 EqA in RF from Rios is worth substantially more than  Duncan's .300 EqA in left. That's if we (or more importantly, other teams) believe that Duncan is the real deal at this point. Maybe, but I'm sure there's at least some skepticism there.

There's also something to be said for getting a plus player in one roster spot, instead of someone, and then a couple of other someones making up the difference. I'd probably give up Duncan and do Reyes a favor and ship him out too just for Rios.

To make a further disclaimer, I'm not saying that we couldn't match up with SFG and that Duncan couldn't be the centerpiece (or that the suggestion is that Duncan for Lincecum gets done, I don't see that). Trading Duncan for pitching is an absolutely excellent idea, in my opinion.

by plh903 on Dec 10, 2007 8:04 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

If Duncan hadn't finished hurt
I think Sabean would have had to consider it.  If you just look at his 2007 end-of-year line, he looks like an easily replaceable commodity, but that doesn't do his abilities justice.  He put up a .932 OPS in '06 and peaked at a .955 OPS over the first 4 months of the season (through 7/26, 314PA), and those numbers include the nasty 2 for 36 slump centered around his knee infection in late may/early june.  That's Miguel/Manny territory, well beyond what Rios can do, and no one would have laughed at a GM who traded lincecum for a pre-arb Cabrera plus prospects.  

By ending the season going 17/103 with 45 k's until he had surgery, he effectively took himself off the trade market by handing Mo a sell-low opportunity, but I'll be shocked if his OPS is outside of the {.900-.975} range next season.  If we're going to trade him, we need to do it then, not now.

Christmas lights are an extremely efficient method for converting Christmas Spirit into heat. -anon

by SleepyCA on Dec 10, 2007 8:07 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I agree
and I feel today's post by Larry is one of the best suggestions for an acquisition I've seen on this blog.

I agree with everything up there. Having complete control of those 3 pitches for the next years would be absolutely ridiculous. Imagine if Mulder actually comes through . . .

If they could make this deal (Duncan + for Lincecum / Cain) and then sign one of those outfielders, we'd suddenly be a contender again.

C'mon, Mo! Get on the phone!

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Dec 10, 2007 4:02 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

matrix question
why is JuanEnc still included in the matrix? Doesn't insurance take care of a good portion of the salary? Perhaps this question has been handled previously and I didn't catch it.

I understand that as of right now he is still 'uncertain' for the season, much less his career. I also heard that a team can't collect until a certain part of the season has passed (vis Jeff Bagwell). With that in mind, theres no reason for the Cardinals to make a move to remove him from their roster to then be forced to pay the salary and probably deal with a grievance from the MLBPA.

but for the sake of the this offseason would assuming insurance is going to pay for 60% - 75% of this year's salary help in terms forecasting?

by Amberkow on Dec 10, 2007 9:56 AM EST   0 recs

Insurance
I think the consensus among previous posters is that clubs only insure the major, Pujolsian contracts, particularly pitchers' contracts.  A little 3 year deal for JuanE prob. wasn't insured.

by Ray Lankford on Dec 10, 2007 10:00 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

it is the opposite
Its harder to insure a Pujolian contract then JuanE

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/3630161.html

This article doesn't say that a JuanE contract would be insured, but it shows that the previous poster consensus isn't correct. Assuming it really is the poster consensus.

by Amberkow on Dec 10, 2007 12:13 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Bernie...
He cleared this up a little while back.

The Juan E contract was not insured and the Cards are on the hook for all of it.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:25 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Ummm...
I read Bernie's comments on the contract.  As I recall, he said that the insurance didn't cover a whole lot, but that it DID cover some of it.  D.GOOCH
Cardinals, Cardinals, Cardinals!

by GOOCH24 on Dec 10, 2007 2:52 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

From Bernie's 12/6 column:
"And right fielder Juan Encarnacion's eye injury will keep him out of baseball in 2008, and insurance covers but a portion of his salary."

by Forsch31 on Dec 10, 2007 2:55 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Your post
does not contradict his.  

Yes, obviously a Pujols contract is harder to insure.  But the longer contracts are more dangerous and are exactly the ones you want to insure.

by sdrone on Dec 10, 2007 12:26 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Well
that's all fine and well, but as you've read from other posters, Juan E is not insured, and you have not contradicted me.  It may be easier to insure Juan E contracts, but that doesn't mean it was insured.  

by Ray Lankford on Dec 10, 2007 12:57 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Chris Duncan is a First Basemen
That's what makes this such a no-brainer.  He presumably has more value to a team that will play him at first.  Ludwick, Schumaker et al. are all defensive upgrades.  I like Duncan and I realize he's improved his defense, but this is still a square peg - round hole situation.

by bgodar on Dec 10, 2007 9:58 AM EST   0 recs

I'm under the impression that
he was miserable at 1B as well. He throws RH, and as such it's a pretty big indictment of his fielding abilities that he started off as a 1B in the Appy league. He managed to make 56 errors at 1B over his 164 game MWL stint. I know that was a while ago, and that errors aren't a good way to judge a fielder, but .. wow.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's not a better left fielder at this point. All signs point to the fact that he'd be just a terrible ML first baseman. Basically, he's a DH.

by plh903 on Dec 10, 2007 4:26 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

wow!
that is a lot of errors for a 1B!

by ICbirdfan on Dec 10, 2007 6:19 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Ankiel vs. Duncan
Not that they have equal value, but if I had a choice...  I would trade Ankiel over Duncan.  Duncan has ties to the organization via his Dad and will be easier to deal with for the long run, while Ankiel has the infamouns Boras as agent.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Dec 10, 2007 9:59 AM EST   0 recs

ties to the organization?
ankiel has been with the organization for years, went through hell and back with the club supporting him every step of the way. duncan's dad works for the cards, too.  i don't think there's a comparison.  if we're basing this on ties to the club, ankiel wins hands down, imo.  

now, if you want to say that duncan's on-base superiority outweighs ankiel's defensive superiority, then that's an argument.  personally, i think ankiel's upside is too high for me to comfortably trade him.  the guy's been playing a position for about 3 years and he's displayed great power with a lacking on base ability.  i think that can be learned (or hope) and the difference between the two's on-base abilities will diminish while the defensive gap will only widen as ankiel learns to take better routes and duncan moves to first.

by birdsonthebat on Dec 10, 2007 10:23 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

As a rationalist and a complete
non-superstitionist, I try to repress this thought as best I can, but try as I might, I just can't get the image out of my head of a black cloud following Ankiel around.  I'm waiting for the next disaster to derail his career once again.  Like a season-ending injury during ST.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 10, 2007 10:56 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Just like
Joe Btfsplk?
"It's always about the money. Anyone who says it's not is lying."- Gene Simmons

by cardsrul on Dec 10, 2007 12:57 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

What a radical suggestion!
trading from depth?  Left-fielders are probably the most fungible commodity in baseball, save backup middle infielders.  Now, power hitters aren't necessarily but there's not a ton of difference between Dunc and Ankiel.  One offers more OBP; the other more defense.  Both will be tested mightily by lefties to the point of a probable platoon.

Making Dunc, effectively, untouchable is idiotic considering our lack of SP, SS, and our ability to replace him, yearly if needed, by the Shawn Green's of the world.

by houstoncardinal on Dec 10, 2007 10:16 AM EST   0 recs

Trade Dunc now
Duncan's defense is plain awful and it isn't going to get better.  We should be shopiing him hard to anyone with OF/1B holes.

And HC, I'd say corner OFers are the most fungible comodity in baseball followed by middle relievers.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Dec 10, 2007 10:33 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

hitting lefties
doesn't ankiel hit lefties much better than duncan?  is this only because of a small sample or did he do this in the minors, too?  i couldn't find any splits from the minors.  

if ankiel can avoid the platoon, which duncan can't seem to do, then that only increases duncan's need to be the one traded.

(i hope that link worked, first time)

by birdsonthebat on Dec 10, 2007 10:42 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

You got it...
He spanked lefties in the minors as well.

IMO, Ankiel is the better player all things considered.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 10, 2007 12:27 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

small sample size
I'm not yet convinced.

by houstoncardinal on Dec 10, 2007 1:05 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Ankiel > Chris Duncan
Ankiel is much more "toolsy" than Duncan. Right now Duncan looks like a platoon LF with horrid defense. Ankiel's athleticism can help hide some of his inexperience (ie poor route-taking) in the OF. Ankiel also looks like he might be an everyday player.

I like Duncan, but I like Ankiel more, though I must confess to drinking some of the Cool-Aid on Mr. Ankiel.

by Hungry Jack on Dec 10, 2007 1:31 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

im just not convinced on Ankiel
i love his upside and athleticism but he wont hit for an average and doesn't walk plus strikes out all the time...at least Duncan gets on-base to counter his strike outs and has very comparable power...defense is no comparison
"Back in the day when I played, a pitcher had 3 pitches: a fastball, a curveball, a slider, a changeup and a good sinker pitch." - Mike Shannon

by nomar34 on Dec 10, 2007 2:10 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Ank vs. Dunc
I think that Duncan is the "safer" player: his upside is basically a .280/.360/.500 player who will hit about 26-30 HR per season...which is basically what he prob. would have done sans sports hernia...who doesn't hit lefties terribly well and who is nothing more than a barely passable outfielder.  

Ankiel, on the other hand, is more of a "prospect."  He's a developing hitter w/ minimal OBP skills but tremendous power.  I think he'll always be able to hit HR's, but the AVG/OBP part of his slash line is the key.  If its really low, like a .240/.290 for example, he's basically Rob Deer.  But, considering that he's still learning, its not unrealistic to assume that his "average" hitting and his on-base skills will progress.  In short, Ank is about 50/50...he could be better than Dunc, or he could be so awful offensively that any defensive advantage disappears.  

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 10, 2007 3:37 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I agree
There's a big factor for us -- with the Cards, Duncan is a platoon player. Not saying I agree with this, but he still hasn't gotten a full starting nod. Remember last year when Ankiel came up? Larussa played him a ton.

There just appears much more willingness to play Ankiel than Duncan.

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Dec 10, 2007 4:08 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

...dunc vs. ankiel
Barring errors of sometimes graphic porportion, playing out of position  and the late string of injuries, I think Duncan would have received the same oppurtunity as Ankiel.

Plus Ankiel is THE investment. The guy they put in a bad spot early on.

Trade for Sean Rodriguez! (But please dont call him S-Rod!)

by cardschinmusic on Dec 11, 2007 5:16 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

better than tejada
after yesterday's depressing (to me) discussion of the round peg/square hole aspects of dealing with the orioles, this is a refreshing change.  the big question is whether the giants would really be interested.  would duncan or ankiel and a prospect, even reyes, be considered equivalent to rios by the giants?  it would be nice if the answer was yes.  duncan (my preference) and reyes would be fine, but i see duncan at first for the giants and maybe even through in schumaker, if they were interested (they should want duncan because he can play first or of).  also, i have little concern about playing ludwick more.  it seemed the more he played the better he performed last year, so i see no need to pay shawn green $7m, which could go to pitching.  i don't see our fate hinging on the difference in performance between green and some combo of folks under contract now.

one more tlr-sr shot.  they are both employees, tell them to shut up and go to work.  if there was some other organization that really wanted either, they would be there by now.

by sportsman on Dec 10, 2007 10:50 AM EST   0 recs

the Orioles' discussion
depressed ME too, for the most part.  Except for two things:
Golly, we DO need a starting pitcher.
And the bitter-sweet one is that I just have this vision that B. Ryan could turn out, for the Baltimore club, to be another Mark Belanger.

I like Ryan probably more than is justified, but I feel the same way about him (sorta) as I do Anthony.  For THEIR sakes, I hope they get moved.

by the Tewk on Dec 10, 2007 4:46 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

1+
and throw Brad Thompson in there too.....

by jillsinmo on Dec 10, 2007 5:34 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

This assumes...
the Giants would actually be dumb enough to trade Cain or Lincecum for a package of Duncan and lesser players. Yes, there's been rumors, but one would assume other teams would get into the mix with something better.
Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 10:53 AM EST   0 recs