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:
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 |
183
comments
Comments
I agree
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
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
up
0 recs
i thought it was the other way around
by lboros on
Dec 10, 2007 9:51 AM EST
up
0 recs
replying to myself
"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
up
0 recs
Yes...
by bobbyballgame1 on
Dec 10, 2007 12:00 PM EST
up
0 recs
Unless
by Forsch31 on
Dec 10, 2007 1:56 PM EST
up
0 recs
Duncan...
Come on, that's not even worthy of a debate.
by bobbyballgame1 on
Dec 10, 2007 3:43 PM EST
up
0 recs
You're right
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
up
0 recs
In the case of Duncan
by mojowo11 on Dec 10, 2007 9:40 AM EST 0 recs
What's he going to do? Quit?
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.
by the red baron on
Dec 10, 2007 9:55 AM EST
up
0 recs
Agreed
Is Matheny looking for a job?
by Beware the Molinas on
Dec 10, 2007 10:06 AM EST
up
0 recs
double agree
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
up
0 recs
wow
It's amazing how short an attention span some have or how unrealistic expectations are in today's world.
by beanocook on
Dec 10, 2007 5:06 PM EST
up
0 recs
New Manager
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
up
0 recs
how about
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
up
0 recs
Those thoughts from his mind...
stlfan
by stlfan on
Dec 11, 2007 9:13 AM EST
up
0 recs
duncan/duncan
by dmb60614 on
Dec 10, 2007 10:08 AM EST
up
0 recs
Or, how about if we imagine
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
up
0 recs
Good point...
by GOOCH24 on
Dec 10, 2007 10:23 AM EST
up
0 recs
Yes
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
up
0 recs
In 2006...
by Forsch31 on
Dec 10, 2007 1:59 PM EST
up
0 recs
Trade him! Trade him Now!
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.)
by the red baron on Dec 10, 2007 9:50 AM EST 0 recs
pitcher
by dmb60614 on
Dec 10, 2007 10:11 AM EST
up
0 recs
+1
by Recon on
Dec 10, 2007 10:25 AM EST
up
0 recs
Duncan + Reyes + Hamilton for Lincecum or Cain
by Hungry Jack on
Dec 10, 2007 11:35 AM EST
up
0 recs
I have to admit
by briangunn on
Dec 10, 2007 11:56 AM EST
up
0 recs
Heh
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
up
0 recs
thanks plh...
by briangunn on
Dec 10, 2007 3:24 PM EST
up
0 recs
brian and plh, no argument re lincecum
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
up
0 recs
If Sabean makes that trade,
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
up
0 recs
I think the
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
up
0 recs
Agree
by briangunn on
Dec 10, 2007 7:52 PM EST
up
0 recs
I'm looking
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
up
0 recs
If Duncan hadn't finished hurt
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.
by SleepyCA on
Dec 10, 2007 8:07 PM EST
up
0 recs
I agree
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!
by aet15 on
Dec 10, 2007 4:02 PM EST
up
0 recs
matrix question
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
by Ray Lankford on
Dec 10, 2007 10:00 AM EST
up
0 recs
it is the opposite
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
up
0 recs
Bernie...
The Juan E contract was not insured and the Cards are on the hook for all of it.
by bobbyballgame1 on
Dec 10, 2007 12:25 PM EST
up
0 recs
Ummm...
by GOOCH24 on
Dec 10, 2007 2:52 PM EST
up
0 recs
From Bernie's 12/6 column:
by Forsch31 on
Dec 10, 2007 2:55 PM EST
up
0 recs
Your post
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
up
0 recs
Well
by Ray Lankford on
Dec 10, 2007 12:57 PM EST
up
0 recs
Chris Duncan is a First Basemen
by bgodar on Dec 10, 2007 9:58 AM EST 0 recs
I'm under the impression that
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
up
0 recs
Ankiel vs. Duncan
by totalloser on Dec 10, 2007 9:59 AM EST 0 recs
ties to the organization?
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
up
0 recs
As a rationalist and a complete
by MdRedbirdFreak on
Dec 10, 2007 10:56 AM EST
up
0 recs
Just like
by cardsrul on
Dec 10, 2007 12:57 PM EST
up
0 recs
What a radical suggestion!
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
And HC, I'd say corner OFers are the most fungible comodity in baseball followed by middle relievers.
by Zubin on
Dec 10, 2007 10:33 AM EST
up
0 recs
hitting lefties
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
up
0 recs
You got it...
IMO, Ankiel is the better player all things considered.
by bobbyballgame1 on
Dec 10, 2007 12:27 PM EST
up
0 recs
Ankiel > Chris Duncan
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
up
0 recs
im just not convinced on Ankiel
by nomar34 on
Dec 10, 2007 2:10 PM EST
up
0 recs
Ank vs. Dunc
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
up
0 recs
I agree
There just appears much more willingness to play Ankiel than Duncan.
by aet15 on
Dec 10, 2007 4:08 PM EST
up
0 recs
...dunc vs. ankiel
Plus Ankiel is THE investment. The guy they put in a bad spot early on.
by cardschinmusic on
Dec 11, 2007 5:16 AM EST
up
0 recs
better than tejada
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
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
up
0 recs
This assumes...
by guayzimi on Dec 10, 2007 10:53 AM EST 0 recs

