sleeping beauty
ack! i overslept and am writing in tremendous haste this morning. terrible day for it, because there is so much going on: the mitchell report is due out today, the astros made a big trade, and the nontender list came out with aaron miles' name on it. addressing these in reverse order:
some of you have taken exception to the sense of celebration over the miles nontender --- which, sadly enough, represents one of the high points of this off-season. i will admit that i pumped my fist when i saw the news --- and not because i have anything against aaron miles. i concede his defenders' point that all this guy did was show up for work and perform the tasks assigned to him to the best of his ability. when, through no fault of his own, he got thrust into a larger role than he could comfortably handle, he still plugged away and did the best he could. dude even pitched a couple of times. all points well taken. it's unreasonable to hold miles responsible for the cards' decline the last couple of years --- but it's not unfair to suggest he was a symptom of a certain disease that afflicted the cards during jocketty's last two years. you could call it a lack of imagination, or maybe a failure to recognize that the 2004-05 team was finished. miles would have been a decent fit on those 100-win rosters, a steady eddy who could fill in all over the diamond, hit some singles, make the routine plays, and exude professionalism. but the cardinals in 2007-08 need guys with a broader range of skills and at least some chance of becoming average (or above-average) big-league players. miles does not possess those qualities, hence is not a good fit for the cards going forward; it's encouraging to see that mozeliak made the correct read and saw the miles' package of talents did not meet the cardinals' needs. mo has now let go 3 well-established major-leaguers --- eckstein miles and taguchi --- who had attractive superficial stats (all 3 batted .290 or above last year) but were one-dimensional at the plate, liabilities in the field, and over 30 years old, hence devoid of any meaningful chance to improve. be patient with mo, folks. the culture is changing.
the decision completes a subtle improvement at the shortstop position, which will be manned next year by two good fielders in their 20s. there's always the chance the cards could still add another shortstop, either eckstein (still out of work --- shut out in san diego, now fishing for a job here in denver) or adam everett, who was nontendered by the astros last night. if you could meld eckstein's bat with everett's glove, you'd have a damn fine player; taken individually, both these guys have the same shortcoming --- they're deficient in half the game (everett at the plate, eckstein in the field). they're also both over 30. everett's incredible glove is probably worth a couple of wins in and of itself, and on a team looking to contend this year he'd make some sense. but he's got no future; he's got zero chance to take the cardinals where they need to go. i'm comfortable with giving the opportunity to izturis / ryan, hoping one or both of them takes advantage of the chance. if neither one does, no harm done; the cards can try again next year to upgrade at the position.
Update [2007-12-13 10:10:48 by lboros]: eckstein is about to sign with toronto. [end update]
derrick goold examines everett and several other nontenders of note at his blog today. he left my favorite off the list --- josh towers, the (now ex-) toronto pitcher who went 5-10, 5.38 last year. [UPDATE: this morning derrick updated his list to include towers, who wasn't officially nontendered until after goold posted his list last night.] i think the cards ought to give his agent a call. what the hell do i see in this guy? as i said the other day, there's the great k/bb ratio --- better than 3:1 in the course of his career. and there's the dunc-friendly profile --- he's a veteran with good control and a variety of pitches who hasn't been able to harness them all into a consistent package. duncan works wonders with pitchers like that --- most recently with ryan franklin, a very similar hurler who blossomed under duncan's supervision. towers also vaguely resembles the star of this year's class of free-agent pitchers, carlos silva, in that his primary skill is the ability to avoid walks. but towers is likely to be available pretty cheap. here are a couple of projections:
| IP | H | BB | SO | HR | ERA | WHIP | |||
| ZIPS | 167 | 192 | 29 | 98 | 28 | 4.96 | 1.323 | ||
| CHONE | 136 | 159 | 32 | 85 | 20 | 4.90 | 1.404 |
both of those projections are indexed to the hitter-friendly skydome in a dh league; pitching at busch iii in the nl, i think he'd have a good chance to perform at a league-average level.
re the tejada trade, i agree with erik's take --- houston gave away too much for too little. here are the players they gave up, and their rough equivalents in the cardinal system:
- luke scott, left-handed slugging outfielder = chris duncan
- matt albers, 24-year-old struggling starter = anthony reyes
- troy patton, 21-year-old left-handed pitcher = jaime garcia
- michael costanzo, double A slugger = mark hamilton
- dennis sarfate, quadruple A reliever = kelvin jimenez
that's quite a bit to give up for 2 years of an ex-superstar in decline. it makes the houston lineup nominally better in the short term, but it doesn't put them in a position to win anything --- and it hurts their chances of being in a a position to win 2, 3, 4 years from now. so thank you, ed wade --- the lackluster nl central just got a little bit lacklusterer.
that's it, i'm out of time --- gotta get the kids ready for school. looking forward to the mitchell report; plenty to talk about then.
0 recs |
98 comments
Comments
Agree big time
They gave up a whole lot of very affordable playing time to bring in yet another declining star. Even if just two of the guys they moved end up being league average for the first six years of their careers, (and trust me, at least two of those guys will) then they gave up twelve years of average play for cheap to get two years of moderately above average for damned expensive.
Bravo, Orioles. You may have taken quantity over quality, but you got enough to come out winners on volume alone. Call it the Costco theory of trading.
by the red baron on Dec 13, 2007 10:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Reny Knote
by StLHugo on Dec 13, 2007 10:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
"One-sided, opinionated stories?"
by Jhusk on Dec 13, 2007 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what don't you
by StLHugo on Dec 13, 2007 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What I don't understand is
by Jhusk on Dec 13, 2007 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
CNN, Fox, etc.
by StLHugo on Dec 13, 2007 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
Most of you know that I've been pretty adamant in my defense of Dan and Al. The reason for this is that journalism, and particularly sports journalism where there is rarely a clear-cut "right" or "wrong" is a lot harder than most people give it credit for. No matter what you say, no matter how you say it, somebody's gonna get pissed, and somebody's gonna disagree.
Are there journalists out there that do not to a good job of preparing and looking at each side of an issue? Of course there are. But it is by no means fair to say that the majority of journalists are that way, or even that there are "more than a few" that are like that.
My bottom line is, really, give these guys some credit. Without them, we'd have no information to talk (read: argue) about.
by Jhusk on Dec 13, 2007 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Roger Clemens
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 10:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
This is what I really hate
Don't get me wrong, I detest Clemens as much or more than anyone else and have long suspected he had done steroids -- but all we're going to do after this is point fingers at those who are listed and assume everyone else is innocent. It's really a shame.
by chuckb on Dec 13, 2007 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When the 'real' Grimsley names
My only hope is that this raises McGwire's stature in the baseball community. If this list shows that he was just one of many using, then gauge him against his peers.
At the very least, the Cardinals need to get his statue out of storage and put it up. He helped build that new stadium.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not that two wrongs make a right
For those with less suspicion, this should improve their historical evaluations - i.e. Maddux. And for someone like McGwire it could diffuse people's disrespect for him and direct it to the whole sport.
by enoscountry on Dec 13, 2007 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My initial reaction on the Tejada deal
if you had what was widely regarded as the worst farm system in baseball and 2-3 very good (and 1 outstanding) players who were about to enter the decline phase of their careers -- is it not justified to scrap whatever you have from your farm system, which wasn't much anyway, and go full-speed ahead to try to win the WS in the next 2 years?
In 2 years, Berkman and Lee will be old and vastly overpaid, Tejada will be gone -- their farm system won't have added much b/c there's not much to add -- maybe you should just say to hell w/ it and be willing to go all the way to the bottom in 2010 after trying to win it all in '08 and '09. What do you have to lose? Your farm system's already at the bottom. So you lose 105 instead of 95 in 2010...whatever!
by chuckb on Dec 13, 2007 10:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
per Erik's take
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i didn't make those
other then him we have--
a bunch of middle to bottom of rotation types. mortensen, herron, ottavino represent the high side. of course, none of them may pan out
a starting catching prospect in anderson
a horde few good relievers who could peak as closers in perez, motte, maiques. and some others like worrell, gregerson who may fill out the middle.
and then there's positon prospects who could peak as solid to above average regulars like craig, hoffpauir, hamilton, jay, kozma, martinez etc. or they may be decent bench players
and they are starting to be players in latin america, they spent a lot more then a lot of teams in international signings, and they are beefing up their ops in that dept.
ok, so it's not the greatest. i guess it just gets old for me to hear how crappy it is because while it has a ways to go, it is improving. they system on a whole is has probably gone from the basement to around the 15-20 area.
by erik on Dec 13, 2007 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With you - kinda
by Lawless on Dec 13, 2007 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is
by silent_bob on Dec 13, 2007 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Great point
Most GM contracts run on the order of, what, three or four years? If he's thinking like you're thinking, 2010 will be the ultimate or penultimate year of his contract. That's a bad time for your team to be losing 105 games, if you're looking for an extension.
by arch support on Dec 13, 2007 10:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree...
Their pitching is rather suspect, but I see houstoncardinal's argument that adding Tejada and playing for now makes more sense than "wait for the Matt Albers era."
Frankly, I expected the O's to get more for Tejada - at least a Top 10 type prospect or decent major leaguer. He is on the decline, yes, but he is a former MVP, just over 30 and plays a premium position (kind of). Looking at LB's comps above, even though I think Duncan is an overshoot for Scott, I wouldn't hate that deal. Wouldn't love it, but it's certainly not the Rasmus type package folks were predicting.
by bgodar on Dec 13, 2007 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When you say...
I think the comparison is pretty fair.
As for my take on the trade...I think the O's are winners on a talent for talent comparison, but I agree with the thought that the Stros are a couple of years away from having to tear down and rebuild.
by cardzfanbub on Dec 13, 2007 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was mostly thinking of age
by bgodar on Dec 13, 2007 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One other nugget...
Duncan's line .209/.275/.357....632OPS in 129 AB's.
This little exercise has drastically reduced my opinion of Chris Duncan's value...before today I say Scott about the same as you, but he is to this point a better player than Duncan...just a few years older.
by cardzfanbub on Dec 13, 2007 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dunc
Dunc's Splits:
.287 .375 .569 .944 614PA
.209 .275 .357 .632 142PA
.272 .356 .528 .884
Scott's
.276 .364 .534 .898 626PA
.259 .372 .431 .803 137PA
.273 .366 .516 .882
So while Dunc is your typical platoon LF (though I think he can be more, he just needs to bat against em). In the end, yes they are very similar players until you get to the HR stat, 44 vs 28 over those very similar PA numbers. Luke had 10 in 06 and 18 in 07 where Dunc had 22 and 21 in the same years. Maybe Luke is improving, but Dunc is 3 years younger and has more room to improve.
by StLHugo on Dec 13, 2007 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait
Man, to be a kid again.
by arch support on Dec 13, 2007 10:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
8:00 AM
by Cardinal70 on Dec 13, 2007 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Riiiiiiggghhhhtt
<backs slowly out of room>
by arch support on Dec 13, 2007 10:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Time zone dif
by cardsgirl95 on Dec 13, 2007 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
mitchell report
not that that means anything, i guess i'm just bracing myself for the worst.
by erik on Dec 13, 2007 10:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Backne
by silent_bob on Dec 13, 2007 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mitchell Report
by cardsgirl95 on Dec 13, 2007 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OTOH
And yes, steroids tend to specifically "encourage" back acne.
by sdrone on Dec 13, 2007 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
to add...
I hope against all hopes that AP's name is not on that list. I am encouraged by the fact that his numbers have not declined greatly in the last couple of seasons.
by cardzfanbub on Dec 13, 2007 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As for the bald thing
by joker24 on Dec 13, 2007 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if
Not to me it doesnt. I won't be surprised either way if his name is mentioned. I could care less about the names. I think since 2004 things have changed--and the numbers prove it.
Great players are still great players. Good ones are good ones and average ones are average ones. I don't know if roids could put you up a grouping on that list.
I will see the names, talk a bit about it, and move on.
by beanocook on Dec 13, 2007 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
albert
by sportsman on Dec 13, 2007 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That focus came from bad reporting
I will say, the fact that Bernie M hasn't posted much today doesn't bode well for the Cardinals chances of avoiding a major hit. If you read the article on the PD, they were focusing hard on LaRussa.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Should there be a Mitchell Report Diary?
by joeyart on Dec 13, 2007 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There already is one sorta
by StLHugo on Dec 13, 2007 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Considering
by Alxfritz on Dec 13, 2007 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Everytime I see a bad story about the NFL
MLB is blasted by everyone as a poorly run organization, etc and as pissed off as I was when they kept Extra Innings away from me for the first 2 games of the season, MLB ensured that 10 times as many homes will have at launch The Baseball Channel than currently have the NFLN.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 10:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I too look forward
by bgodar on Dec 13, 2007 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
2009
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Josh Towers would be superfluous at best
Towers' 2007 Performance
HR/9IP 1.51
BB/9IP 1.85
K/9IP 6.39
GB% 42
ERA+ 83
Towers' Career performance:
HR/9IP 1.51
BB/9IP 1.02
K/9IP 4.80
GB% 45
ERA+ 91
by CardsWin on Dec 13, 2007 11:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
If Pujols is listed...
I remember when Albert's trainer was mentioned as a possible distributer. I felt like I was kicked in the gut all day long. I can't imagine what I will feel like if Mitchell names Al in this report and it scares me to death. Any and every Cardinal could be listed in this report but the one that I pray is not in number 5.
by BigMac545 on Dec 13, 2007 11:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Call me irrational
It's odd.. i'm scared to death but also relieved to see this list. We need to know who the cheaters are /were and they need to be punished.
The downside is this game will be forever scarred.
by stltrav09 on Dec 13, 2007 11:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Doubt it
by StLHugo on Dec 13, 2007 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So...
Also, I've got a beef with this kind of retroactive morality that seems to be infesting fandom at this point. What next? Kick out any Hall of Fame pitcher who played during the dirty ball era? Hey, it's cheating now, marking and cutting a ball to enhance your own performance, so guys like Joe Wood and Grover Cleveland must have been cheaters, right?
by Forsch31 on Dec 13, 2007 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with your beef, Forschie...
Your namesake had such strong hands he was able to raise the seams on the ball, giving extra "bite" to his breaking pitches. Since he didn't mark the leather portions of the ball, could he have been said to "defacing" the ball (illegal under baseball rules)?
Don't get me wrong... anabolic steroids can KILL you; regardless of their legality according to US law or MLB's rules, the risk of long-term harm is too great for whatever "rewards" of additional strength/quicker recovery they give you.
The "Mitchell Report" is, in my opinion, a fatally flawed effort to keep a grandstanding Congress off MLB's back. Were I part of the MLBPA, I'd be pushing anti-PED programs as a health issue affecting my members (the players.) I sure as heck wouldn't want to leave all drug testing and its' consequences in management hands, as things stand now!
And remember, there were substances that were LEGAL (both under US law and baseball's rules) in the late 1990's that are now ILLEGAL. "Andro" was available over the counter anywhere in the US in 1998; today, it's considered a "steroid precursor," and as such, is illegal to possess under US law as well as being a "banned" substance by MLB.
by The Ol Goaler on Dec 13, 2007 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
One of the more brilliant lines I've heard in a long long time. People are sheep trying to stay fashionable.
by rocKStark5 on Dec 13, 2007 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pujols is on the list
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 11:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
If you're talking about the list
by stl tyler on Dec 13, 2007 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't think it is accurate
Lets all keep things cool till we hear some facts not rumors. I may just back away from sports sites till 130pm when the full stories are out.
by StLHugo on Dec 13, 2007 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's on CNBC now
WNBC-TV in New York is said to have the list.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Even if..
by StLHugo on Dec 13, 2007 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
From CNBC
Sad day for Cardinals...
by plaz on Dec 13, 2007 11:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
haven't seen albert yet
by erik on Dec 13, 2007 11:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Kile
by Hinkster on Dec 13, 2007 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not appropriate to mention?
by lordsummer on Dec 13, 2007 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe i'm just looking
by dpmay on Dec 13, 2007 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Expected:
WHO expects this.
Pretty shotty reporting.
What is CNBC.com some sort of speculative blog now!
by chicagocardfan on Dec 13, 2007 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HAHAHA MSNBC is stoopid
You can tell because they listed Troy Glaus twice and misspelled many names.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 11:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
He tested positive
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MLB is denying the CNBC
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 12:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ok so clean slate again
by stl tyler on Dec 13, 2007 12:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
if i was named on
by erik on Dec 13, 2007 12:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't know....
by Alxfritz on Dec 13, 2007 12:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
t shirt idea
by erik on Dec 13, 2007 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No kidding
Then again, you probably have to prove you never did steroids.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, you'd have to prove
The websites mentioned have covered their backsides against libel suits by pulling their stories.
Expect the Mitchell Report to use the word "allege" a lot... as in, "So-and-so testified that (players) accepted steroids from him." If the Mitchell Report's source is a liar, the source is left open for suit.
The Feds, remember, have concentrated their efforts on distributors of PEDs... not users. (Barry Bonds was indicted on charges of perjury, NOT on charges of steroid use.)
by The Ol Goaler on Dec 13, 2007 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually.
by fourstick on Dec 13, 2007 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you
If Albert is on the list--big deal. It's not a sad day for baseball, for the Cardinals, etc. It's a day in baseball like all others...its an era like all others..it doesnt make him or anyone else "bad guys". These are human beings living in the real world--not just guys on the TV screen for our imagination. Even I forget this sometimes.
by beanocook on Dec 13, 2007 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WNBC has interviewed a high ranking MLB official
by stl tyler on Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
hey
by erik on Dec 13, 2007 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
by JeffD on Dec 13, 2007 12:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
of course MLB is going to deny it
by stltrav09 on Dec 13, 2007 12:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why would they lie at this point?
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not saying they are lying
by stltrav09 on Dec 13, 2007 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 13, 2007 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If someone were leaking
by stl tyler on Dec 13, 2007 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is anyone questioning
This whole PED thing is nauseating. The hipocracy of MLB is beyond reproach. The problems are so deep...
by mattnj on Dec 13, 2007 12:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hilarious
This is why you can't trust media outlets anymore, IMO. They are so focused on breaking news and getting a scoop that they don't check facts beforehand and just throw it up there. This reporter and editor should be fired if half of the names on the leaked list end up not being on the Mitchell Report. At least the reporters for the Post had evidence against Ankiel -- this report has nothing
by fourstick on Dec 13, 2007 1:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Report
Ryan Franklin (he previously admitted to taking steroids)
Cody McKay
Kent Mercker
Jason Christiansen
Fernando Vina
Gary Bennett
Rick Ankiel (talks about his potential HGH connection, with really no new evidence)
David Bell
by saladdays on Dec 13, 2007 3:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs



















