Cards Sign Juan Encarnacion

[PieOnMyHands]

And Sanders signs with the Royals for 2/10. And we gave Encarnacion 3/15!!??

 

What. The. Hell.

 

Encarnacion is nine years younger. While age isn't everything, Reggie will not continue to produce at a high level.... If he does, I'd venture to say that injuries will hamer himm to the point where it diminishes his production (like Larry Walker -- good numbers, but limited at-bats).

[nilodnayr]

And Sanders signs with the Royals for 2/10. And we gave Encarnacion 3/15!!??

 

What. The. Hell.

 

Encarnacion is nine years younger. While age isn't everything, Reggie will not continue to produce at a high level.... If he does, I'd venture to say that injuries will hamer himm to the point where it diminishes his production (like Larry Walker -- good numbers, but limited at-bats).

 

And exactly what level do you expect Encarnacion to produce at?

[vaball]

And Sanders signs with the Royals for 2/10. And we gave Encarnacion 3/15!!??

 

What. The. Hell.

 

Encarnacion is nine years younger. While age isn't everything, Reggie will not continue to produce at a high level.... If he does, I'd venture to say that injuries will hamer himm to the point where it diminishes his production (like Larry Walker -- good numbers, but limited at-bats).

 

Reggie was having a 30/30 season last year before he broke his leg in a freak collision. When he came back he put up awesome numbers, and then absolutely killed in the NLDS before, again, taking a freak fall and hurting himself. Half a Reggie is as good as a full Encarnacion. At 2/10 he would have definitely been worth it.

[UK1679666180]

Half a Reggie is as good as a full Encarnacion. At 2/10 he would have definitely been worth it.

 

You're preaching to the choir, I said the same things about Jones after he was inked.

[UK1679666180]

And exactly what level do you expect Encarnacion to produce at?

 

.261/.326/.439

[PieOnMyHands]

And Sanders signs with the Royals for 2/10. And we gave Encarnacion 3/15!!??

 

What. The. Hell.

 

Encarnacion is nine years younger. While age isn't everything, Reggie will not continue to produce at a high level.... If he does, I'd venture to say that injuries will hamer himm to the point where it diminishes his production (like Larry Walker -- good numbers, but limited at-bats).

 

And exactly what level do you expect Encarnacion to produce at?

 

I'd rather have a less productive Juan Encarnacion in there for 130 games as opposed to spending any money on Sanders at all. I don't necessarily like the Encarnacion signing (I don't like it at all), but I'd prefer him to Sanders at comparable money, simply because of the durability factor.

 

Neither >>>>>>>>>>> Encarnacion > Sanders (taking into account salary, age, etc)

Edited December 24, 2005 by PieOnMyHands

[PieOnMyHands]

And exactly what level do you expect Encarnacion to produce at?

 

Not nearly what Reggie did this year (.886 OPS) and not quite what he did himself last year (.795 OPS). Maybe a .780 OPS? And yes, I realize that's above his career average, but I still think it's realistic.

[CubfaninCA]

Sanders is an every other year player. He's due for a .750 ops and 80 games. Stay away from players nearing 40.

[YearofDaCubs]

Sanders is an every other year player. He's due for a .750 ops and 80 games. Stay away from players nearing 40.

I have to agree. You don't know what you are getting in a player who is nearing 40.

[nilodnayr]

And exactly what level do you expect Encarnacion to produce at?

 

Not nearly what Reggie did this year (.886 OPS) and not quite what he did himself last year (.795 OPS). Maybe a .780 OPS? And yes, I realize that's above his career average, but I still think it's realistic.

 

I'd optimisticly expect his 2000/2002/2003 numbers in the mid 700s, better than his 2001/2004 numbers at 700, but to expect him to get near his 795 last year is a bit too unrealistic to me. Last year he had two really good months, but played like himself the rest of the time.

[vaball]

And Sanders signs with the Royals for 2/10. And we gave Encarnacion 3/15!!??

 

What. The. Hell.

 

Encarnacion is nine years younger. While age isn't everything, Reggie will not continue to produce at a high level.... If he does, I'd venture to say that injuries will hamer himm to the point where it diminishes his production (like Larry Walker -- good numbers, but limited at-bats).

 

And exactly what level do you expect Encarnacion to produce at?

 

I'd rather have a less productive Juan Encarnacion in there for 130 games as opposed to spending any money on Sanders at all. I don't necessarily like the Encarnacion signing (I don't like it at all), but I'd prefer him to Sanders at comparable money, simply because of the durability factor.

 

Neither >>>>>>>>>>> Encarnacion > Sanders (taking into account salary, age, etc)

 

I just don't get this. Sanders played 135 games in 2004. He played 93 last season because he got crashed into. He's not injury prone. Crashing into people doesn't impugn his durability. He's getting paid the same yearly salary as Encarnacion, but with one less year on his contract.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I just don't get this. Sanders played 135 games in 2004. He played 93 last season because he got crashed into. He's not injury prone. Crashing into people doesn't impugn his durability. He's getting paid the same yearly salary as Encarnacion, but with one less year on his contract.

 

But he is 63 years old...

[PieOnMyHands]

I just don't get this. Sanders played 135 games in 2004. He played 93 last season because he got crashed into. He's not injury prone. Crashing into people doesn't impugn his durability. He's getting paid the same yearly salary as Encarnacion, but with one less year on his contract.

 

'98: 135 games

'99: 133 games

'00: 103 games

'01: 126 games

'02: 140 games

'03: 130 games

'04: 135 games

'05: 93 games

 

8 seasons averages out to 124 games per season. That means he misses, on average, roughly 38 games a year. That's nearly 24% of the season. How is missing almost a fourth of your games considered "durable?"

 

And as already pointed out... he's 38. He was known as an injury-prone player coming into St. Louis. Call the injuries "fluke" if you want, but I don't think he's the lock you're expecting him to be.

[nilodnayr]

I just don't get this. Sanders played 135 games in 2004. He played 93 last season because he got crashed into. He's not injury prone. Crashing into people doesn't impugn his durability. He's getting paid the same yearly salary as Encarnacion, but with one less year on his contract.

 

'98: 135 games

'99: 133 games

'00: 103 games

'01: 126 games

'02: 140 games

'03: 130 games

'04: 135 games

'05: 93 games

 

8 seasons averages out to 124 games per season. That means he misses, on average, roughly 38 games a year. That's nearly 24% of the season. How is missing almost a fourth of your games considered "durable?"

 

And as already pointed out... he's 38. He was known as an injury-prone player coming into St. Louis. Call the injuries "fluke" if you want, but I don't think he's the lock you're expecting him to be.

 

Exclude last years freak injury and hes played in 80% of the games, which means on average hes sat about once a week. Nothing wrong with that. The last year he had durability questions was 6 years ago.

[BigbadB]

I just don't get this. Sanders played 135 games in 2004. He played 93 last season because he got crashed into. He's not injury prone. Crashing into people doesn't impugn his durability. He's getting paid the same yearly salary as Encarnacion, but with one less year on his contract.

 

'98: 135 games

'99: 133 games

'00: 103 games

'01: 126 games

'02: 140 games

'03: 130 games

'04: 135 games

'05: 93 games

 

8 seasons averages out to 124 games per season. That means he misses, on average, roughly 38 games a year. That's nearly 24% of the season. How is missing almost a fourth of your games considered "durable?"

 

And as already pointed out... he's 38. He was known as an injury-prone player coming into St. Louis. Call the injuries "fluke" if you want, but I don't think he's the lock you're expecting him to be.

 

I haven't followed Sanders career all that closely. But, wouldn't a lot of those missing games be days off for a platoon situation? Just asking, cuz I really have no idea.

[vaball]

I just don't get this. Sanders played 135 games in 2004. He played 93 last season because he got crashed into. He's not injury prone. Crashing into people doesn't impugn his durability. He's getting paid the same yearly salary as Encarnacion, but with one less year on his contract.

 

'98: 135 games

'99: 133 games

'00: 103 games

'01: 126 games

'02: 140 games

'03: 130 games

'04: 135 games

'05: 93 games

 

8 seasons averages out to 124 games per season. That means he misses, on average, roughly 38 games a year. That's nearly 24% of the season. How is missing almost a fourth of your games considered "durable?"

 

And as already pointed out... he's 38. He was known as an injury-prone player coming into St. Louis. Call the injuries "fluke" if you want, but I don't think he's the lock you're expecting him to be.

 

I haven't followed Sanders career all that closely. But, wouldn't a lot of those missing games be days off for a platoon situation? Just asking, cuz I really have no idea.

 

I can't speak for all those years, but I know that in his time with the Cardinals TLR liked to rest him, like he did with Walker, for at least one game per series.

[YearofDaCubs]

I do know that the Pirates rested him a lot as well so it wasn't all injuries.

[UK1679666180]

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/12/pass_the_trash_1.php

[PieOnMyHands]

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/12/pass_the_trash_1.php

 

I saw that.

 

Then again:

- Was Carp trash when they signed him?

- Was Womack?

- Was Grudz?

- Suppan?

- Al Reyes?

- etc

 

I've learned not to question the moves Walt makes until after the season, because my initial reaction is usually wrong.

 

 

I can't speak for all those years, but I know that in his time with the Cardinals TLR liked to rest him, like he did with Walker, for at least one game per series.

 

But doesn't that suggest that La Russa sat him for a reason? He knew Reggie was old and he knew his body wasn't capable of playing as much as a full-time player needs to be capable of playing.

 

Had Sanders played for closer to the 2-year, $6 million deal he originally signed for in 2004... I woulda been comfortable with it. But he got a 40% raise, so I'm glad we let him go. (Again, I'm not happy we got Juan, either... I didn't want either for the price.)

[UK1679666180]

But doesn't that suggest that La Russa sat him for a reason? He knew Reggie was old and he knew his body wasn't capable of playing as much as a full-time player needs to be capable of playing.

 

Had Sanders played for closer to the 2-year, $6 million deal he originally signed for in 2004... I woulda been comfortable with it. But $4 million can be spent in other areas to improve this club. $5 million a year is not something I like paying someone who's going to play 120 games a year (and at his age, I don't think that's an unreasonable prediction).

 

If you want to make a fictional bet with Encarnacion or Sanders, as to who'll have the higher VORP or WS, I'm all ears. There's no way that Sanders will decline b/c of age or injury down to the level of Encarnacion.

 

His signings have sucked this off-season, any performace above expectation, is just that performance above expectation.

 

They don't have some magic crystal ball over there, any move that nets getting some player that exceeds expectations is simply luck and/or solid coaching or an improvement in work ethic.

 

The Cubs got Dempster on the cheap, Borowski, Barrett, Rusch etc. am I supposed to not question Hendry? They were all acq'd at a cost well below the production the brought.

[PieOnMyHands]

If you want to make a fictional bet with Encarnacion or Sanders, as to who'll have the higher VORP or WS, I'm all ears. There's no way that Sanders will decline b/c of age or injury down to the level of Encarnacion.

 

I already stated multiple times in this topic that I didn't want Encarnacion OR Sanders.

 

If I had to pick, I would probably prefer Encarnacion, simply because I think that Sanders will drop off in performance or games played based on his age.

 

The Cubs got Dempster on the cheap, Borowski, Barrett, Rusch etc. am I supposed to not question Hendry? They were all acq'd at a cost well below the production the brought.

 

Question Hendry if he signs Jacque Jones to 3/$15m or if he gives Furcal $50m over 4 years.

 

 

It's obvious what Jocketty does: low risk, high reward. Look at the contracts he gave out... he's not breaking the banks and crippling the future with the team.

 

So, again: I don't like Encarnacion and think it was a bad signing. The article you mentioned also referred to Junior Spivey, Ricardo Rincon, Braden Looper and Sidney Ponson -- all of whom have had multiple seasons of above league average success in the league at some point in their careers.

 

What's wrong with taking a flyer on Larry Bigbie at 900K?

 

 

The only move of his I really have a problem with this offseason is Juan Encarnacion. Every other signing has a very reasonable upside and has the potential to make the signing look like a bargain.

[UK1679666180]

Question Hendry if he signs Jacque Jones to 3/$15m or if he gives Furcal $50m over 4 years.

 

So why can I question Hendry about the Jones signing, but you won't question Jocketty about the Encarnacion signing?

 

Every other signing has a very reasonable upside and has the potential to make the signing look like a bargain.

 

What signing in MLB doesn't have reasonable upside? A team can trade for Patterson and mention reasonable upside.

 

Pierre, Jones, Eyre, and Howry have reasonable upsides, doesn't equate to being a successful off-season.

 

Personally, I think the chances of the Cards capitalizing on the moves are slim.

 

High reward from them would be producing at league avg based on their ability. That's not a high reward, IMO.

[PieOnMyHands]

So why can I question Hendry about the Jones signing, but you won't question Jocketty about the Encarnacion signing?

 

UK, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

 

Earlier you posted a the "Passing the Trash" article. In response to that, I basically said that I don't question Walt's moves. But that was an overstatement. I'm talking cheap ones, like Womack, Grudz, Ponson, Spivey, etc...

 

In my last post, I said:

 

So, again: I don't like Encarnacion and think it was a bad signing. The article you mentioned also referred to Junior Spivey, Ricardo Rincon, Braden Looper and Sidney Ponson -- all of whom have had multiple seasons of above league average success in the league at some point in their careers.

 

The comment I made about "not ever questioning" Jocketty was in regards to the cheap guys.

 

 

What signing in MLB doesn't have reasonable upside? A team can trade for Patterson and mention reasonable upside.

 

That's ridiculous to say that. Of course some signings are just blatantly bad. Rafael Furcal is being paid more than Miguel Tejada: what chances are there that Furcal puts up Tejada-esque numbers? None. Tejada has roughly 70 points of career OPS on Furcal; Tejada's best season is an OPS of nearly .900... Furcal? He hasn't eclipsed an OPS of .800, not ever.

 

Now how could you say that Furcal has reasonable upside? He doesn't. Not for the price. A signing is more than the player and his potential: you factor in salary, too.

 

 

Personally, I think the chances of the Cards capitalizing on the moves are slim.

 

High reward from them would be producing at league avg based on their ability. That's not a high reward, IMO.

 

In 2002, Sidney Ponson posted an ERA of 3.77. In 2003, his ERA was roughly 3.75. This season, the average starting pitcher had an ERA of 4.29.

 

If I told you could get a pitcher that could possibly give you numbers reasonably comparable to 2002 and 2003 for $2.5 million, would you do it?

 

If he doesn't do that, you pay him $1 million. How is that not low-risk, high-reward? Sidney Ponson has a precedent of being a "good" player.

 

 

Lemme make a quiz for you to take:

 

Second Baseman A's Career:

.293/.370/.356 (.726 OPS) - $5+ million

 

Second Baseman B's Career:

.270/.354/.436 (.790 OPS) - $1.5 million

 

The average 2005 2nd baseman:

.276/.338/.414 (.752 OPS)

 

 

Who do you want?

 

I'll take player B. Player A Luis Castillo. Player B is Junior Spivey.

 

Now if Castillo and Spivey were both free agents, how could possibly tell me that each has an equal upside (factoring in price)?

 

You could argue that Castillo is a better defensive player and that he can steal bases, but does that make him worth nearly three times as much as Spivey is making? I don't think so. Junior Spivey has the potential (potential he has reached in previous seasons) to do what All-Star players do, at a fraction of the cost.

 

Sidney Ponson has the potential (potential he has reached in previous seasons) to be one of the best end-of-the-rotation starters, for $2.5 million.

 

 

A good signing has a ton of upside. If it doesn't work out, your team doesn't take that big of a hit. If Spivey doesn't work out, we don't take that big of a hit. If Ponson doesn't work out, we don't take that big of a hit. If Furcal doesn't work out, the Dodgers take a big hit.

[UK1679666180]

If I told you could get a pitcher that could possibly give you numbers reasonably comparable to 2002 and 2003 for $2.5 million, would you do it?

 

He's about the size of several mobile home communities and has a limited work ethic, the odds of him coming close to his best numbers are slim.

 

If he doesn't do that, you pay him $1 million. How is that not low-risk, high-reward? Sidney Ponson has a precedent of being a "good" player.

 

The odds of a player returning to form in his case are slim, you get a dumb and lazy player who has lost his edge, it is doubtful for him to regain it.

 

Spivey hasn't been good in a couple of years, cost isn't the only area that lack of production is factored, it also factors into expectations.

 

I expect both to be well below avg. and if each are starting, they will be blocking players that are better than them (Reyes and Luna).

[SouthSideRyan]

So for Spivey it's his career #s that are most important to look at. For Ponson it's his stats from 3 and 4 seasons ago. Never is it most important to look at what a player did last year.