Falling House of Cards - ESPN article

[jyoung55]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2317993

 

Here is a link to a new page on ESPN that points out the obvious that the Cards have gotten worse. But I was most interested in the fact that McAdam says that the concern is that the Cubs have improved (along with the Brew Crew). Evidently McAdam doesn't read this board. Hopefully the outsider is right??

[goonys evil twin]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2317993

 

Here is a link to a new page on ESPN that points out the obvious that the Cards have gotten worse. But I was most interested in the fact that McAdam says that the concern is that the Cubs have improved (along with the Brew Crew). Evidently McAdam doesn't read this board. Hopefully the outsider is right??

 

I think most people on this board believe the team has improved. What is up for debate is the level of improvement. My disappointment with the team is based on my belief 5-6 years ago that this team should have been much better by now, and my belief that this offseason provided a chance for great improvement, not just the marginal improvement I believe they have made.

[wolf stansson]

Not that I don't disagree that the Cards have regressed, but according to the "experts" and most of the understandably and appropriately biased people on this board, they've regressed each of the last 2 seasons. 205 wins later they are saying the same thing. The question is, is this the year the rug gets swept out from under Jocketty? I doubt it. I honestly think people will be saying the same things about Junior Spivey that they've said about Womack and Grudzielanek. Encarnacion should be close to Walker/Platoon. A healthy Bigbie/JRod/Taguchi should be obly slightly worse than last year's Sanders/JRod/Taguchi. Rolen this year should be better than Rolen/Nunez/Mabry last year. Reyes should be better than Morris. Marquis should be better. Suppan slightly worse. Same with Carp. Mulder the same.

 

The Bullpen is the only thing I could see being significantly worse.

 

 

And yes Cubs fans, it is true: The Cubs are improved. It's okay to believe. A healthy rotation, Pierre, and better pen should = 90-100 wins. The rotation being the biggest question mark. Then again, Dusty Baker does manage this team, so you very easily be under .500 with injuries and clubhouse drama. It must be extremely frustrating to have such a potentially good and bad season as a Cubs fan.

Edited February 7, 2006 by wolf stansson

[jyoung55]

Not that I don't disagree that the Cards have regressed, but according to the "experts" and most of the understandably and appropriately biased people on this board, they've regressed each of the last 2 seasons. 205 wins later they are saying the same thing. The question is, is this the year the rug gets swept out from under Jocketty? I doubt it. I honestly think people will be saying the same things about Junior Spivey that they've said about Womack and Grudzielanek. Encarnacion should be close to Walker/Platoon. A healthy Bigbie/JRod/Taguchi should be obly slightly worse than last year's Sanders/JRod/Taguchi. Rolen this year should be better than Rolen/Nunez/Mabry last year. Reyes should be better than Morris. Marquis should be better. Suppan slightly worse. Same with Carp. Mulder the same.

 

The Bullpen is the only thing I could see being significantly worse.

 

So basically, if I am catching all that you said, EVERYTHING will go right for the Cardinals again this year? I guess you have no reason not to believe this to be true.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

My belief, after 03, was that 06 was going to be the year of the three-peat.

[wolf stansson]

So basically, if I am catching all that you said, EVERYTHING will go right for the Cardinals again this year? I guess you have no reason not to believe this to be true.

Maybe you should re-read my post because you clearly just read what you wanted to. NOTE THE WORD *SHOULD* (which means might not bud).

 

Also, how dare I be optimistic about a team who has had 6 winning season in a row.

Edited February 7, 2006 by wolf stansson

[Andy]

I agree that the Cubs have improved, and I agree that I wish they'd improved more. Whether or not a "true leadoff man" was really needed this off-season, the Cubs have one that is substantially better than any schlub that batted 1/2 last year. And their rotation should (should) be much more healthy than last year, not to mention better. The pen will be better. All things considered the Cubs ought to win at least 85 games this year even when you factor in the inevitable missed time by Wood.

 

And I also agree the Cards are worse. Any time you lose OFs like Walker and Sanders and replace them with Bigbie and Encarnacion, coupled with replacing Grudzie with Miles, you're looking at a worse team. But the Cards will probably still win 90 games or more.

 

Even with the changes in the division, I still wholeheartedly expect STL to win the division fairly easily again. I hold out some hope that it might not happen.

[goonys evil twin]

How are the Orioles "setting themselves up for disappointment"? They stink, everybody knows they stink. It's like saying the Rockies might not have as much success this year as they'd hope.

 

Philly is a good call. They have some very good players, but a very messy pitching staff. They could linger at or below .500 all year, and then, I hope, trade Abreu to the Cubs.

[goonys evil twin]

In 2004, the Cardinals went to the World Series. Last year, they got as far as the NLCS. Sensing a pattern here?

 

Um, the pattern is they've had a lot of success recently? Is this guy trying to say going from the WS to just the NLCS is a pattern of decline?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think you'll see a big change in the bullpen from last year to this year. They were easily among the best and probably most fortunate in the league. The Cards got 220+ IP of very good to spectacular production out of Tavarez, Thompson, Flores, and Reyes. Even Eldred put up a 2.19 ERA in 40+ IP, and the dude had a 1.43 WHIP. I really doubt Flores and Thompson repeat those numbers, Looper probably won't come near to Tavarez's production, and they really don't have anyone to step into Reyes's innings, which is worse when you consider the Cards threw the fewest relief innings in the NL last year(60 IP fewer than when they also led the NL in '04). There's probably not a huge change in the offense and starting pitching, but they could be poised to take a big step backwards with the pen.

[goonys evil twin]

Not that I don't disagree that the Cards have regressed, but according to the "experts" and most of the understandably and appropriately biased people on this board, they've regressed each of the last 2 seasons. 205 wins later they are saying the same thing.

 

205 win later? So are you saying people claimed the Cards regressed after the 2003 season? They won 85 that year, following 3 straight 93+ win seasons. I don't remember many people predicting the 2004 Cards would be worse than the 2003 Cards. I'm sure a lot of people failed to predict a 20 win improvement, but it's not like people were saying they go sub .500.

[wolf stansson]

I'm sure a lot of people failed to predict a 20 win improvement, but it's not like people were saying they go sub .500.

Pretty much the consensus division projected finish was:

1 - Cubs

2 - Astros

3 - Cards

 

Our rotations was Morris (Injured), Carpenter (hadn't pitched for nearly 2 seasons), Woody Williams (Injured), Jeff Suppan (sucky), and Jason Marquis (Very little major league experience, none of it successful).

 

You probably wouldn't remember, but I do. They were picked to be also ran's. Edmonds had a bad year. We lost Vina. Pujols was changing positions. We didn't have a right fielder after trading Drew. Izzy was coming off an injury plagued season. We lost our most versatile bench player in Marrero.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm sure a lot of people failed to predict a 20 win improvement, but it's not like people were saying they go sub .500.

Pretty much the consensus division projected finish was:

1 - Cubs

2 - Astros

3 - Cards

 

Our rotations was Morris (Injured), Carpenter (hadn't pitched for nearly 2 seasons), Woody Williams (Injured), Jeff Suppan (sucky), and Jason Marquis (Very little major league experience, none of it successful).

 

You probably wouldn't remember, but I do. They were picked to be also ran's. Edmonds had a bad year. We lost Vina. Pujols was changing positions. We didn't have a right fielder after trading Drew. Izzy was coming off an injury plagued season. We lost our most versatile bench player in Marrero.

 

But is that the same as saying they'd regress from 2003? They were also rans in 2003. People weren't predicting regression, just repetition.

[UK1679666180]

I think they will regress as well, just not much. It's difficult for any team to remain at 95+ wins as well as the repeat health from their starting rotation, even with Morris gone. I see two players that have a higher probability of injury in Reyes and Carpenter, regression from Eckstein, and a dropoff at 2B. Pujols will be just as great if not better, Edmonds will cont. to decline, Rolen will likely be a big lift (depending on his shoulder) and they'll take a hit from not having Walker/Sanders despite the lack of GP. I don't think the bullpen is as strong even with a full year from Thompson.

 

They'll likely win the division, but they won't be the class of the NL. I see a 5-10 win drop-off, likely around 92 wins, good enough to win the division.

[wolf stansson]

They'll likely win the division, but they won't be the class of the NL. I see a 5-10 win drop-off, likely around 92 wins, good enough to win the division.

That's exactly where I would put them.

[Andy]

We lost our most versatile bench player in Marrero.

Technically, that game never happened. :P

[stitchface]

Wolf - what do you think the odds of your starting five throwing 160 starts again is? I would say about zero. With that in mind, what do the Cards have for a 6th and 7th option? The Cards have also had some favorable breaks lately - I think there is a decent chance they get some bad breaks and finish sub-90. I don't disagree that they are still the team to beat, but they are beatable this year moreso than the previous two.

[Outshined_One]

They'll likely win the division, but they won't be the class of the NL.

 

Which team do you see that being?

[Andy]

They'll likely win the division, but they won't be the class of the NL.

 

Which team do you see that being?

I don't know what UK thinks, but I like the Mets in the NL.

[UK1679666180]

They'll likely win the division, but they won't be the class of the NL.

 

Which team do you see that being?

 

I think you'll see a battle between ATL & NYM for the title, I'm picking the Braves despite Mazzone leaving and not having a closer to start the year. If there is one team that would likely find a closer candidate in-house, it would Atlanta. They do have Levine out of NCST.

 

It is a great luxury to have youth and the progression that follows as the main concern about the position players, most teams it's a lack of talent or in the case of the Cubs, it's players rebounding, health, and lack of regression.

 

If the youth of ATL cont. to progress as they should, they'll likely have the highest amount of wins in the NL.

[wolf stansson]

Wolf - what do you think the odds of your starting five throwing 160 starts again is? I would say about zero. With that in mind, what do the Cards have for a 6th and 7th option?

I doubt it happens as well, but zero means you are giving that no chance of happening. I'd give them better odds than that. Our 6th option is Ponson/Reyes depending on which one starts the season in the pen. I'm guessing Ponson will start in the pen. Our 7th is probably Brett Tomko Jr. *er* Adam Wainright.

 

I don't disagree that they are still the team to beat, but they are beatable this year moreso than the previous two.

I am in complete agreement with you. All I was saying is that pre 2004, nodoby was giving them much of a chance and they dominated. I'm just trying to get you to admit that in addition to them having a chance of finishing sub 90 wins, they have a chance of winning 100 again. I think they'll be right in the middle of that, but either is possible.

[indifferent]

Obviously this is all speculation and the health of a team will dictate where they will fall in terms of wins. On that note, we are relying more than ever on Rolen's production in the lineup. If he falters coming back from surgery, if he is still injured, or if he's a shell of his former self, the Cards are in a lot of trouble.

 

What I don't get is the pundits all mentioning losing Morris, arguably our worst starter for the second year in a row, a big cause for concern? If Ponson starts, than I can see the downgrade, but if Reyes is in the rotation, most knowledgeable Cards fans would view it as an upgrade. Either way, if you're predicting the demise of a team that won 100 games based on a downgrade of their fifth starter, I'd say that's a stretch. If the pundits would ask me, I'd could point out at least three bigger areas of concern about the Cards than losing Morris as our fifth starter.

[indifferent]

Another thing to consider...

 

While everyone's weighed in on how lucky/rare it is to have all five starters start 30 games or more, I think you need to consider the Cards position player injuries the Cards had last year.

 

If Rolen turns in the production of what Pecota and ZIPs peg him, given 550 ABs (and filling in Deivi Cruz for the remaining at bats), you come up with 105 runs created. Last year the Cards 3rd basemen combo had 74 runs created. That's a difference of approx. 30 runs made up at one position. The Cards lost 50 runs from the year before. Granted, Edmonds and Rolen had career years in 04, but we also lost Rolen, Walker, Sanders, and Molina (his replacements' numbers were more abyssmal than Yadi's) for extended periods of time last year. I think we can at least match the 805 runs from last year.

[UK1679666180]

Another thing to consider...

 

While everyone's weighed in on how lucky/rare it is to have all five starters start 30 games or more, I think you need to consider the Cards position player injuries the Cards had last year.

 

If Rolen turns in the production of what Pecota and ZIPs peg him, given 550 ABs (and filling in Deivi Cruz for the remaining at bats), you come up with 105 runs created. Last year the Cards 3rd basemen combo had 74 runs created. That's a difference of approx. 30 runs made up at one position. The Cards lost 50 runs from the year before. Granted, Edmonds and Rolen had career years in 04, but we also lost Rolen, Walker, Sanders, and Molina (his replacements' numbers were more abyssmal than Yadi's) for extended periods of time last year. I think we can at least match the 805 runs from last year.

 

The injuries they had to the position players was not too far out of the norm, I expect there will be some decline offensively, but moreso I don't see STL leading the League in ERA again.

[Andy]

Another thing to consider...

 

While everyone's weighed in on how lucky/rare it is to have all five starters start 30 games or more, I think you need to consider the Cards position player injuries the Cards had last year.

 

If Rolen turns in the production of what Pecota and ZIPs peg him, given 550 ABs (and filling in Deivi Cruz for the remaining at bats), you come up with 105 runs created. Last year the Cards 3rd basemen combo had 74 runs created. That's a difference of approx. 30 runs made up at one position. The Cards lost 50 runs from the year before. Granted, Edmonds and Rolen had career years in 04, but we also lost Rolen, Walker, Sanders, and Molina (his replacements' numbers were more abyssmal than Yadi's) for extended periods of time last year. I think we can at least match the 805 runs from last year.

It was hard for us to take your injuries too seriously when guys like John Rodriguez and Abraham O. Nunez and So Taguchi immediately jumped in and hit .280+ and outperformed not only just about every other bench player in the league, but also many starters.