EastonBlues22

Upside of the signing: Looper is insane against righties, is a groundball pitcher, has productive closing experience, has been healthy/durable for almost all of his career, has solid career numbers, and has the potential to be a solid (if unspectacular) closer post-Izzy in 08 for the paltry price of $5.5 million + incentives. Downside: Much worse stats against lefties (especially bad last year), the uncertainty of coming off surgery, will likely never be "dominant" in any way, shape, or form. My opinion: I wish the pricetag had been a few million less...but I generally feel very good about his chances of coming here and putting up competitve stats. If he eventually settles back into the 2004 form he flashed, he could be a great signing and an absolute steal as a closer in 2008. As it is, I think it's currently a mediocre signing that fills a need...with a small chance of being a very bad signing, and a significantly greater chance than that of being a good to very good signing.

That board drives me insane... I have more posts here, and I've been a member there for roughly ten times longer. This board is much, much better.

For a further gambling analogy.... Say you're sitting on a pair of aces, but you think some else probably has trips or a straight. It doesn't make any sense to go for two pair (even though it offers the best odds to improve your hand), because two pair doesn't beat trips or a straight. What you need is a flush, so that's how you play your hand...even if the odds of getting that flush are a lot less than what they would be to get two pair. If KW thought those were the risks that he needed to take to build a team that COULD POSSIBLY win it all...then he did the right things. It's quite possible that other moves might have had better chances of moderately improving the team...but if KW didn't think those moves would produce a team capable of winning it all, then it didn't matter what the odds were of improving through those deals because it would be playing for second place. Better to take the risks needed to win it all and have both the chances of succeeding and failing miserably than it is to play it safe and be neither a winner or a loser.

Maybe not thrilled...but I'm pretty sure I'm happier the cards spent what they did to give Mateo a shot than I would be if they had signed Ryan/Wagner/Burnett for what they got. It's not like the bullpen is crowded at this point...if he can even be a one hitter specialist, that would fill a need. I'd rather see the Cards sit out a year or two and conserve some payroll to eventually sign a good player to an obscene contract than chew up payroll by signing iffy/crappy players to obscene ones. I know that's not the popular choice what with the new ballpark and all, but that's what I think might be best for the team at this point. Eventually, those big contracts on mediocre free agents are going to get those teams in trouble(see: Manny/ARod/Hampton/Neagle/ad nauseum).

:lol: Alright, that made me laugh. A lot.

I'm really not convinced they can. They've lost two versatile producers off the bench (Mabry/Nunez), their 2b (Grudz), two above average bats in the OF (Sanders/Walker...well, Walker used to be anyway), a nothing special SP (Morris), and two of their top three arms in the pen plus another (Tavarez, Reyes, Eldred). Tie all that in with the uncertainty of Rolen's abilty to return to form, and what I think will be year two of Edmond's beginning of the end decline, and I think the chances of the Cards making the playoffs are pretty poor. The only reason I think there's any hope at all is because the other teams in the Central seem to be almost just as flawed at the moment. Barring a miracle, the lineup will certainly be significantly less productive than last year's version...as will the bullpen. The starting pitching will still be fine even if nobody is added, but fine won't be enough to get it done in light of everything else.

Barring some big unforseen trade, the pieces of a championship run simply aren't available for the Cards this year if Burnett isn't in on the team. A potentially dominant starting rotation might mask the inevitable holes in the lineup/bullpen enough to get the job done...a mediocre to slightly above average one has no chance. Unfortunately, overspending for Burnett would make closing those holes with even mediocre replacements a daunting task. Pass on Burnett, if the current offer won't get it done, and don't go overboard by overspending on the scraps that are left in the outfield either. Pass out some cheap one year deals, play out the year, then put the money to better use next year on a player or two that might actually turn out to be difference makers.

The ever rare quintuple post...very nice, CubinNY! :lol:

But Giles won't play for 3/27. Maybe the Cards have realized that and are moving on to Jones at 3/21. Nope, he most likely won't play for that... My point was more that's the maximum that the Cards are willing to pay for the premium free agent at a position of need...I can't see them paying almost as much, for the same length of time, for someone who's a lot worse when the position isn't even their top offseason priority. Heck, they could just as well do what the Cubs did and grab Burnitz for a one year deal at five million or less. He'd provide adequate defense, almost identical offensive production, and he's a lefty bat that would fill the same spots in the lineup that Jones would...all for a fraction of the years and total cost. It's just not the sort of move Jocketty would make...I would honestly be stunned if it came to pass.

I can't imagine this will happen...they've got at least three positions to fill in the order, and they're still interested in pitching as well...which has been said to be their top priority. I could see Jones coming to StL for a one year deal if they spend a bunch of money on their other holes, but I seriously doubt the Cards would commit that kind of money/years to a mediocre (perhaps I'm being kind) free agent as their first signing of the offseason when they have a standing 3 year deal/27 million (I think) on the table for Giles. Makes no sense whatsoever, won't happen.

Well, they got the tying run to the plate...but that's as far as it got. Give the Padres credit for not giving up in any of the games. I felt bad for Woody too, he's a classy guy and he put in some great work for the Cards when he was here... Good man.

Exactly. Never has been true, and probably never will be. It's an arbitrary thing. That's why it's voted on, rather than just punching the numbers into a computer. Someday, that might change. It hasn't yet. It should be done thru a computer and not some sportswriter who is voting on a team he either sees 6 times or 162 times a year as a beat writer. It makes it much easier for a sportswriter to look at the standings rather than looking deeper into the numbers. That's why the voting system is crap and it would be wrong if they didn't give it to Lee. As much as the idea of something completely unbiased "computing" the winners of various postseason awards appeals to me, I think the BCS has shown that it's a practical impossibility at this point. Like someone else said, "value" is a concept that has a lot of wriggle room. What's valuable to one person might not be quite so valuable to another. How important is a winning team? How important is a strong finish during the stretch run? How important are rate stats? At least with the system that is currently in place, the player who is the most valuable to the most people wins. It's not perfect, granted, but at least it represents a consensus. The BCS can't even consistently produce that... Besides, who has the final say in how the statistical contributions of a player are weighted for the computations? Should OBP be given a higher weight that BA? If so, how much? What about SLG? Is an RBI worth more than a run scored? How much is a steal worth? Does steal percentage matter? How important is hitting with RISP? How important is staying healthy? Does leadership matter? Does their place in the batting order matter? What about fielding percentage? How do you account for better or worse teammates? It would be an absolute nightmare to even attempt to create a formula that people would be satisfied with.

You are aware that Pujols has had such standouts as Taguchi and Molina batting fourth behind him this year because Edmonds has often been batting #2 and Sanders has been hurt for an extended period of time, right? The two guys who were supposed to protect him from the #4 slot this year: Edmonds production from the #4 slot: 266 AB, .267 AVG, .912 OPS, 14 HR, 43 RBI Sanders: 114AB, .298 AVG, .893 OPS, 6 HR, 22 RBI Together they accounted for only 63% of the ABs by #4 hitters for the Cards. Combined production from the #4 spot in the order from the Cardinals (along with the rank in the NL for each stat). .273 Avg (8th out of 16) .864 OPS (5th) 28 HR (9th) 103 RBI (9th) The bottom line is that it's not exactly like Pujols had Manny Ramirez hitting behind him... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for the "Jones had no help in the lineup" argument... As a team, ATL had more HRs, more total bases, and a higher OPS than StL did. They also had a higher OPS than the Cubs. When you consider that the OPSs for Pujols and Lee were much higher than that of Jones, you would expect their teams' OPSs to be higher than ATL's as well if they were really had better hitters helping them out on offense. Since they aren't, that can only mean that ATL actually had the better hitting team this year statistically. Funny how that works out.

That post just about sums it up for me. As long as Jones doesn't win, I can make my peace with the decision.

I'm pretty sure they were booing what they thought was a tight strike zone.

Oddly, the third thing you list was instrumental in his accomplishing the first two. :wink: Seriously though, I never called him a savior (or even a better player than Renteria), but I argued endlessly that he would be more than capable of filling the Cardinal's needs offensively and defensively. Nobody wanted to hear it then...they were all pissed Renteria didn't take our money and that we got stuck with an "inferior" player at a key position. Now I'm thinking there's a lot of people who are glad Renteria didn't accept our offer.

When we signed him, I wasn't giving into the hype. I refused to be taken in by his "scrappiness" or his "hustle". I KNEW for a fact that our ground ball pitchers would rue the day Renteria left (and I also agreed he wasn't worth the money he signed). Eckstein has exceeded my expectations in every aspect. I just wanted to say that I've been a defender of his from the beginning. Normally, I wouldn't say anything about it, but I spent countless hours in the offseason (especially on stltoday.com) responding to idiotic posts like "Eckstein's range and arm are going to cause all our groundball pitcher's ERAs to rise by half a run," and frankly, I think I've earned it.

I'm aware of that. Your response didn't have much to do with who you think deserves to win the Cy Young either. :D :lol: Yeah...honestly, I've given it maybe four minutes of thought since June. I tend to put most of my thinking into my hockey and golf games, and just let the rest of the sports world sort itself out on its own. It's not that I think discussing something like this is a waste of time...far from it...it's just that I prefer to think about things that I have some semblance of control over, or that I think have some sort of conclusion. I do find conversations like these fascinating though...this board is a treasure trove.

Do you think one of the most dominating pitching performances of modern times produced by one of the greatest pitchers of all time (if not the greatest) deserves the Cy Young? Just for clarification, my post had nothing to do with who I thought deserves, or will win, the Cy Young...it was merely a response to Treebeard's comment of "yeah, that's a normal career path" or whatever it was. Carpenter's story isn't even the least probable pitching performance in his own division...perhaps not even on his own team if you consider Mulder and Morris. If you were asking purely out of curiousity, my standard response with all my friends has been I wish nothing more out of postseason awards than a consistency in how they are awarded. If a gold glove is going to go to the best fielding percentage at a position, then make it like that for every position every year...you may disagree with if that really gets at the heart of the award, but at least people know exactly what winning the award means and that meaning holds true across time. I want the same thing out of the MVP and Cy Young races...I really don't care if the award goes to the best sabermetric player, or the one who qualifies as the best choice more "traditionally," or if it goes to the best player on a playoff team or whatever. Just make it consistent...I think, at the heart of things, that's all anyone anywhere really wants. Personally, I could care less about whether Pujols or Lee wins the MVP, or if Carpenter or Clemens wins the Cy Young...they are nice recognitions, but winning them or not winning them won't change at all what they actually did. And the seasons all four of them have put together speak for themselves. Anyone with any baseball acumen whatsoever realizes that Clemens and Carpenter are BOTH putting on spectacular displays of domination the likes of which have been rarely seen in the modern era. Let the votes fall where they will, that won't change the facts.

The only reason why the concept of "normal" exists is because there are exeptions to normalcy...those exceptions are difficult to predict, but a certain number should be expected to happen over time. Carpenter was highly drafted, and considered to have a ton of talent. You would "normally" expect a pitcher to improve until his late 20s to early 30s before his production levels off and then begins to decline. His career path might not have been normal, but the fact that his last two seasons have been very good isn't that much of a reach. Everyone knew he had talent and he's still at an age where improvement can be expected...it's just the magnitude of the improvement has thrown people for a loop. Still, I think what Clemens is doing at 43 is much less "normal" than what Carpenter has done over the last two years. People with talent have overcome slow starts to careers and surgeries to realize their talent and have great success. It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens a lot more often than 43 year olds put up one of the most dominating pitching performances of not only their careers, but of modern times.

Who's to say, but there at least exists the possibility that they might, does there not? Certainly they will be upgrades on defense over everyone (Mabry, Rodriguez, Luna...) but Taguchi. They only need to be hot with the bat for the playoffs...and they have something like a month to get ready for that. If nothing else, they almost certainly won't perform at a level below what people like Mabry are putting up as their replacements. It will be nice when half the starters are back to being the bench players they are supposed to be. The game was meaningless for the Cards and there are currently three starters who aren't playing now but are expected back rather soon...I feel confident in saying that what you'll see come playoff time will be significantly different. Perhaps no better, but certainly different and very unlikely to be worse.

Nope, it was a team with it's division locked up and several important players on the mend...it's nothing close to what you're going to see when the playoffs start. You did notice that Walker, Sanders, and Grudz weren't in that game last night...rrrrrrrrrrrright?

And that could certainly have something to do with the better protection Lee has recieved from the #4 slot that I detailed in a previous post... I agree with you, to this point, it's been very close. I'm not going to "cast my ballot" until the season is essentially over...by then Lee will either have resurged and cemented his case, or he will have faded his way out of the race. I don't see much of a chance to the race being as close as it is right now in another month. Someone will pull away from the pack.

Pujols # Runners while at bat at 1B 193 2B 118 3B 65 Lee # Runners while at bat at 1B 145 2B 107 3B 58 So, the fact that the extra runners are much more likely to be at first base and out of scoring position skews the "runners aboard" statement... That's not to say that the 10% disadvantage in runners at second and third (in scoring position) that Lee faces isn't important...it's just that when you include the 25% difference at first, it overstates the disadvantage that Lee is actually facing. There's a big difference between 10%, and the 18% overall disadvantage that the 376 and 310 numbers imply.

Something I'm not personally holding against Lee, but that some voters might be, is his performance since the all-star break (unfortunately corresponding with his team's fall from contention). This area is also primarily why Jones is garnering support. Pujols: 13 HR, 31 RBI, .321 AVG, .434 OBP, .667 SLG Jones: 17 HR, 43 RBI, .274 AVG, .365 OBP, .628 SLG Lee:12 HR, 22 RBI, .284 AVG, .382 OBP, .580 SLG