CardsFanInChiTown

Show me where I said he won't suck. All I'm saying is that, again, this is a low-risk, high-reward deal. Nothing more, nothing less. Yeah, he probably will suck. And guess what? We pay him practically nothing to do that. What if he's good, though? Or even decent? Then we pay him accordingly. Most people view him as a fat blob. Maybe that's all he is? However, I'm just jumping in Walt's defense before the outcome of the situation turns out. Because if, in the unlikely event, that Ponson turns out to be a good signing... we're going to hear, "OMFG THE CARDS ARE TEH LUCKEE!!!!!!!!" No, they're not. Their front office makes smart moves and they pay off. Would we rather sign Jacque Jones for $5 million, or sign five players for a million that have the potential to hit like Jones? That's basically the St. Louis philosphy. They're not lucky, they're smart. It's like the Tony Womack situation... we traded for him, in need of a second baseman. I believe he played for the league minimum. What if he hadn't turned out well? Too bad. No loss. People make it sound like we lock players up into blockbuster contracts and they just magically start playing at that level, or something. Your right, I put words in your mouth. I agree with everything you said, in fact I think I said the same things earlier in this thread. One thing, we are paying him 1m - a little more than nothing.

Bruce, why is Hendry still set on moving Walker? If he were the trade chip for a rightfielder, I could understand...but that spot is filled. What beneift could the Cubs get from trading him? Is there something about him that we don't know, or is Hendry that clueless? Boy would I love to hear a candid answer tothat question. I always give candid answers, both here and in the newspaper. The Cubs, as Goony mentioned, are stressing defense, for better or worse. They don't seem to like the way Walker plays the position compared with other second baseman. There are pitchers who've also voiced concern about the defense behind them. The Cubs feel, again right or wrong, that if the defense can turn the double play instead of extending the inning, their pitchers will have a better chance. I, too, am dismayed by the Cubs' seeming lack of emphasis on OBP and OPS. From an offensive standpoint, Walker certainly would look good in the No. 2 spot. And for the money _ and considering what they spent for a lot of mid-level guys _ Walker is an absolute bargain. Walker might annoy them with some of his comments to the media from time to time, but that really has no bearing on them not wanting to keep him. It's interesting to note, however, that Walker has worn out his welcome with other teams. If he does go, I'll miss him, not only because he provides provocative and juicy quotes. He's one of the best guys I've dealt with. What do you think they are going to try and aquire for him? Thanks!

I would make that argument, platoon aren't used nearly enough. I think the difference between using Jones for 160 games 25%-30% vs. LH'ers and using E. Perez/Jones as R/L platoon with Jones playing in 120 games is a difference about .075 in OPS increase if you used that platoon over just throwing Jones out there. I agree, plus now you've got a useful guy off the bench.

Because it's evident that he was a drunken blob during the last two years? He supposedly quit drinking and lost weight. St. Louis tried to trade for him in 2003... Maybe this is why people are so shocked that players come to St. Louis and magically perform well? If anything, I think that Walt does exactly what a Moneyball GM doesn't do -- he takes into consideration the personality of players and uses that to help project how they'll do. (IE: signing Grudz cheap knowing that he he was playing for a "big" contract to finish his career off) Even though I like the signing don't get too excited about the fat bird, he'll most likely suck.

If you perhaps name me a few left side of the platoon players that are earning more than $5m per in a multi-year deal, that'd be cool. Thanks in advance. Trot Nixon at $19.5/3Y. Matt Lawton at $27/4Y, though I think that one just ended. Ryan Klesko signed a $16.5/2Y extension. Obviously, I'm not saying Jones compares favorably with any of those guys, nor am I saying that those are good contracts. But these things do happen. Thanks for the names. Career splits... Jacque Jones: .294/.341/.488 vs righties (solid), .227/.277/.339 vs lefties (untellably awful, has to be platooned) Ryan Klesko: .292/.385/.548 vs righties (excellent), .228/.324/.370 vs lefties (just about unbearable, should probably be platooned) Trot Nixon: .293/.379/.524 vs righties (very, very good), .215/.304/.328 (pretty damn awful, has to be platooned) Matt Lawton: .275/.378/.436 vs righties (solid), .246/.339/.367 vs lefties (just about bearable) Keep the names coming. May I suggest the Matt Lawton deal was a spectacularly awful one. The fact is there aren't many platoons in MLB period. My point is if you can get a righty who mashs leftys but is horrible against righties for a few million a platoon is a great idea. For 7m you get a solid starter every day and good pitch hitter for late innings person off the bench. I'm not interested really in players that are platooned, more in players who have splits that mean that they should be platooned. In particular, I'm looking for left-handed hitters that should be platooned. I want to see what kind of a market there is for them. Here are a few... Eric Chavez: .289/.367/.536 vs righties (very good), .243/.309/.401 (bad, worse than Klesko, but he plays an important defensive position superbly, so is difficult to justify) Hank Blalock: .294/.363/.517 vs righties (very good), .222/.271/.353 (extremely awful, almost as bad as Jones, if in he shows no signs of improving he should be platooned, is that's possible at 3B) Corey Koskie: .288/.384/.486 vs righties (very good), .247/.331/.377 (only just about bearable) Scott Hatteberg: .276/.362/.420 vs righties (decent), .240/.332/.344 (just about unbearable, should be platooned) Chad Tracy: .315/.368/.514 vs righties (very good), .224/.282/.352 (as bad as Jacque Jones, but the sample size here is still relatively small) Jose Valentin: .251/.332/.485 vs righties (decent), .207/.283/.306 vs lefties (worst of the lot so far, has to be platooned) I guess I don't unedrstand what point you are trying to make. I think platooning is a good idea that more teams should explore.

If you perhaps name me a few left side of the platoon players that are earning more than $5m per in a multi-year deal, that'd be cool. Thanks in advance. Trot Nixon at $19.5/3Y. Matt Lawton at $27/4Y, though I think that one just ended. Ryan Klesko signed a $16.5/2Y extension. Obviously, I'm not saying Jones compares favorably with any of those guys, nor am I saying that those are good contracts. But these things do happen. Thanks for the names. Career splits... Jacque Jones: .294/.341/.488 vs righties (solid), .227/.277/.339 vs lefties (untellably awful, has to be platooned) Ryan Klesko: .292/.385/.548 vs righties (excellent), .228/.324/.370 vs lefties (just about unbearable, should probably be platooned) Trot Nixon: .293/.379/.524 vs righties (very, very good), .215/.304/.328 (pretty damn awful, has to be platooned) Matt Lawton: .275/.378/.436 vs righties (solid), .246/.339/.367 vs lefties (just about bearable) Keep the names coming. May I suggest the Matt Lawton deal was a spectacularly awful one. The fact is there aren't many platoons in MLB period. My point is if you can get a righty who mashs leftys but is horrible against righties for a few million a platoon is a great idea. For 7m you get a solid starter every day and good pitch hitter for late innings person off the bench.

I think it's unreasonable to think they'll get much more than the 19 wins they had against those two teams last year. They've done no better than tread water against much of the rest of the league. I think 82-85 is a realistic, and 90 would be close to best case scenario, as it stands now. And I think they were a 86 win team last year and they have improved upon that team. Except they were a 79 win team and the improvements have been marginal at best. I think run differential is a better predictor of future success than actually wins (yes, I know that sounds crazy).

I think it's unreasonable to think they'll get much more than the 19 wins they had against those two teams last year. They've done no better than tread water against much of the rest of the league. I think 82-85 is a realistic, and 90 would be close to best case scenario, as it stands now. And I think they were a 86 win team last year and they have improved upon that team. how many of these 7 wins that we actually loss can be attributed to the closer-by-comittee in the early season? and the macias factor? I attribute it to mostly to luck.

Even Ponson would be in trouble with a 4.1(CFICT's prediction) Blood alcohol level. Woah, woah, woah... that was not a prediction. I'm not betting the farm on the fat bird.

do they have one big enough? He will now be refered to as "The Fat Bird".

I think it's unreasonable to think they'll get much more than the 19 wins they had against those two teams last year. They've done no better than tread water against much of the rest of the league. I think 82-85 is a realistic, and 90 would be close to best case scenario, as it stands now. And I think they were a 86 win team last year and they have improved upon that team.

You know why crazy things like this happen for the Cards? Because they make a lot of moves like this and some of them pay off. If a crazy thing "like that" happens I'll eat Sidney's hat. How about an ERA of 4.10 and 180 innings? Could you eat a Cubs hat? :lol: I'd be surprised to see Ponson do any better than his '04 #s of a 90 ERA+, which I'd be surprised to see Reyes not put up. Do you really want to see Ponson given a starting role, even with a dynamite ST? I doubt Ponson will pan out but we need a bat and Marquis would bring one. I expect a lot of Ponson type deals from Walt in hopes that someone sticks.

You know why crazy things like this happen for the Cards? Because they make a lot of moves like this and some of them pay off. If a crazy thing "like that" happens I'll eat Sidney's hat. How about an ERA of 4.10 and 180 innings? Could you eat a Cubs hat? :lol: That by itself isn't much of an accomplishment (however, I think his ERA will be in 5.00 range). The Cards basically have to hope that Carp continues to dominate, Mulder is steady, and Soupcan gives them number three numbers. I think this means Marquis will be traded and Reyes is unknown. The Cardinals rotation has more questions this year than in recent years. Considering that's what we pretty much got from Marquis and he's going to cost next to nothing it would be. I don't think it's probable but it could happen.

Move them for what?

You know why crazy things like this happen for the Cards? Because they make a lot of moves like this and some of them pay off. If a crazy thing "like that" happens I'll eat Sidney's hat. How about an ERA of 4.10 and 180 innings? Could you eat a Cubs hat? :lol:

That was the same BS line in 2004, they went from 88 to 89 wins. I'd say the odds are very strong the Cubs are at 89 wins or below. Again, define good chance. You can call it BS but I don't think it is. As it stands now they very good chance considering how how bad the Astros and Cards offseason has been. Hopefully the Cards will turn things around. What do the Cards and Astros have to do with the Cubs chances of 90 wins? They did pretty well against those teams head to head last year and still only won 79. If STL and HOU fall back this year then that improves their chances to win the division, but not get 90 wins. The Cards and Astros play the Cubs a lot. If they aren't as good that means more wins for the Cubs. It's reasonable to think they will also improve against other teams.

You seem to keep forgeting there are other teams in the divison and the rest of the national league besides the Cardinals and Astros. As it stand now there are 3 teams I could see taking the central. The Cards, Cubs and Brewers. The Cubs were a 85 win team last year and they have improved. It's not a strech to see them winning 90 games.

You know why crazy things like this happen for the Cards? Because they make a lot of moves like this and some of them pay off.

God forbid a team buys low on young player in a low risk move. Buying low on a young player with upside is always a great idea, I don't see what that has to do with Sidney Ponson though. He's 29 and was decent in 02 and 03. I really like this deal, it wouldn't shock me if he becomes a solid option in 06. It also wouldn't shock me if he never makes it out of ST.

That was the same BS line in 2004, they went from 88 to 89 wins. I'd say the odds are very strong the Cubs are at 89 wins or below. Again, define good chance. You can call it BS but I don't think it is. As it stands now they very good chance considering how how bad the Astros and Cards offseason has been. Hopefully the Cards will turn things around.

Rob Neyer on the deal http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2267243

Define good chance. They have a slight chance at 90 wins. They are likely an 82-85 win team. The lineup will be no better than middle of the road in the NL, and could easily be in the bottom third if Neifi plays and Walker is gone. The pitching staff is possibly top 5, but probably not top 2. That doesn't equate to a good chance for 90 wins in my book. If both your hitting and pitching are top 5, then you have a good chance for 90, but that is not close to the case with the Cubs. According to BP the 05 Cubs should have finished with about 85-86 wins: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php Now they've upgraded their team. Plus the Cards and Astros should decline.

5m isn't big money for the left side of a platoon.

I agree, the Cubs as it stands now have a good chance at 90 wins.

God forbid a team buys low on young player in a low risk move.