PieOnMyHands

Let's say the Cubs made it to the playoffs: Would you rather throw Prior out there in a pivotal game, or have an extra hitter with a career .815 OPS in there? It's not even close. As a Cardinals fan, I'm hoping and prior a Prior/Tejada trade goes down... and it really has nothing to do with bias.

Furcal bats leadoff. Tejada does not. While you might argue that Tejada hits third because he's so much better a hitter than Furcal is, that doesn't excuse the fact that you brought up a really bad point. Regardless, Prior will probably win a Cy Young within the next five years or so. Why trade an elite, young, cheap starting pitcher for an older, more expensive shortstop?

Difference being that the Cubs paid roughly $22 million for their players, while the Cardinals gave out just over $14 million. By the way, I really dislike the Encarnacion signing. Realistically, though, you can't have a platoon in left, right and at 2nd...

Most likely it's all BS, anyway. The first paragraph says that the Orioles are unwilling to include Bedard, and the Cubs are unwilling to include Pie. As good as Tejada is... trading Prior is not the way for the Cubs to get anywhere. That's asinine to even consider trading him. If I were a Cards fan, I would consider Zambrano and Prior untouchable... What if the O's were willing to include Bedard, assuming the Cubs would throw in Pie? Would you do that, Cub fans? I think that Bedard is a safer bet than Pie (given he was successful), and he has gotten his feet wet... If I were a Cub fan I would really have to think long and hard 'bout that one.

Problem with this is that next offseason, you're going to have to give Zito a huge contract worth $12 million a year. Can the Cubs afford that after raises in arbitration to Prior and Zambrano? (not really sure what the financial situation looks like... anyone care to provide an explanation?)

Why wouldn't I be high on Rolen? A career .890 OPS to go along with the best defense out of a third baesman in the game. There seems to be this misconception that Scott Rolen is brittle, like a JD Drew, or something. Even if he gets hurt, he still plays... I sometimes wonder if people are talking of the same Scott Rolen: 2001: 151 games 2002: 155 games 2003: 154 games 2004: 142 games 2005: 56 games Is there something I'm missing? Fluke shoulder injury on a collision with Alex Cintron cost him the 2002 playoffs. In 2004, he did miss some time, but still managed to play in 142 games. You can argue that it cost him the playoffs that year, too, but I would beg to differ. In the NLCS he hit .310 with a 1.045 OPS. If anything, it was him cooling off. Last season was also a pretty fluke injury, when he collided with Heep Sop Choi. Now, I'm not saying that it doesn't matter how you get hurt... it's just, what are the chances of these happening? Clearly, if Rolen is getting hurt, he's still battling through it. Look at the games he's played since coming to St. Louis. He does seem to always have lingering injuries, but as I've already said, he plays through them and plays at a very high level. And to then to address the second point you made: on that list that I provided where I went through player-by-player -- who on there is such a significant loss that we'll end up losing 11 wins from last year's team? I'm not saying that the playoffs are a lock -- fluke injuries and whatnot always seem to pop up. However, I think that St. Louis has just as good a chance as anyone to make the playoffs. The nucleus of the team stayed intact; given the elite talent they have within that nucleus, they're going to win a lot of games. BONUS: Quote from Ponson: Sounds sincere to me. He's content on turning it around. I hope this signing works out well.

Julian Tavarez - 5.10 post-ASB ERA; Looper will replace him and likely will do a better job, especially since our defense is so groundball-friendly. Ray King - 4.80 post-ASB ERA; Rincon sucked last year, but career-wise, lefties have hit something like .217 off of him. La Russa had so little faith in Ray last year that he didn't use him one time in the playoffs. (part of that had to do with King's dad passing away late in the season, but that doesn't explain a -complete- lack of use the entire playoffs) Reggie Sanders - .866 OPS last year. He's going to be missed. However, had he come back, he would not have repeated that production. A Bigbie/Byrnes platoon could work very well. Eric Byrnes is a player I would really like to see... Bigbie has been surprisingly efficient over righties over his career. Cal Eldred - Gone, but he'll be replaced by Brad Thompson, who did very well last year. Mark Grudzielanek - .741 OPS in '05. His defense will be missed... You don't pay a player $3 million+ to play great defense while being a mediocre offensive talent... unless you're Jim Hendry. (*cough* Jacques Jones *cough*). Matt Morris - 4.72 ERA and 4.11 ERA in 2004 and 2005, respectively. What's the big loss, again? Sure, he could pan out... but would you rather take a $8-9 million risk, or a $1 million risk? While Ponson can't be a Matt Morris caliber pitcher (assuming they were both healthy), it's a much, much "safer" risk to take. Besides, Anthony Reyes was waiting in the wings to replace Morris. See ya, thanks for the memories. Al Reyes - lost to surgery. This one will hurt, but it was out of our control. John Mabry - .188 post-ASB batting average. See ya! He can play everywhere, but he struggled with injuries last year and it looks like he has lost bat speed. I really like Mabes, but it was time to let him move on. Abraham Nunez - .704 OPS in a career year. He plays a slick defense at third base and can also play second... but, uh, take your money and run. Larry Walker - 315 at-bats on the season. Useless come playoff times. Walker's 2004 season was fantastic... but, quite frankly, his time in the league is done. He would've been a great addition to a lineup had he stayed healthy, but he missed so much that there isn't a huge a loss in production as most think. Is Albert Pujols still on this team? Yep. Scott Rolen? Uh-huh. In fact, that's like adding Rolen to this team. What about Jim Edmonds? Still there. Mark Mulder? Yep. Chris Carpenter? Of course! The nucleus of this team is still here. If you want to dwell on who we lost, then have at it. But if you really examing the situation, a lot of departures does not mean we'll be saying goodbye to a lot of wins. No, this team may not be a lock for the playoffs next year. However, the losses to the team are no where near as dramatic as some think.

You're right. That's why Jason Marquis would be traded if Ponson were to make the rotation. But Walt wouldn't trade Marquis and hope that Ponson pans out... would he? I highly doubt it. So then you basically have to wait until spring training to evaluate Ponson; but the problem with that is that the available outfielders via trades will almost certainly have dropped by then. It will be interested to see how this situation pans out. Reyes will be in the rotation, though.

Ponson's base salary is apparently $1 million; the contract is worht up to $2.5 million in incentives. This does leave me a little bit sour on the situation... I can't say I like the financial figures. Then again, the free agent market is out of control. So I'm not longer as high as I was on the deal, but I still think it could turn out to be good. I was thinking we would've paid him half of what we did..

When you factor in that he's only expected to be an end-of-the-rotation guy and when you consider how little he's going to make, I'm going to call it high reward. From a purely performance-based standpoint... yeah.. medium-reward. But other things considered, it has a big payoff. Was Grudz a high reward or medium reward? We paid him $1 million. He didn't overwhelm anyone offensively. In fact, he was average in that department. I consider him high reward, though, because he was a big benefit to this team and it was a risk-less investment to make.

Bill Simmons wrote a funny article a few years back about the cliche storylines every spring training for every club. One of them was "the guy who struggled because of personal issues but is turning around his life and will now be good" or something close. This is the type of thing you hear every winter and spring. Your point? I basically said to take it with a grain of salt. Do you believe that Jocketty believes that he's making a bad investment? Do you? Low-risk, high-reward.

this is from Jocketty: While it's not like Walt would come out and say, "Hey, Sidney is a fat blob and we're going to sign him 'cause w're the Cards and we're lucky and we'll know he'll pan out," I think there's some truth to his statement. They wanted him in 2003, and they believe that he's turned his life (and as a result, his career) around, and that he'll revert back to a pitcher that's much closer to that 2003 "version."

Oh, and the #5 starter/Jason Marquis post a little bit before this were in response to the, "at best, he'll post a 4.10 ERA..."

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.

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)

Contrary to what you may believe, RotoWorld's tidbits are not official press releases from the St. Louis Cardinal's front office. Reyes is in the rotation. End of story. Average pitcher? I disagree. 4.09 ERA in 2002, and a 3.75 ERA in 2003. While it's nothing to write home about, I'll take it from a #5 starter...especially one that's going to be making practically nothing. Much like CardsFanInChi argued...the ERA of Jason Marquis last year was 4.10. How would that not be an improvement? We pay Ponson a tenth of what Marquis did, and get a solid outfielder in exchange for Marquis. If there's nothing to find, then Marquis and Reyes stay in the rotation and Ponson is our long man in the bullpen. I don't know what's going to happen. I absolutely love the moves Walt is making this offseason. Some of them (not necessarily this one) are going to surprise some people. Low-risk, high-reward. While they look ugly on the surface... if they're bad, what do you lose? Oh, that's right -- practically nothing!

http://fimagery.com/forblogs/sarcasm.gif

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/14D782C7EEF02BB7862570DE00299A27?OpenDocument I like the deal. Low-risk (cheap, heavily incentive-laden contract), high-reward (if he returns to his form of a few years ago) situation. What's not to like? Yeah, he's been horrific the last couple years... but fortunately, the way the contract works, we pay him for how well he produces. Clearly the team saw something in him if they went out and signed him. I know we tried to trade for him back during his "good" season, but he ended up going to San Francisco, instead. I think he'll be at least decent. Nice to get some insurance. Brian Daubach (signed) and Felix Rodriguez (potential Card) are other names of interest. Thoughts? Again, low-risk, high-reward. Type of deals teams with limited budgets (yes, we spend more than most, but so much is locked into the core) make.

And lemme add that I really like our set-up men this year; while they're both coming off of poor seasons... Over the last three years: Looper vs. righties: .231 AVG (.229 career), .574 OPS (4 HR in 464 ABs) Rincon vs. lefties: .217 AVG (.208 career), .595 OPS (5 HR in 258 ABs) (The reason I post the career averages is because the two pitchers' stats may be inflated a little from poor 2005 season; wehther that's a sign of things to come or whether it was a bit of an abberation has yet to be determined, obviously...) For a team with a matchup-loving manager like Tony LaRussa, these moves clearly make sense.

Uhm, then you must not like logic. Looper has a GB:FB ratio of 2.00 over his career. Clearly, a groundball pitcher is going to be more reliant on his defense than is a strikeout/flyball pitcher. Clearly, a better defense will result in more success. That's common sense. How is it a bad argument? And to address the second part of your question... obviously the "average joe" pitcher doesn't have severe GB:FB ratios.

I kind of like this signing. I prefer him to Julian Tavarez, whose 5.13 post-ASB ERA will not be missed. Looper was hurt last year... hence, he had surgery. Somebody summarized a radio interview he had today, and they noted how he mentioned how he "enjoyed" grinding it out and pitching hurt this year. The reason I mention this is because, yes, he was hurt, and that's why his numbers don't look like that of a player making as much as Braden is. Now, that said... I do like the signing. I feel that with out defense, he's going to be successful. Clearly, based on so few strikeouts, hitters put the ball in play against him... an improved defense is only going to help him. With less pressure (closer to set-up man), I'm going to predict his numbers improve. While he won't be what he was in 2004 (2.70 ERA), I do think he's going to be a solid addition to the bullpen.

Would Pie even be that valuable if he were a corner outfielder?

I was thinking the same thing when there was talk of St. Louis signing Jacque Jones. And then I remembered he wants $7 million a year. Probably not the best idea to sign a platoon to player to that much. 8) Reggie Sanders was incredible in St. Louis... he's not a patient hitter, but he at least hits for great power. He was on pace for nearly a 30/30 year before he went down with that fluke injury collision in left-center... If you look at his career stats, though, he seems to alternate good year / bad year / good year / bad year... it's really strange. Now I guess that "good" and "bad" are arbitrary, but just have a look: 2005: .886 OPS 2004: .797 OPS 2003: .912 OPS 2002: .779 OPS 2001: .886 OPS 2000: .705 OPS 1999: .903 OPS 1998: .764 OPS 1997: .857 OPS 1996: .816 OPS 1995: .976 OPS 1994: .812 OPS :shock:

It is very strange... It's like, you wouldn't think he has much... But then Hendry makes offers that involve Patterson for Kevin Mench? I mean, yeah, he may just be trying to fleece the Rangers... but personally, I think that Patterson blows and would have Ryan Leaf-esque trade value.

Earlier in the year, I was here for a game thread of Mulder and Maddux. I complained about a call Maddux got, and said that Maddux was getting favorable calls: I spend like 10 minutes searching through the 50-page thread trying to find that... and there were only two replies. Oh well, I thought there was more to it. Gred Maddux gets favorable calls because of who he is -- whether he is wearing a Cubs uniform or a Braves uniform. I didn't ever deny that premiere players get favorable calls. Of course that happens. And yes, like you said, it happens in every sport, too. Look at Jerry Rice getting defensive pass interference called against him solely because his last name was Rice. (This was especially evident late in his career when he really wasn't a huge threat anymore..) How often do you see a game end on a called strike three? How often are penalties called late in hockey games? How frequently do refs throw their yellow flag within the last two minutes of a game? What you just described does, to some extent, involve the "star treatment," but it also has to do with the fact that officiating crews in all sports tend to adjust their style in an attempt to "let them play." The thing I find asinine is that you claim that the "superstar treatment" applies to any pitcher, once they put on a Cardinals uniform. You are crazy. Absolutely crazy. That does not happen. I'm not in denial, either. Now you're just making up conspiracies to knock down the Cardinals team to make yourself feel better.