dew1679666265

Sure. As CCP said, it wouldn't be the smartest of moves, but they could piecemeal together a competitive team. Especially if they get good contributions from farm guys like Cashner, J Jackson, Gaub, etc. This is assuming they don't drop payroll significantly and leave it at least in the $130-140 range. If so, they'll have $30-40 mil to spend between raises and additions. That's enough to potentially be competitive for a playoff spot by next season. I would prefer to use next year to rebuild a bit and clear some salaries, but it's certainly doable.

Long term? Almost all the big contracts are set to expire by 2012 at the latest. Soriano and Z are the only contracts longer than that. There should be plenty of cap room after next season and certainly after 2012. Short term, you're right. We probably won't be very good this year or next at this point. 2013 is a long time from now. A long time. He meant by 2012. That's only a year and a half of baseball away. After 2012 the Z contract also is off the books. Although he did miss that the Cubs will also have Byrd and likely Dempster in 2012 but the Cubs will almost certainly want both of them. Last year at this time it was much worse than it is now. At that time, it was 18 months until some big contracts went away (Lee, Aramis, and Lilly) and those were 3 of the cornerstones of the team. Now the Cubs have gone a year without adding any big contracts and will have a whole lot of money coming off both this year and next year. They have a whole lot of flexibility. They could win big by next year if they wanted to but it wouldn't be the smartest move. With smart moves they'll be ok next year and strong by 2012. I actually just didn't word my post well. You did a much better job. That said, five of the big contracts we have through 2012 (Soriano, Z, Dempster and Byrd) have averaged a combined 10.4 WAR over the past three seasons. Their collective WAR this year is 7.6. They've been valuable and could still be in 2011 and 2012. Shark is due $6.5 in 2012, however.

Unless it's just purely financial, I can't imagine a team not wanting a top-20 pitcher (by xFIP) in the majors at $14 mil a year. Much worse pitchers have gotten $10-12 mil the past couple of years.

Long term? Almost all the big contracts are set to expire by 2012 at the latest. Soriano and Z are the only contracts longer than that. There should be plenty of cap room after next season and certainly after 2012. Short term, you're right. We probably won't be very good this year or next at this point. 2013 is a long time from now. A long time. I fully expect us to be able to compete by 2012 and maybe next season. We've had this discussion before, but we only have $62 million currently invested in the 2012 season. With good FA moves and some minor league contributions, this team can be competitive no later than 2012.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rec_yds_single_season.htm This list skews pretty young, with the exception of a couple all time greats who show up repeatedly and played for heavy duty passing teams. if you take out every receiver over 30 that had a good season, i admit, it skews pretty young. Average age of the top 30 receivers on that list is 27. Not sure if that means anything, but I thought it was interesting. haven't even looked at the list, but statistically speaking, the median would be more relevant. Yeah, I believe you're right, but the list (which is about 240 or so guys long) is not sortable by age and I didn't feel like listing it all out myself. So I took the quick way of averaging the first 30 guys.

Long term? Almost all the big contracts are set to expire by 2012 at the latest. Soriano and Z are the only contracts longer than that. There should be plenty of cap room after next season and certainly after 2012. Short term, you're right. We probably won't be very good this year or next at this point.

Hilariously wrong. Check your facts. ARAM's contract says he can walk at the end of 2010. Why would he want to stay here at all? Because after the season he's had so far he's extremely unlikely to get a 2/30 deal from anybody. He'd be looking at probably close to $10 mil less on any deal he signed if he closes out the season anywhere close to his current numbers.

I'd really like to see an attempt to quantify the value of NTC to players It'd be interesting to see. I have no idea what the effect on the money would be, but I would have to think there'd be somewhat less money offered because of the NTC. Otherwise, I see no reason to include the NTC (unless the player simply refuses to sign without one).

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rec_yds_single_season.htm This list skews pretty young, with the exception of a couple all time greats who show up repeatedly and played for heavy duty passing teams. if you take out every receiver over 30 that had a good season, i admit, it skews pretty young. Average age of the top 30 receivers on that list is 27. Not sure if that means anything, but I thought it was interesting.

Didn't he already have Hill once this season? He did, but I think he was gone before this season. It's the Orioles that the Cubs traded him to. Yeah, I knew we traded him there. I just didn't think they cut him until after the season started.

Didn't he already have Hill once this season?

The Soto/Hill thing is pretty wild and Theriot (and even Castro, honestly) hitting at the top of the order is pretty bad. I'd have dropped Lee and Ramirez at this point, but I can understand why Lou hasn't yet. I'm not crazy about his usage of Marshall either. I'd like to see him in more high leverage situations, but he has been about 50/50 at least (high leverage vs low leverage). As I said earlier, though, I don't think those decisions have hurt us that much overall.

I'm not crazy about it, but at least Cashner is pitching. He'd be getting more benefit pitching in the AAA rotation, but he is getting time in the ML bullpen at least. I'd have more of a problem with it if he was the 6th inning mop-up guy or something.

How have no-trade clauses hurt us this year? If anything, we had a little more payroll room because players accepted a bit less money with the NTC included. The NTC thing is really overblown.

There are actually a significant number of "progressive" thinking people who think it doesn't really matter who the manager is because he really can't help you that much and can only marginally hurt you. I agree with that general sentiment, but not to an extreme with it. If Lou were sending our young pitchers (Gorz, Wells) out there to throw 120+ pitches every outing or pitching Marmol 2-3 innings every day or so, I'd be in favor of letting him go ASAP. However, pretty much every manager out there has his own odd preferences and overly old school views so I don't know that the difference between Lou and almost any other manager is particularly significant. Since we're apparently not contending this year, I have no problem letting him run the course and then retire after the year.

Good point. It was a very conservative estimate (even for Pujols) and there's still no way it works.

Wigginton is coming off a two-year deal with Baltimore, so I think he'd be likely to take a 1-year deal as he's currently in his mid-30s (I believe). He may not be offered more than that. On Aramis, if he doesn't opt out, the Cubs have a player option for 2012 with him. They might pick that up, but if he doesn't improve dramatically by next season, I don't see that happening. Signing Cantu would give us somebody to play third in 2012 and 2013 until Vitters is ready if Aramis doesn't bounce back next year. If he does, Cantu proves to be a very good bat off the bench (though fairly expensive for that role). Or he could be a pretty solid trading chip in the 2011 offseason.

If you go with a Cantu or Wigginton type guy, you're really not overpaying much and you're getting pretty good production. Cantu could play first next year and then shift over to third and play there until Vitters (hopefully) is ready. If you go with Wigginton, he'd probably be perfectly fine with a 1-year deal and then you can potentially trade him at the deadline for a prospect or two. I wouldn't like going for a Carlos Pena and giving him a 3-4 year deal, though, and killing our chances of going after Gonzalez/Fielder in 2011, but a stopgap type guy like Cantu or Wigginton would be semi-cheap production for a team that needs that.

I've always thought of Castillo being closer to the majors than the other two. I don't know that any of them will be overly productive major leaguers, but Castillo is in AAA and seems to be the next in line once Koyie Hill moves on.

I'd look at Cantu or Wigginton. For instance, sign Cantu to a 3/21 deal to start at first next year and then shift him over to third in 2012 when Aramis walks. If Aramis walks after this year, Wigginton would almost certainly be had on a 1/5 type deal for first if we picked up Cantu to play third.

Ah yes, maybe Frasor is the Toronto RHP I was thinking of. Yeah, Frasor started the year closing some for Toronto. He's not all that good, though.

Minor nitpick, but Scott Downs is a lefty.

Right. Colvin doesn't have to wither away on the bench if he isn't starting for Kosuke. He can still get ABs in each of the three OF positions while we work on trading Kosuke. Then give Colvin the full-time right field duties.

Even with a hometown discount, I can't see signing Lee long term as a good idea for them. They have a $94 million payroll this year with Holliday making $17 mil and Pujols making $16 mil. Pujols will be signing a new contract after next year, likely in the $25-30 million range. Let's say Lee signs a hometown discount for, say, 3/33. Between Holliday, Pujols and Lee, that'd be $53-58 million invested in three players with the Cards unlikely to go above $100 million in payroll (never have before). They'd have well over half their payroll invested in three players. It'd make our payroll in 2012 look fantastic.

Is. It is a good idea to sit Kosuke for the rest of the year? Why? You said of both things, "isn't", but you should have said "starting Colvin.... isn't, but sitting Kosuke.... is." Yep, you're right. I just re-read my post and it finally hit me what I said. Thanks.