Several of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch writers have been very consistent in their skepticism over the St. Louis Cardinals player development function and the ballplayers in it.
One important area where I struggle with their perspective is the apparent lack of consistency and specifics in their evaluation of the system.
At times, the contention seems to be that the Cardinals overvalue their prospects. Upon occasion, they have referred to unnamed scouts from other organizations that are not high on the Cards’ top minor league players.
At other times, the Cardinals take hits over their supposed refusal to trade away prospects. The implication is that the organization is walking away from good trade offers based on principle. This could be independent of any potential overvaluation of these players by the Cardinals.
In his most recent article on the subject, columnist Bernie Miklasz asserts the following:
“Vice president of player development Jeff Luhnow will object to any deal that requires the bartering of his precious Faberge Eggs, which is the name I’ve given to the Cardinals’ long list of breathlessly hyped prospects. Why? Track record. They haven’t traded a Faberge Egg yet.”
Putting aside how anyone knows what Luhnow will or will not object to 100% of the time, I want to focus on the phrase, “the Cardinals’ long list of breathlessly hyped prospects.”
Which is it? Do the players on this extensive list of prospects have little value because they are overrated or do they have considerable value and the Cardinals just refuse to trade them? Can one have it both ways?
I am the first to admit that I didn’t buy the party line implication that Jason Motte for Will Ohman was the only possible trade that the Cardinals could have made last summer to help their floundering bullpen from the left side.
But which argument does this support?
Was not trading the organization’s seventh-ranked prospect (according to our off-season ranking at Scout.com) for two months worth of services of a left-handed relief specialist an indication of the Cards overvaluing Motte or were they foolish not to accept the Braves’ offer?
In other words, was Motte a precious Faberge Egg?
I suggest most Cardinals watchers would agree that this particular trade was best unmade. Yet none of us have any idea as to the specifics of some very high percentage of trades under consideration. As a result, it is pretty much impossible to gauge which Eggs are being inspected and bartered.
Yet I keep seeing these vague references to “precious Faberge Eggs” without any indication of exactly who they are. Let’s consider other recent trade talks that did become public.
The Cardinals dealt two prospects over the winter to acquire Khalil Greene. Were relievers Mark Worrell and Luke Gregerson Faberge Eggs? Apparently not, though both are products of the Cards’ farm system and are now major leaguers.
In our Cardinals prospect ranking, linked to above, Worrell came in at number 31 and Gregerson was listed at 37.
Mitchell Boggs (pictured), our eighth-ranked prospect, was reportedly part of the nixed deal to Colorado for Matt Holliday. I have seen no indications that Boggs’ inclusion was the deal-breaker, so I guess the number eight prospect isn’t an Egg either.
So exactly what defines these Eggs? Are they only the top twenty, ten or five prospects? Are they the recent first or second-round picks? Are they high school draftees or collegians? Are they at higher or lower levels in the system? Are they players currently performing well or underperforming?
Or is it a non-existent list that makes it easier for self-admitted skeptics to take potshots at every deal, real or imagined?
What do you think?
1) Exactly who are the Cardinals’ “precious Faberge Eggs”?
2) Should any of them be considered completely untouchable in terms of trade consideration, no matter the proposed deal?
Bernie likes to be provocative. He is not going to define who the precious Faberge eggs are, because he could get revealed to be mistaken.
Who you are willing to trade is influenced by who you are acquiring. The Brewers probably valued LaPorta, but were willing to give him up for rental of CC. The Cards could use one-season help at 3B. They can draw up a comprehensive list of trade targets of 3Bmen and even 2Bmen who can play 3B. Depending on the target and the needs of the other team, the Cards would adjust their offer.
As a generality, it seems like the Cards are more willing to view things in a long term perspective. They are not going to flip prospects, just because they have some. You do not want to run a business in which you are in constant crisis, sacrificing future strength to fill some current short-fall. If you can establish a rookie in the majors, you have control of his services for 6 years. This gives some stability, whereas short-term deals for vets expire, and then put a team at the mercy of the market, which can be over-pricey or not have what you need, when you need it.
I would guess the Cards would be willing to discuss many different prospects, but would only surrender prospects for the right deal for them. The prospects would depend on the specifics of who we wanted, what another team needs, and on our areas of player abundance. A vague comment perhaps, but Bernie was vague.
Luke Gregerson, himself, has made the Greene trade look lopsided for the Padres. He’s having a fine season. I guess Bernie’s tonge-in-cheek “Faberge Egg” dis of our minor league system was an in your face comment to the organization that our farm boys aren’t as good as we say. Personally I believe most of these guys will be exceptional ball players: Todd, Mortenson, Lynn, Boggs, Walters, Jay, Jones, Hill, Gorgen, Kopp, Additon, Nieto, Castillo, Salas, Wallace, Garcia, Smith, Cutler, R. De La Cruz and so on. And because of the Rule 5 draft next year we have to trade some of our young guys anyway or risk losing them since we can’t protect them all. So I disagree with Bernie. Our system is just fine, thank you!
Welcome, Axcion! I keep reminding myself that this kind of discussion is just illustrating the continued differences of opinion between the dugout staff and the player development function. It just seems like much of the reporting muscle is aimed to one side of the equation. In differences of philosophy, it is not always clear which approach is best, perhaps with the best case somewhere in between. Perhaps not as interesting, but it may be more realistic.
I am still amazed at the transformation that Bernie has made in the past few years. When I first moved to St. Louis 11 years ago, he was the primary supporter of the younger players and played the role as chief agitator towards Tony LaRussa. It seems that after Mozeliak was named GM, Bernie changed tunes. He works the greedy owner vs. the fans populist angle pretty hard. I wish we could see what set that off.
If I had to define the faberge eggs, I would think that they would be any prospect that would project to be an everyday player. The reality is that the Cards have one of the smallest media markets in MLB (I see cable revenue and not attendance as the determining factor in payroll) and have to develop a new everyday player every 2-3 years if they want to hold onto their top assets and maintain financial stewardship. That means no rentals, not as many trades and thus no trade rumors – which makes for bad copy and angry sportswriters.
This post wasn’t intended to single out one columnist. I just cited the most recent example to help illustrate my points. As one emailer said to me, “I think it’s important that alternative voices to the P-D journalists are heard.” There are many times I agree with them, but when I disagree, I do not hesitate to explain why in a professional manner. Not everybody likes that, but I feel that people need to consider multiple points of view before drawing their own conclusions. Just as there are apparently differing views within the organization, so should there be in coverage of it.
Was Brian Barton not a “faberge egg”? Is it because he was not drafted by the Cardinals? He was kept on the 25-man roster last season and on the 40-man roster this season at the expense of someone, so the organization must have seen some value in him. If they kept a “faberge egg” off the roster for Barton, wouldn’t Barton have to be considered a “faberge egg” as well? Since the Cardinals were willing to trade Barton they must be willing to trade assets of value, when they feel they have a fair deal. (Not that I thought the Barton trade was wise.)
I personally think no one should be untouchable (including Pujols) if the right deal is there.
Should the Cards trade Boggs when they are likely to need 1-2 starters from the minor league system to be in the rotation next year?
As far as Bernie, don´t worry, stick around a while and he´ll be arguing the other side of the arguement before too long.
The thing about Eggs is they break. The other thing is that you can always produce more.
I didn’t intend in singling out one columnist either. What is most interesting to me is why the term Faberge egg is being used at all. Is it from a personal dislike of a new organizational philosophy? Was the phrase picked up from someone within the organization? Again, why? It is an obvious dig at either a person or a philosophy. It just isn’t used without the intent of criticism. But towards whom?
bdieffen, it would seem to be a shot at the organization’s player development philosophy. Jeff Luhnow is the head, though he reports to John Mozeliak, who has made it clear as GM it is his decision as to who is traded. One would have to assume ownership also signs off.
The Cards traded 6 years of control over Haren for 2 years of more expensive Mulder. (TLR has absolved DaddyD, claiming this idea for himself, which it have been, for all I know.)
They traded 6 years of control over Jack Wilson for a half season of a loogy, Christensen, and were fortunate to later find Eckstein when they could not afford to retain Renteria, before shifting to Cesar Izturis.
They traded 6 years of control over Coco Crisp for a few months of a veteran southpaw with Cleveland.
They shelled out $9MM in salary for a year+ of vet Larry Walker, who manfully took cortisone shots in the neck to play through.
To sum up, there used to be a tendency to favor vets, after their peaks, when they tend to be expensive. Vets can abruptly retire or leave for more money. We surrendered cost controlled home grown players to fill short-term gaps. Little talent was developed from Latin America, another means to compete and cost control.
It seems like the Cards are aiming to run more like a business: develop more of your own players so there are fewer gaps that require you to go outside your organization and overpay somebody; get more depth, younger, and healthier and stop taking as many cortisone shots and venerating pain endurance; and invest more on scouting and development, because this will payoff by producing players and curbing ML payroll.
The Cards could trade some young guys for better-known vets toward the end of honorable careers. Atlanta seems to go in for this, how we landed 6 years of Wainwright, 3 of Marquis, and some years of King, then Miles, all for one year of JD Drew (plus any comp picks the Braves got when he left). But the Cards are not going to the trouble of trying to boost home-grown talent, just to hand over a lot of Faberge eggs to other teams, so we can give cortisone shots and big bucks to aging vets.
True Jumbo, but there have been selective trades that have worked out well, too. Joel Pineiro for Sean Danielson worked out fine. For as much concern as there was in losing Terry Evans for Jeff Weaver at the time, Evans had just 11 MLB ABs two years ago.
I guess where I am coming from is that finding the right middle ground is not easy and the tradeoffs seem to get oversimplified by some looking for a quick answer. Then again, if the Cardinals refuse to do anything to improve their club like last year with the bullpen, then my view could very well change. “Do anything” in my book could be a combination of promotions and trades.
FWIW, Jumbo, the Braves did not offer arbitration to JD Drew and got nothing when he signed with the Dodgers. Eli Marrero also went to the Braves in that deal and they traded him after one solid season to the Royals for a pitcher who gave them nine innings of work in 2005 and was last seen toiling in the Mexican League.
I recall a post at the Birdhouse, using the simple analytic device of a balance. It revealed that the Cards ran a pretty substantial deficit in starting pitchers after the 1960s. This balance looked at the career ML pitching starts by Cardinal signees, in StLouis or with subsequent teams. The big picture lesson was the team operated at a considerable deficit for starting pitchers in the 1970s to recent times. It did not home-grow anywhere near enough starting pitching. Since starting pitching is vital, this was a significant hardship to overcome. Its a considerable testimony to Herzog that he was able to build winners in 82, 85, and 87, without more homegrown pitching help. We signed some very successful starting pitchers from amateur ranks in the 1960s and they enabled the powerful teams of 64, 67, 68.
The reason I mention this fundamental context is that Dewitt would probably like to raise more starting pitchers internally, so the team is less reliant on having to gamble on exhumations of high priced vets like Weaver. This past winter some fans have vented dark thoughts about Pineiro and Mo foolishly resigning him in October 07, because Joel was mediocre last season and is taking home $7.5MM this year.
Owners could want to run a business that is competitive on the field for as many seasons as possible. They are probably willing to overspend on occasion, to help a stretch run. But “flags fly fore-ever” as a justification of some trades seems a fan outlook, rather than an owner perspective. (Its possible to put patrons in all the seats without even having a WS pennant for a century, as the Cubs illustrate.) Trading long-term gain to pay for short-term talent at higher salaries can be very defensible, on occasion. But the Cards used to do this habitually (Looper, Kennedy, Jimenez, Wilson, Crisp, Haren). The economic outcome is to escalate ML payroll. Owners have to decide if this is the way they want to compete. TLR does not pay the bills, though it is his duty to identify needs and lobby for help for the short-run. There is always a tradeoff between saving for the future or spending today. The GM has to make such decisions.
Danielsen is a system guy, so did not really qualify as a trade of ML potential for 2 months of current ML player. Evans was without direction, found faith by his own statements, and showed an unusual flash of power and speed. He was traded to a franchise that routinely staffs its OF with $10MM/yr free agents. He may have been injured, or he could have lost direction, as Khalil and Dontrelle have been showing can happen to human beings.
“Finding the right middle ground is not easy and the tradeoffs get oversimplified.” On this, we agree. (This statement has the added value of being useful for much more than just baseball.)
Agree with most of what you said, Jumbo, but feel the need to point out that the issue with Pineiro was not the act of resigning him. Based on his limited showing in 2007, that seemed justified. The issue was that he has been overpaid. Two years, $13 million for a number five starter is not the ideal way to deploy limited resources.
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that Bernie Miklasz and Joe Strauss simply don’t know or care as much about the Cardinals minor league system as many of us do. (I ranted about this in the comments section at Future Redbirds about a month ago but I couldn’t find it.)
A guy like Shane Robinson, for instance, admittedly doesn’t look like a future superstar. Still, the guy hit .352 at Springfield last year. That’s a career year in any league. He should be proud of that the rest of his life, no matter what he does.
Many of us look at Robinson’s glass as half-full. We see him as a guy who *might* be able to fill a fourth-outfielder role one day. If he could be the next Kerry Robinson or So Taguchi, that would be great! If he exceeds that prediction, that would be fantastic. If he stalls and ends up being a career minor leaguer who had a cup of coffee in the bigs, so be it.
Miklasz and Strauss think every minor leaguer’s glass is half-empty until they prove something in the majors. That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean that anyone who dares to think about a player’s upside is delusional.
Bryan Anderson is a guy they often bring up as a Fabrege Egg. Thing is, a couple of years ago, his bat looked solid. People were even talking about trading Yadi to make room for him! As Anderson’s bat has waned, his value has dropped. I don’t think there’s anyone who would disagree with that.
However, because Anderson is still young, maybe he’ll come around. Does it make sense to “trade low” on a guy who is still adjusting to pitching at higher levels? Should they give up on him?
Hell no! It’s ridiculous to think that just because some “unnamed scout” says the Cardinals won’t trade Anderson based on his CURRENT VALUE, they are being unreasonable about his potential. Again, why trade low?
Regarding Pineiro, he’s a nice a example of a broader issue. Veteran free agent starting pitchers are darn expensive, leading to tough ideas like de-tox’ing Sir Sidney. A team that wants to be competitive via free agent pitchers regrettably has to pay the piper. We did that with Lohse this past fall. Lots of folks may now say we overpaid, but that is mostly because of the broader economy and hindsight is brilliant. Pineiro this season happens to be vindicating the gamble taken by Mo and company in October 07. After the Cards were clobbered in free agency after 06, with multiple departures, they had to hold their nose and pay the piper with Joel. He was a disappointment in 08, yes. Tony and DaddyD ragged and ragged and ragged on him. Something seems to have sunk in and he has lifted his game (by lowering the ball), and I dont think that happens too often with guys at his age and arm mileage.
We now know so many metrics about baseball, including salaries, that it is easy for fans to find something to second guess. Do I like paying Pineiro $7.5MM. Not really, but players are human beings with earned rights. Pineiro made something like $4MM in 07 (a season which was not very good). But if you want to rope the guy for two years, to bring some stability to your rotation after watching very disappointing pitching from Anthony Reyes and Kip Wells, you are going to have to make it worth his while. Do I like paying Mitey Cesar $3.6MM? Not really. But if you want to put a ML calibre defender on the field in 08, you have to outbid others. DeWitt probably does not like paying these average guys so much money. This is why he wanted to bolster recruiting and development. His ears probably ached from hearing all the earnest incessant entreaties for adding this wonderful, great character vet or this other one and yet another one over here, because the first two are now shooting cortisone. But my how we admire and love their ability to endure pain. What great gamers!
So now the Cards do unromantic, business like things like the tandem pitching rotations. They bug people who think its all about endurance and guts by rare men, winnowing out average guys. Now we focus on teaching, give more people a chance so as to see who might emerge, play the odds, have more depth so if a pitcher starts to have a problem, put him on the DL before it gets worse, conserve talent. And if you stick with this for a while, and do not deal away prospects like the Braves, in due course the team gets to a position with fewer short-term crises, and can accordingly make trades from a stronger negotiating position. In a couple of years, the Cards should be in a stronger personnel situtation, so they can be more selective in trades or free agents, and get better terms.
I just remind myself that this is the same columnist who practiced such “journalistic integrity” as to create 12 different screen names on a Rams forum that he ran in order to get the coaching staff fired.
How he is still a journalist is beyond me, especially in a town like St. Louis where there are many people who are far more knowledgeable than he.
I doubt Bryan Anderson has lost something. Memphis is the hardest park for offense in the PCL. It takes a lot of guys time to warm up at the onset of a season. Maybe its the temperature. Recently, Anderson, Craig, Jay, etc., are starting to lift their averages and this seems likely to continue, barring injuries. Anderson should wind up with a good year and get called up in September. Its good for him to get a good education and grounding at the AAA level, to better prepare him for the next step up the ladder.
One thing the Cards have seemed to do in recent years is invest in key defensive positions. We cant sign enough CFs and SSes. Catcher is important too. So I dont think they will want to give away Anderson, unless its for something really good in return. Catchers get hurt and he is one Molina injury away from playing in the majors.
Bernie likes to bill himself as a man of the people. Down at most local bars, however, not a lot of guys talk about Faberge eggs, made of gold, commissioned by nobles in Russia on the eve of a violent revolution.
Faberge eggs are, I guess, truly expensive collectors items. So if we did happen to have some of these fancy pants eggs, only an idiot would want to trade them.
Now Bernie does not want to come off as an idiot. So he is saying only Luhnow thinks he has some of these fancy pants gold eggs, while implying that they are in fact made of junk.
By the way, the whereabouts of 30 something of the original eggs are unknown. Many have to have been destroyed during wars and other unpleasantnesses. But if you just happen to encounter a fancy pants looking golden egg at a flea market or up in the attic in the trunk full of junk you inherited from great Aunt Tillie, you might want to trot it down to the next appearance of the Antiques Road Show for an appraisal. Or better yet, give Bernie a holler. He might be kind enough to render his expertise as well.
Lots of speculation and few specifics from Bernie.
I can’t imagine that any player anywhere is ultimately untouchable in exchange for a good enough deal. I see nothing wrong with intelligently weighing options rather than demanding that prospects just because.
With that said, some help for the infield would be nice.
Bear in mind that the Chuck Finley trade was an absolute necessity, given that we had lost Darryl Kile and weren’t sure if we were going to get Andy Benes back. Finley won 9 games for us after the trade and helped us get to the postseason.
He would have come back for 2003, also, except for his marital situation – he had to stay in California and protect the kids from Tawny – so he had to retire when he clearly could have pitched another couple of seasons.
Crisp has been a decent player, but he’s no star – and, as I say, we really *needed* Finley badly.
As for Gregerson – he’s 0-3 with 3 blown saves. He’s no star either; just another righty reliever.
I noticed something at Cot’s contracts that I had not known. The Cards had an option on Renteria for 2005 at $6.5MM, but did not execute it in time. They may have later bid $8MM to try to retain him, before he went to Boston. This seems an indicator of the internal tension over ML spending and the tradeoff between veterans versus homegrown cost-controlled talent. Walt liked vets and tended to have a short-term focus.
I agree Crisp is decent, no star. I like Gregerson as a 27th rounder, but the woods are full of set up righthanders, so you want to trade a Gregerson for an established SS who needs a new setting. The broad issue is not Crisp specifically, but flipping prospects has costs and ownership seems to be looking to do less of this. Finding the right balance can be difficult. The Cards chatted with the Rockies a lot about Holliday and Fuentes, but could not find a deal they liked. Cards fans are used to seeing trades of prospects, hence Fabrege egg debates.
Just checking in. Wonderful revisionism there Jumbo. The Cardinals made the offer and were out maneuvered. It worked out, although Mo was very chagrined at the Rockies estimations of the talent he was tossing at them.
The Fabrege egg analogy is the moral paradox of using such a large representation of wealth to decorate something as common as the form of an egg. Thus the PR hype around many Cardinal prospects is just that, decorations on some very common foundations.
After watching last nights game, I could hardly disagree. I got my nose broke in a brawl with a couple of Giants fans. I did some damage anyway, assuming that one of those little witches is going cost her parents at least a repair job on her braces. I’ll check back in soon. I’m not optimistic about tonights game either to be honest.
Jumbo, as I recall, the Cardinals essentially declined the second option year early on in Renteria’s contract – long before he approached free agency. There were two option years (plus four) and they had to pick up the first one early in order to validate the second option. I think it was in the first couple years of the initial four-year term (2000-2003). I guess looking several years into the future they thought they could do better than a $6.5 million shortstop in 2005.
One unusual feature of baseball is the length of the training period. While some enter the NBA from semi pro ball, there are not a great number. College serves to train most NFL players. Baseball can take a long time, while the focus of many fans and reporters is current. Schumaker spent about 2.5 years at Memphis, I expect written off by many as AAAA, but has become a useful ML player. Duncan was 6.5 seasons in the minors. Mather a long time. Ludwick, Franklin, Barden, Thurston, etc. So it is easy for those who focus on the ML game to doubt the potential for minor leaguers. And it is also true many minor leaguers will not reach the majors, because of the limited number of ML roster slots and other factors.
Westie, nice explanation of the Fabrege egg metaphor. At the same time, the Cards do not do much hyping of minor leaguers. They can leave that to journalists and fans to debate among themselves.
Sorry to hear about the snout, even more sorry to hear that you felt obliged to get into a fight. Such must be the eventful life of an activist for winning.
I am not sure you are an optimist about any game, night or day. We have our ace going tonight, against the world’s most overpaid pitcher. Shrimp is feeling extremely optimistic. This is one is going to land in the win column. Zito makes me want to grab a bat too.
Jumbo, of course the Cardinals, like any organization, talk up their prospects. What do the negativists want them to do, talk their own prospects down? It is so ridiculous to expect anything other than a positive focus. Why do you think is it so difficult for some people to understand that?
I will suggest that many of organizational nay-sayers have not stepped onto the back fields in Jupiter or seen games in the minor leagues where these prospects are active. They are likely going on what others have told them and what they glean from the stat sheets. That is understandable, as people are spread thinly and cannot be everywhere. But then their words probably shouldn’t be considered gospel any more than the expected positive vibes coming from the organization.
Brian, they traded a #3 in the nation draftee, Looper, for Renteria. It was a significant strategic move. They had Renteria under a contract that the Cards found agreeable. Renteria played well. Its unusual not to exercise a final option year, if its at any team’s discretion. That is what surprised me at Cot’s. The Cards later found themselves bidding higher for Renteria in 2005, after having already declined an option on a lower salary. That seems odder.
DeWitt was slow to re-up Tony and slower to re-up Jocketty after the poor 03 season. The refusal to use the 05 Renteria option may have occurred then. The entrance of Luhnow might have been around 2003. There had to be tension in that timeframe about ML spending, because we liked Renteria, but did not choose to retain him at a below market value of $6.5MM for 05.
DeWitt has said he would like to get back to the Branch Rickey era of homegrown talent. Hence debate about trading prospects.
Brian, on the topic of “talking up” prospects. I recall Luhnow, maybe in an interview with you, saying he did not know if Tyler Greene would reach the majors. That seemed a fair comment by him at the time.
I perceive a distinction between making information available about minor league players versus touting them. In making information available about them, it seems appropriate that this be done in a positive way. I do not see that as hype, more informational.
There seems publicity about wooing Latin prospects. Goold had a nice article on Darryl Jones a couple of summers back. But these are young guys, years away. When guys get up to AAA, I dont happen to notice strong statements about so and so is a sure thing or will be in the majors within a few months. Bernie wrote an article criticizing the Fabrege eggs, but did not name who they were, perhaps because the Cards do not make strong claims about AAA players.
Jumbo, I’m not sure that Looper was the key player in the deal for Renteria. Pablo Ozuna had just torn up the Midwest League the year before and looked to be a sure star. He had done the same thing the year before in his debut season in the Appalachian League. As it turns out, he was two or three years older than he had claimed. His performance wasn’t nearly as impressive as a 23 year old instead of being 20 or 21 and he never reached the stardom expected.
The third player in the deal was Almanza, who went on to perform well as a LOOGY for the Marlins.
Good point on the other two guys. Looper was the highest draft pick of the Cards since I do not remember when, an indication of how much they wanted Renteria.
One way we fans often weigh trades is in relation to subsequent statistics by the players involved. Yet teams would presumably also want to factor costs, which we do not pay much attention to, because we do not write the salary checks.
One reason why teams will trade established veterans is not only for the future play of the prospects, but for cost relief, both getting rid of a high cost veteran and acquiring low cost replacements. Thus, Looper, Haren, Kennedy, Crisp, or Jack Wilson provide cost control benefits and could enable their employers to make alternative investments. When we have to pay the piper in the free agent market, as with Izturis or Pineiro or Lohse, some think Mo is a chump to have paid them so much. But unless a team wants to gamble on picking through who is left unsigned during spring training, there are few bargains to be found among free agent vets. A lot of these guys are already rich and unless you pay them a lot, they can just stay home and monitor their investments.
Walt and Tony love to win. And we like them to be this way. Ownership, on the other hand, has to decide how it wants to compete over multiple years, not just the current season.
News for both of you. Interest off shore, is in fact interest off shore. Its much easier to route some checks. The Cardinal international branch probably is based off shore.
Tyler Greene will be back I hope. Ryan as “the man” was intolerable, even though he was smooth in field. Cards aren’t that good against off speed breaking stuff, and it is cold here Jumbo. Giants have a better plate discipling than the cards to boot. K Greene is gone. He will never play here again.
Lohse very likely misses his Tuesday start, and I gotta go.
I’m glad for Carp that the team woke up. He worked very hard, trying to be too fine at times because the Cards looked so bad at the plate. Zito is snake bit. Hopefully we take the momentum into Sunday. I glad Thurston finally broke through as his family was there. Its surprising how many Card fans are in the world. I was walking along the Embarcadero and ran into six guys from Greatfalls Montana. This is their 9th striaght year going to a Cardinal series, playing golf, and just generally carousing. They were all wearing jerseys and hats. Looked like fun. I warned them not to be fooled by anyone wearing Catholic school girl uniforms as they sometimes will attack with little or no provocation over the most harmless remark about the Giant’s masculinity.
Ankiel and Ludwick are sure helping out. Don’t know how we got along without them.
Returning to the topic of trading chips or eggs…..some guys seem more dispensable than others, from a Cardinals perspective.
There are two near ML ready starting pitchers in Walters and Boggs, who could have value in the eyes of other teams. We might surrender one, since Mortensen, Ottavino, Lynn are coming up behind them.
For relievers, there are ML tested Kinney, Thompson, and Ring. Salas who did well at AA last year.
ForAAA position players, CF Jon Jay, LF/lB Allen Craig.
At AA, OF Henley, C/OF/1b Hill, 1B Mark Hamilton, pitchers Herron and Norrick.
What are you waiting for? Get on the phone juMbO!
Off-limits to trading, the Fabrege become:
SS T. Greene, C Anderson, 3b Wallace, LF Jones, 2B Descalso
SPs Mortensen, Ottavino, Lynn
Relievers Todd and Samuel
OF Mather and 3B Freese are coming back from injuries, so it seems best to hold onto them in case their value rises, as it should.
To try to think about the chips from the viewpoint of another team, the guys of most interest seem: Walters, Boggs, Jay, Salas, Hamilton, Norrick.
Hamilton is out again, Jay would help out here if he continued to lift his average.
To have more chips to play around with, I might have to add Kozma, Jones, and Samuel.
It would help to know who the target is. If I really liked him, I might feel generous. But if its some guy who is overpaid, about to become a free agent, and/or in a slump, I feel stingy.
I will treat this as a minor league thread.
Last year, the Cards signed a 2nd baseman named Castellanos out of a tiny college in North Carolina. The last guy drafted out of there was in 1973. Belmont Abbey, must be a Catholic affiliated school. Coming from a low level of college, Castellanos unsurprisingly had a rough time adjusting to the Midwest League. But now he has. In the last 10 games, he has hit about .450 and stolen 8 bases. Pretty good. Maybe he has gathered confidence and is on his way.