SB Nation User Blog: JWO

Baseball Draft Discussion

JWO — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:33:40 -0000

We're just a couple of weeks away from the MLB 2009 Draft, and I thought it might be interesting to have an open discussion about what the Cardinals might do. Currently, they are slotted with the 19th pick in the draft. I'm curious what the community thinnks the FO will do in terms of its selection. Last year's selection (The Walrus) is thus far turning out to be a pretty smart move. What is in store this year?

My quiet hope is that somehow, Aaron Crow slips to the Cardinals due to his contract shenanigans in 2008. I doubt it will happen, but you never know. We all remember (painfully) how low Porcello fell.

What do you folks think? Any dark horse candidates?

Offense is UP

JWO — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:26:18 -0000

Just to shift gears away from all the talk about Skip, 2B, and defense, I thought I'd start a thread to discuss how well the St. Louis OFFENSE seems to be performing in the early portions of spring training. I know this is the time of year when managers experiment, the games don't count and people are just stretching themselves out for the season. But, consider this:

In 12 Games, the Cardinals have scored 90 RUNS (7.5 per game)
Virtually every starter is CRUSHING the ball
Duncan, perhaps the biggest surprise is leading the team in homers
Duncan is ALSO hitting at a .370 clip
Schmuaker continues to hit .333 while learning a brand new position
The most recent game (Marlins) gave us 8 runs, 14 hits

Now, I don't have the stats from the 2008 ST, but this has to represent a significant uptick in offensive production from what is normal. Just comparing the Cardinals to the best teams in the league, the Cubs are averaging 5.3 runs, the Red Sox 6.1, the Rays 6.7, the Phillies 5.9... Should we be encouraged by the hitting we are seeing at the plate? Has the addition of such pieces as Greene, moving Skip to 2B, and other tweaks turned us into some sort of scoring juggernaut?

What's Eaton You?

JWO — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:07:40 -0000

A humble suggestion for my bretheren bird-lovers. Adam Eaton was released by the Philadelphia Phillies from his contract. The Cardinals appear to have a need for another starter in camp. Why not sign the man?

I know that Eaton's numbers are nothing to be amazed by, but it seems to me that signing this gentleman for the league minimum and letting him try his hand in camp makes a world of sense, particularly since the Cards are short on pitching at the moment.

For those interested, I've linked to both Eaton's career numbers on ESPN, as well as the news story that announces his departure. Eaton was going to make $8M this year. But it looks like the Phils are going to "eat" that cost.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3940074
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=4392

PS - Is it just me, or does this make anyone else feel better about the Cardinals soaking up Kennedy's $4M contract?...

PPS - Yeah, maybe this belongs in the hot stove, but I can't help myself. They're playing some real honest-to-goodness baseball in Florida right now. Woot!

Revenge - A Dish Best Served Cold

JWO — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 04:50:58 -0000

As the winter begins to wind down and a few superstars continue to wait for the right deal to open up (Ramirez anyone?), I started thinking about the motivational power of revenge. If you're a premiere player in the major leagues, and you are overlooked by your old club (along with many others), how much motivation does that provide you to accept a lowball offer, come back with another outfit, and stuff your old teammates?

The best potential examples of this phenomenon could be Manny Ramirez and Ben Sheets. Both are perceived as monster talents. And yet, both could be forced to accept humbling, ridiculously low offers just to continue playing.

I have two questions for the Cardinal community. First, do players suck up low offers in order to shove it in their former team's faces? Would Manny take a low offer from a team like the Giants (say, 1-year $10M) just to beat mercilessly on the Dodgers for a year? Would Ben Sheets take an offer from say... the Cardinals... for 1-year at $5M to face his former mates six or seven times throughout the season and pay back the lack of contract love?

Second question, is there any historical evidence of players who have walked this line? In other words, are there any players out there who decided that heck, the money was less important for one year or so, if it gave them a chance to maul the people who scorned them?

Just curious what everyone thinks. I don't think that Man-Ram or Sheets will find their way to the Cardinals in the end. But I do wonder if they will come back with something to prove and a desire to beat their previous club.

El Birdos Gets ESPN Love

JWO — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:43:01 -0000

I'm sure many will come across this article from regular Internet surfing, but Jerry Crasnick with ESPN provides a VERY nice write-up and summation of the Cardinals offseason situations in his latest column.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove08/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=3846058

I also noted with some interest that "Viva El Birdos" was directly cited as a source of "constructive criticism". Kudos to the site managers for getting the attention of the national media guys.

On top of it all, Crasnick offers a very fair (IMO) overview of how Mozeliak has operated in this offseason. We might be frustrated by the pace of decisions, and players that "got away", but Mo's deliberate, reasoned attack to player development and growth is a major positive.

Any thoughts on all this?

The Future of Phil Hughes

JWO — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:43:24 -0000

Greetings, Bronx Bombers. I'm actually a St. Louis Cardinals fan, but thought I'd drop over to your website to pose a question.

Watching the Hot Stove, there seems to be a lot of discussion on the vivaelbirdos page about possible deals for Phil Hughes. Some have suggested that a deal involving Hughes and the Cardinals Rick Ankiel would make a lot of sense for both clubs. The Yankees are interested in upgrading power and defense in the outfield. The Cardinals have a surplus of outfielders, and need to shore up pitching.

I apologize if this belongs in your "Hot Stove" thread, but I thought I would find out what the other potential partner in a deal thinks. Does Yankee nation see any value in this type of a trade?

PS - I've attached Ankiel's vitals in case anyone wants to scan through them. For those who haven't seen him, his power is very good, health is about average, and his defense is in the plus range (with a cannon for an arm).
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=4159

Now Pinch Hitting... B. Bonds?

JWO — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:33:21 -0000

I almost feel guilty typing that subject line. But after a recent story on ESPN, I couldn't help but wonder. If it were under VERY controlled circumstances, would bringing Barry Bonds to St. Louis now make sense?

Before you begin throwing much-deserved rocks at me, consider the following arguments:
- He would help raise attendance in a potentially sluggish economy
- He could be used exclusively as a pinch hitter
- He has (historically) insane statistics. His OPS is career-wise higher than Alberts
- He REALLY wants to play, and thus could come very cheap with the right offer
- He gives Tony that (occasional) big bat to sit behind Albert, doesn't he?

Imagine the following scenario. John Mozeliak and Tony Larussa contact Barry and express their interest. Barry gets a one-year, $3M contract. He only pinch-hits (and fields in a dire emergency). He undergoes regular drug testing and doesn't raise a peep in legal circles. And he doesn't bring ANY of his entourage to games.

Albert welcomes him to the team and lays down the riot act as well. Keep your nose clean, you're living on borrowed time, welcome to the club, etc.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm insane. Tell me Bonds is washed up. Tell me he would be a distraction. But consider this. Barry's CAREER OPS was 1.051. In his last season (2007) he drew 132 walks, clobbered 28 home runs, and managed to terrify the opposition. Isn't that worth a small risk? At the very least, no one would accuse the Cardinals of playing the offseason too conservatively...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3804098

What Team Drafts the Best Talent?

JWO — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:42:10 -0000

Since we are all playing the hot stove waiting game, I thought I'd throw out a distraction to help us pass the time.

I think most reasonable people would argue that the best way to build your club (and the most cost effective) is by drafting the right talent. By signing productive players out of college and high school, you can lock in a cheap source of labor that allows you to make trades, sign key free agents, and overall achieve higher measures of success than the clubs that draft foolishly.

I then became curious - what MLB club has been the most successful at drafting talent? Admittedly, this is a subjective game. You can weigh talent in a variety of ways. What I chose to do was look at teams that drafted players in the first round over a ten-year period (2007-1998). I chose to skip last year's draft, as its probably too early to tell how good the talent is in that group. You can view different draft years at the attached URL:

http://www.mymlbdraft.com/MLB-Mock-Draft-2009

Based on a very unscientific scan of the drafts, I would argue the Phillies have been the best at gauging that first-round talent. Observe their results below:

2007: No Pick
2006: Kyle Drabek (18)
2005: No Pick
2004: Gregory Golson (21)
2003: No Pick
2002: Cole Hamels (17)
2001: Gavin Floyd (4)
2000: Chase Utley (15)
1999: Brett Myers (12)
1998: Pat Burrell (1)

I'm not penalizing them for their rounds with no picks. But the fact is in a ten-year period, they pulled in their ace (Hamels), a premier 2B (Utley) and a great OF (Burrell). The others you might argue have been less successful, but Myers has proven a useful innings eater and Gavin Floyd (though now with the White Sox) is proving to be a terrific young pitcher.

So what do you folks think? Care to play "Best Eye for Talent"? ;-)

Ludwick Versus Ankiel

JWO — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 05:04:19 -0000

It is becoming increasingly apparent that GM John Mozeliak is evaluating moving one of the Cardinals outfielders to upgrade our talent at other positions (e.g. 2B, SS, RP). And while several names are currently circulating, its beginning to sound like there may be two unofficial finalists. Specifically, Rick Ankiel and Ryan Ludwick.

With this in mind, I thought I would lay all the key facts on the table and ask the Cardinals faithful who it makes more sense to trade. First, a quick stat comparison:

2008 Batting Statistics
Rick Ankiel - .264 AVG, .337 OBP, .506 SLG, 25 HR, 71 RBI
Ryan Ludwick - .299 AVG, .375 OBP, .591 SLG, 37 HR, 113 RBI

From a batter's perspective, Ludwick clearly leads Ankiel in most offensive categories. Admittedly, Luddy has a few blemishes (he strikes out a bit more than Ank), but the power and overall numbers seem to compensate.

2008 Fielding Statistics
Rick Ankiel - 248 TC, 236 PO, 4 A, 8 E, .880 ZR (while in LF)
Ryan Ludwick - 308 TC, 293 PO, 12 A, 3 E, .878 ZR (while in RF)

I was a bit surprised by some of these numbers, as I've always thought of Rick as the better fielder, but the figures suggest that Ryan compares very favorably (admittedly, he's playing right field - an easier position)

Intangibles
-Ankiel costs $900K and has one year left on his contract
-Ludwick costs $411K and has three years at a cost controlled level
-Ankiel has a longer history with the Cards 6 years vs. Ludwick's 2
-Ludwick has struggled with injuries more than Rick (at least until 2008)
-Ankiel's arm is unquestionably stronger than Ludwick's
-Ankiel has more flexibility in terms of position (LF and CF)

The Verdict
I hate to trade either of them. HOWEVER. If Mozeliak does decide to pull the trigger, Ankiel seems to make better sense. Yes, he does give the Cardinals more flexibility in terms of skillsets, and probably is the safer option of the two to continue producing power. But in the final year of his contract, he will extract heavy costs from the club in the future.

I don't believe the Cards should mortgage the future for one shot next year. Ludwick gives them (hopefully) three good years of very high production. Ankiel's fielding and power are largely replaced by Rasmus and/or Mather.

In the end, it may come down to who has what the Cardinals want. If we find ourselves talking with a team like the Yankees, where money is little object, Ankiel is the more logical alternative. If its a lower budget club like the Rays, Rockies, or Marlins, then Ludwick is the more appropriate fit.

I don't know what Mo will do. But I have to believe that one of these guys will not be wearing the birds on the bat next year. What do you folks think?