CardsFans » 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Max · 10/06/2010 4:36 pm

. . . well, as a Ranger.

Fors, I have been thinking this over and over and am going to pull a Ward Churchill here and decide I am not backing up one inch.

But first, let me say that I realize that you have a friend within the organization and that I use derogatory language toward the Cardinals' front office in a manner that I would not use toward players or other people, when I consider their feelings as people with wives, children, parents, and friends who love and honor them. For that I apologize. I am sure that they are doing their best and feel they made the right choices at the time. But we must remain aware that so, too, did Pol Pot. Merely having good intentions is not the measure of the person, because most of us have them.

1. Lee's post-trade stats. Spare me wins and losses. Anyone who can understand Felix Hernandez's position as AL Cy Young front runner surely need not be concerned about Lee's W-L record with the Rangers. As for his ERA, until we see that adjusted for league, park, and opponents, it is hard to know what to make of it. In the meantime, his team made it to the post-season, and Lee's performance in the post-season speaks for itself.

2. The trade. First, we must ask ourselves if we traded the right outfielder. If Rasmus had the clubhouse demeanor and onfield presence of mind of Ludwick, then by all means keep Rasmus and trade someone else. The problem is that there is ample evidence that Rasmus's clubhouse demeanor is a distraction to the team and we can all see his onfield gaffes. The two are incomparable in terms of age and cost, but that observation avoids the most fundamental issue. In life, you go to war with the army you have, not the one you might wish to have. In our baseball life, Rasmus is the player he is, not the one we might wish that he is. On top of that, our organization has a track record of overvaluing their own prospects, while at the same time failing to develop, or trade, the talented prospects within the organization who do not fit the organizational mold. Thus you get players like Anthony Reyes, who never develop into a valuable player for the Cardinals, nor does the organization trade them for something of real value when their value is high. We cannot know for sure, but the situation with Rasmus is ominous. Ask ourselves this, is his trade value higher today than it was 12 months ago? If it is not, then what sort of "development" is going on here?

Second, we must ask ourselves whether Westbrook, or someone similar, might not have been available for a cheaper price after the trade deadline. Would the Indians really have asked for an arm and a leg to dump the remainder of his $11 million contract? Likewise, would we even have wanted Westbrook if we had already dealt Rasmus for Lee on the first of July?

As for Oswalt, yes the Astros probably asked for a dear price that the Cards were unwilling to pay, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the Cards' front office failed to meet the expectations of the players, which no doubt were fueled by Oswalt making personal phone calls to them and public statements to the press, stating that he would like to play for the Cardinals. When the front office couldn't make that happen, of course players' hopes would have sagged.

But worse still, whereas the Rangers got the jump on everyone and landed Lee in early July, the Cards front office simply did not deliver improvement in the way that other teams did and that, in my opinion, was likely to be a fundamental factor in the otherwise inexplicable collapse of onfield player performance after the trade deadline. No, it did not happen right away, but after the series with the Reds, in mid-August, the Cards', as a team, were not good. Dealing Ludwick for Westbrook probably made things worse, rather than better, from the players' standpoint, particularly as it had all the elements of a salary dump for next season, in expectation of the need to conserve resources to resign Pujols.

To make things even worse still, Mozeliak has now given an interview where he has discussed team needs, and mentioned that payroll may well need to go up. This is what many of us were saying last year, and the year before that, and that fact that Mozeliak is discussing it as a possibility for next season will surely lead to speculation that the team could have done it this season, or even the year before that.

The bottom line is that many people, many players included, will come to the conclusion that excessive parsimony on the part of Bill DeWitt, and those making business decisions, compromised yet another of Pujols's prime years, leading us to stay home in October once again, in a season when we were in first place as late as mid-August. And the ugly thing about this is that DeWitt has a glaring conflict of interest, of course: every dollar he saves on payroll he can put into his own bank account if he wants to. That observation, tied together with the Reds success under Jocketty, and Mozeliak's failure to genuinely improve the team in July and August, will strengthen the opinion that Jocketty's firing was sham, Mozeliak is an institutional puppet (with all due respect to him and his family), and the front office continues to operate too conservatively with their financial resources during Albert Pujols's prime years.

Last edited by Max (10/06/2010 5:57 pm)

forsberg_us · 10/06/2010 6:09 pm

Still doent answer the simple question, "how does Lee help the team score runs?"

Max · 10/06/2010 6:54 pm

1. Get Lee and fire the team up, as opposed to trade Ludwick for Westbrook and bring everyone down.

My implied thesis statement is that the offense underperformed, and disaffection within the clubhouse owing to disappointment with the front office's inability to bring genuine help was key, especially down the stretch. That's my opinion.

We were in first place in mid-August, chasing a team that probably played barely .500 ball or worse during the period that we lost first place. We didn't need to score many runs. We needed to win five more games down the stretch that we lost. Adding Lee adds an innings eater and an experienced winner. Who can say, but maybe Wainwright, Carp, and to a lesser extent, Garcia, don't experience the late season meltdown if Lee had been with us since July 1. Remember, all we needed was 5 games in that stretch, and Wainwright, Carp, and Garcia's records during that stretch run were horrible. And it wasn't like they were getting beat 1-0; they were getting shelled. Five games was all we needed.

Last edited by Max (10/06/2010 6:55 pm)

Max · 10/06/2010 7:14 pm

But I think more importantly, your long post on the other thread seems to indicate that a complementary suite of organizational maladies doomed the team this season:

1. optimism (complacency!) that the Reds would falter. Go back to DeWitt's stated philosophy that all you need to do is to make the playoffs and then anyone can win the world series. That is very different from, say, the Phillies, who already were favorites to repeat as divisional champs, but who continued to make moves that they felt would improve their competitiveness. But if you are the Cardinals under DeWitt, why bother? It's all about doing just enough to make the playoffs. Except, oops, we didn't make it.

2. optimism that their farm system can fill needs. Unfortunately, as we all have experienced, it usually cannot. And the few players it does produce are usually surprises. Correct me if I am mistaken, but who within the organization was saying last year that Garcia would be a ROY candidate this year? How many positions were their junior players (1 or fewer years in the big leagues) expected to fill this season??? 3B, SS, one starter, a few bullpen roles, and most of the bench, plus RF after they traded ludwick. that's between one-third to one-half the guys on the field at any one moment.

3. and, as ever, extreme parsimony with the team's cash flow.

Last edited by Max (10/06/2010 7:15 pm)

Max · 10/06/2010 7:20 pm

Max wrote:
That is very different from, say, the Phillies, who already were favorites to repeat as divisional champs, but who continued to make moves that they felt would improve their competitiveness.

case in point, adding halladay.

artie_fufkin · 10/06/2010 7:43 pm

Max wrote:
Max wrote:
That is very different from, say, the Phillies, who already were favorites to repeat as divisional champs, but who continued to make moves that they felt would improve their competitiveness.
case in point, adding halladay.

They added Halladay and subtracted Lee, Max. And while the Phillies were indeed favored to repeat as divisional champs, they were seven games behind the Braves a week before they made the Oswalt trade, so it was more a move out of necessity rather than a move to bolster a team that was cruising toward the playoffs.

artie_fufkin · 10/06/2010 7:45 pm

"Go back to DeWitt's stated philosophy that all you need to do is to make the playoffs and then anyone can win the world series."

That's Billy Beane's loser's lament. I don't think I've ever read a quote like that attributed to DeWitt.

forsberg_us · 10/06/2010 8:12 pm

Another question just occurred to me. Max, you're already on record as saying that you believe Jay is Bo Hart. If they had traded Rasmus, who plays CF the last 4 months of the season?

Max · 10/06/2010 9:08 pm

forsberg_us wrote:
Another question just occurred to me. Max, you're already on record as saying that you believe Jay is Bo Hart. If they had traded Rasmus, who plays CF the last 4 months of the season?

Probably Ludwick. He played at least some CF every year that he was a Cardinal.

But the issue with Jay isn't so much his ability to track and catch a ball, it's that the organization seemed to get all excited when he was batting .396 and his OPS was an astonishing 1.051 (the day before they traded ludwick), and they assumed he would be an offensive powerhouse. From July 30 there was a steady erosion in his offensive stats. That was very much like Bo Hart--there was no complaint that his defense was noticably below average. Rather, the excitement around him was that he batted .400 for a month or so before fading.

But frankly, now it seems like you're getting all defensive again. Whether they trade Rasmus or Ludwick, they still need to fill an outfield spot with someone from Memphis.

Last edited by Max (10/06/2010 9:13 pm)

Max · 10/06/2010 9:10 pm

artie_fufkin wrote:
That's Billy Beane's loser's lament. I don't think I've ever read a quote like that attributed to DeWitt.

Oh, D' Artie. That's a dagger to my heart.

The interview was probably 2-3 years back. I linked to it then. We discussed it. I bring it up every few months. This is OLD news buddy. Just as sure as the ivy still grows in Wrigley field, DeWitt said it.

Max · 10/06/2010 9:29 pm

artie_fufkin wrote:
They added Halladay and subtracted Lee, Max. And while the Phillies were indeed favored to repeat as divisional champs, they were seven games behind the Braves a week before they made the Oswalt trade, so it was more a move out of necessity rather than a move to bolster a team that was cruising toward the playoffs.

But they made a move . . . BOTH years. First to get Lee, and replace him with Halladay. And then to get Oswalt!!!

Oh my God, you make my point better than I could. The Phillies were rockin' and rollin', getting top of the rotation talent during mid-season two years in a row, and we were trading away our starting RF for a middle of the rotation guy.

forsberg_us · 10/07/2010 12:35 am

Max wrote:
forsberg_us wrote:
Another question just occurred to me. Max, you're already on record as saying that you believe Jay is Bo Hart. If they had traded Rasmus, who plays CF the last 4 months of the season?
Probably Ludwick. He played at least some CF every year that he was a Cardinal.

But frankly, now it seems like you're getting all defensive again. Whether they trade Rasmus or Ludwick, they still need to fill an outfield spot with someone from Memphis.

Not defensive, just exploring the level of your myopia. Ludwick has never played CF for an extended period in the majors. Playing a game here and there is very different from doing it every day. Felipe Lopez could play 3B a dozen times a year. It doesn't mean he can do it for several months. Ludwick is 31 and injury-prone and you're going to throw him center.

In reading this, I realized I failed to type the second part of the question, which was who plays CF in 2011 if you trade Rasmus? Trade Rasmus for Lee, by the start of 2011, you have no Lee, no Rasmus and Ludwick likely still gets traded. Then what?

forsberg_us · 10/07/2010 12:40 am

BTW, you might want to change the title of this thread. It probably should read:

Despite 10 Ks, Cliff Lee and the Cardinals lose 1-0 to Roy Halladay who no-hit the Cardinals. No one was beating Halladay tonight.

Max · 10/07/2010 6:42 am

forsberg_us wrote:
just exploring the level of your myopia.

which is more myopic, assuming we could have gotten 1/2 of a season of CF out of Ludwick, or a career out of Rasmus?

JV · 10/07/2010 7:26 am

forsberg_us wrote:
BTW, you might want to change the title of this thread. It probably should read:

Despite 10 Ks, Cliff Lee and the Cardinals lose 1-0 to Roy Halladay who no-hit the Cardinals. No one was beating Halladay tonight.

Damned good point!

Max · 10/07/2010 8:38 am

"In reading this, I realized I failed to type the second part of the question, which was who plays CF in 2011 if you trade Rasmus? Trade Rasmus for Lee, by the start of 2011, you have no Lee, no Rasmus and Ludwick likely still gets traded. Then what?"

Well, that's really the Cardinals dilemma isn't it? And it's probably worth adding that they had a more or less equal shot at Halladay, too.

In any event, in your scenario above, which you seem to be discrediting, we have:

-2 draft picks for Lee
-whomever we get in trade for Ludwick
-an extra $6-7 million off of our books (Ludwick and Rasmus's salary)

On the other hand, if we pull an Anthony Reyes with Rasmus, a scenario that you are ignoring, we have:

-nothing for Rasmus
-nothing for Ludwick
-no draft picks
-and the same $6-7 million off our books, with the difference being that Lee's salary would have been a prorated chunk of $7 million, and Westbrook's was a prorated chunk of $11 million

Last edited by Max (10/07/2010 8:46 am)

forsberg_us · 10/07/2010 9:00 am

Max wrote:
"In reading this, I realized I failed to type the second part of the question, which was who plays CF in 2011 if you trade Rasmus? Trade Rasmus for Lee, by the start of 2011, you have no Lee, no Rasmus and Ludwick likely still gets traded. Then what?"

Well, that's really the Cardinals dilemma isn't it? In your scenario above, which you seem to be discrediting, we have:

-2 draft picks for Lee
-whomever we get in trade for Ludwick
-an extra $6-7 million off of our books (Ludwick and Rasmus's salary)

On the other hand, if we pull an Anthony Reyes with Rasmus, a scenario that you are ignoring, we have:

-nothing for Rasmus
-nothing for Ludwick
-no draft picks
-and the same $6-7 million off our books, with the difference being that Lee's salary would have been a prorated chunk of $7 million, and Westbrook's was a prorated chunk of $11 million

- 2 Draft picks who wouldn't see a major league baseball field until 2014 (at best). Not very reassuring for 2011.
- This brings us back to what Ludwick's value may or may not have been this off-season.
- A non-issue. Rasmus makes minimum salary. The player who would replace Rasmus would have to make minimum salary. You get no cost-savings moving Rasmus.

So now you're comparing Rasmus to Reyes? You're making yourself look foolish. Reyes never had sustained success in the major leagues--he had one big game in the World Series. In his 2 seasons in the major leagues, Rasmus has gone .251/.307/.407 and .276/.361/.498. He's averaged 20 HR and 60 RBI, and he's trending up. Those may not be Hall of Fame numbers, but they are certainly more than adequate.

Setting aside your disdain for Rasmus, here's a list of major league CF (minimum 300 plate appearances as a CF) with a higher OPS in 2010:

forsberg_us · 10/07/2010 9:02 am

Max wrote:
forsberg_us wrote:
just exploring the level of your myopia.
which is more myopic, assuming we could have gotten 1/2 of a season of CF out of Ludwick, or a career out of Rasmus?

Hmmm. One has never happened. The other, the Cardinals control through 2014.

That was a rhetorical question, right?

artie_fufkin · 10/07/2010 9:08 am

Max wrote:
artie_fufkin wrote:
That's Billy Beane's loser's lament. I don't think I've ever read a quote like that attributed to DeWitt.
Oh, D' Artie. That's a dagger to my heart.

The interview was probably 2-3 years back. I linked to it then. We discussed it. I bring it up every few months. This is OLD news buddy. Just as sure as the ivy still grows in Wrigley field, DeWitt said it.

I'll take your word for it then. I just tend to associate that comment with Billy Beane, usually after his team has choked away a division series to the Yankees or Red Sox.

artie_fufkin · 10/07/2010 9:18 am

Max wrote:
artie_fufkin wrote:
They added Halladay and subtracted Lee, Max. And while the Phillies were indeed favored to repeat as divisional champs, they were seven games behind the Braves a week before they made the Oswalt trade, so it was more a move out of necessity rather than a move to bolster a team that was cruising toward the playoffs.
But they made a move . . . BOTH years. First to get Lee, and replace him with Halladay. And then to get Oswalt!!!

Oh my God, you make my point better than I could. The Phillies were rockin' and rollin', getting top of the rotation talent during mid-season two years in a row, and we were trading away our starting RF for a middle of the rotation guy.

I just didn't want anyone to be under the impression that the Phillies hadn't given up anything. Let's not forget the Astros got a good young pitcher in the Oswalt deal who helped them right away. The Cardinals' equivalent of Jay Happ is Garcia. Would you have traded Garcia and a couple of minor leaguers for Oswalt?

APIAD · 10/07/2010 9:25 am

artie_fufkin wrote:
That's Billy Beane's loser's lament. I don't think I've ever read a quote like that attributed to DeWitt.

But it is true. You make it to the playoffs and anyone has a fair chance at winning the thing.

artie_fufkin · 10/07/2010 9:29 am

"So now you're comparing Rasmus to Reyes?"

Max can express himself adequately, but his point has always been the Cardinals should have traded Reyes during the 7-10 day window when it looked like he might actually have some value - I believe after the 1-hitter he threw against the White Sox (a game he managed to lose) back in 2006.
I wish I had pulled my 401k and bought gold when the Dow was over 14,000 a couple of years ago, but I don't think I necessarily f*cked up.

APIAD · 10/07/2010 9:30 am

I dont really understand this debate. Is max saying they should have traded Rasmus for Lee and played Ludwick in center but DeWitt was to cheap to do it?

artie_fufkin · 10/07/2010 9:40 am

APRTW wrote:
artie_fufkin wrote:
That's Billy Beane's loser's lament. I don't think I've ever read a quote like that attributed to DeWitt.
But it is true. You make it to the playoffs and anyone has a fair chance at winning the thing.

Sure, but a fair chance isn't an equal chance. For every 2006 Cardinals, there are a half dozen teams that won because they were better than everyone else.

forsberg_us · 10/07/2010 9:49 am

APRTW wrote:
I dont really understand this debate. Is max saying they should have traded Rasmus for Lee and played Ludwick in center but DeWitt was to cheap to do it?

I'll let Max speak for himself, but just do everyone's clear, my position is:

The Cardinals needed to make a move, but front-end pitching was not the greatest need--they needed another bat.

Trading Colby Rasmus for Cliff Lee would have been a monumental mistake because it wouldn't have resolved the problem of a woefully inadequate offense and would have further worsened the team in the short-term future.

Index » Cardinals/MLB » 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Max wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Max wrote:

Max wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

forsberg_us wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

artie_fufkin wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

artie_fufkin wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

forsberg_us wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

forsberg_us wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Max wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Max wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Max wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

artie_fufkin wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

APRTW wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Re: 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

APRTW wrote:

Index » Cardinals/MLB » 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Board footera

Index
» Cardinals/MLB
» 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal

Index
» Cardinals/MLB
» 10 k's, 0 BB's: Lee wins his fist post-season game as a Cardinal