forsberg_us wrote:

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.

if people were machines, of course you leave Rasmus right where is.  But by the same argument, if people were machines, there would be no need to deal Brendan Ryan, correct?  The argument from your buddy is that he HAS to go because he is a clubhouse cancer, one that might have infected Rasmus.  OK.  But what if Rasmus didn't catch his cancer from Ryan and what if it doesn't get better?

As for the Rasmus and Reyes comparisons, I hardly think I am making myself look ridiculous.  As I wrote before, if Rasmus turns into a dud for us, he would be Jesus to Reyes's Elijah.  Translation: it would be much worse for us.  Artie did not capture my point about Reyes, but rather caricatured it: the value of any and all players, graphed over time, will fit some kind of curve.  Typically it is bell-shaped: and buy low, sell high should be the maxim for prospects who are not going to make it within the organization.  Our organization has a history of not noticing the last part of that sentence, "prospects who are not going to make it within the organization", and they try to jam square pegs into round holes until the player is sliding down the backside of his bell-shaped curve of value.  The point is the same whether we discuss,  Reyes, Rasmus, or *gasp* Miller: once they had (have) value as a "prospect", but over-expose them to MLB and their "prospect" status is gone and they are what they are.  And even if they shine, as Rasmus has done, it will be for nought if the player doesn't fit within the organization.

As for Albert's comment, no, you don't quite have my point correct.  My main point is that IF Rasmus is not going to work within the organization, then that fact should be kept quiet and he should be dealt, and dealt when his value is high. Allowing all of that BS to get to the point that it went public was a major gaffe that speaks poorly of the institutional culture within the Cardinals organization at the moment.  Moz, La Russa, and Rasmus all say that things are looking up, so we can take that at face value or remain skeptical.  I don't claim to be close enough to the situation to know, but I think it was telling that before we heard much from Rasmus, the GM basically made a public apology for him!  Again, the translation of that is: that's not good.

But that main point fits within the backdrop that many of us have complained about since about 2006, which is that after several years of steadily growing the payroll, DeWitt cut it by about 10% and has kept it there.  All the while Philadelphia, by contrast, has been growing theirs.  Money won't cure all problems, but as Joey Ramone once commented, in reference to Pete Townshend's heoin addiction, there aren't many problems that a million dollars won't make just a little bit better.

So, now, after several years of holding down costs, we are left with an organization so full of holes that we had to shift pieces around: trading a well-liked, productive, starting RF in order to get a middle-of-the-rotation starter.  Was it a good move?  Who the hell can say for sure?  But a better question is why did we ever have to make the choice?  That's the dilemma that DeWitt's fiscal policy has brought us to.  He claims he is doing what is necessary to keep the organization financially healthy, which we all want. But how are we to know if that is true?  And why on God's green earth would we take DeWitt's word for it, when he has the obvious conflict of interest that every penny he pulls away from payroll can go straight into his bank account?

I don't get this seeming disagreement, guys.  This is pretty obvious to me, and the things I am saying aren't all that different even from what Fors friends said.

Last edited by Max (10/07/2010 12:05 pm)

My two cents on what the Cardinals need.

Bats that are reliable. Uggla up the middle would please me greatly, go get him. Ryan needs to go it sounds like.

Pujols must be resigned. This is number one. If you have enough cash afterwards to go after Uggla, that's the best help you can give the team in my opinion. If you can make a pitch for Cliff Lee, and take a year with Carp/Waino/Lee/Garcia/Westbrook, you're not hurting the team. I wouldn't resign Carpenter beyond his current deal with that being the case, but if it's doable with Lee as a free agent (after pujols has signed, and uggla has been explored), then I'm all for it.

I don't necessarily see why we can't have the same payroll as Philly. We put just as many butts in the seats as they do, buy the merch, etc etc. They are paying nearly 140 million dollars, why aren't we? Fors can you answer this? There's nothing we can do but buy tickets and go cheer. I do that. The stadium is always packed and always boasting crowds of 40K-45K, so why in the hell can't we commit more cash to the club? Why is the bar set where it is, and not growing like it is in Philadelphia. We're not Pittsburgh who's firing their manager after a club payroll of 35 million (3 million more than A-Rod made this season.... serious). We have fans, there's money being spent, where the fuck is it going?

My biggest bitch about the Cardinals is that they are "small market"... Bullshit, small market teams don't get 3.3million + in the seats. The only thing small market is the region where we play, but we fill every seat..... It's annoying to not be in the running for strong free agents because we can't afford to spend it....

STL 3,301,218 attendance 40,756 per game avg $93,540,751 est payroll
PHI 3,777,322 attendance 44,968 per game avg $141,928,379 est payroll

Does 400K fans annually really translate to 1/2 of the cardinals annual payroll?!?!?!?!?! This just makes me think the owners are taking our ticket money, and then cashing the check.

Pulled from baseball-reference.com

Last edited by alz (10/07/2010 12:23 pm)

I am not sure using the Phillies as a role model is such a good idea.  They have some bad contracts.  In 2011 they owe Raul Ibanez 12 million.  Brad Lidge 12 million. They will still have Oswalt for 16 million and we all moaned about the idea of the Cardinals adding that risk.  Joe Blanton is owed 10 million in 2011 and 12.  None of those guys I would like to see on the Cardinals for that price.  Then you have Holladay and Howard, who are likely worth 20 million and Ultey getting 16 million.

alz wrote:

I don't necessarily see why we can't have the same payroll as Philly. We put just as many butts in the seats as they do, buy the merch, etc etc. They are paying nearly 140 million dollars, why aren't we? Fors can you answer this...

Does 400K fans annually really translate to 1/2 of the cardinals annual payroll?!?!?!?!?!

If the Cardinals privately say that every 100K in attendance is worth $5M in revenue, I have to believe that number is correct.  In that sense, the 400K difference would translate to $20M less in revenue.

If we take that as true, then the better question is why isn't our payroll $120M, to which the only answer I can offer is "because the owners choose not to."  I didn't have a major problem with them not going on a spending spree last off-season based on the projected starting lineup.  But a year later, that lineup failed miserably and needs fixing.  Those fixes are not going to come from within and are going to cost some money.

If the organization expects to be competetive next season, there are really only 2 ways to do it: 1) increase payroll significantly or 2) trade Pujols.  They were at $94M last season.  The only real money coming off the books is Penny and the Ludwick/Westbrook money (about $14M).  If they resign Pujols, you have to expect he gets at least a $12M increase.  With escalators built into the Lohse, Wainwright and Molina contracts, payroll automatically increases just by re-signing Pujols. To be competetive beyond re-signing Pujols, they probably have to add at least $20M to the payroll.

The one point that Max makes that I agree with is that the money is there.  The team dismisses the Phillies comparison by arguing that Philadelphia isn't paying down stadium debt.  That's like me complaining that I have less disposable income because I choose to make double mortgage payments.  They're paying down the stadium debt because they choose to, not because they have to, and all that does is give them more equity in their asset.  It isn't a true expense.

Mags wrote:

Do the Cardinals open the gates early enough that fans can get in to see batting practice?  The Memphis Redbirds don't and somehow I had the impression that the Cards' don't except when they charge for it. [Of course they don't even take infield anymore.  As Pettini said a couple of years ago, that was "just for the fans" anyway.]

Yes, sort of.  They open the gates 2 hours before game time.  I think the Cardinal begin batting practice a little before the fans are allowed in, but they are still taking BP when the gates open.  There is no charge, you just have to have a ticket for the game.

alz wrote:

My two cents on what the Cardinals need.

Bats that are reliable. Uggla up the middle would please me greatly, go get him. Ryan needs to go it sounds like.

Pujols must be resigned. This is number one. If you have enough cash afterwards to go after Uggla, that's the best help you can give the team in my opinion. If you can make a pitch for Cliff Lee, and take a year with Carp/Waino/Lee/Garcia/Westbrook, you're not hurting the team. I wouldn't resign Carpenter beyond his current deal with that being the case, but if it's doable with Lee as a free agent (after pujols has signed, and uggla has been explored), then I'm all for it.

I don't necessarily see why we can't have the same payroll as Philly. We put just as many butts in the seats as they do, buy the merch, etc etc. They are paying nearly 140 million dollars, why aren't we? Fors can you answer this? There's nothing we can do but buy tickets and go cheer. I do that. The stadium is always packed and always boasting crowds of 40K-45K, so why in the hell can't we commit more cash to the club? Why is the bar set where it is, and not growing like it is in Philadelphia. We're not Pittsburgh who's firing their manager after a club payroll of 35 million (3 million more than A-Rod made this season.... serious). We have fans, there's money being spent, where the fuck is it going?

My biggest bitch about the Cardinals is that they are "small market"... Bullshit, small market teams don't get 3.3million + in the seats. The only thing small market is the region where we play, but we fill every seat..... It's annoying to not be in the running for strong free agents because we can't afford to spend it....

STL 3,301,218 attendance 40,756 per game avg $93,540,751 est payroll
PHI 3,777,322 attendance 44,968 per game avg $141,928,379 est payroll

Does 400K fans annually really translate to 1/2 of the cardinals annual payroll?!?!?!?!?! This just makes me think the owners are taking our ticket money, and then cashing the check.

Pulled from baseball-reference.com

Maybe in Philly they sell those flashlight batteries at the concession stands.

Last edited by Mags (10/07/2010 2:50 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

Rasmus is a completely different situation.  When you say "doesn't fit within the organization," I assume in this case that means can't get along with the manager. . . . The only way Rasmus' trade value goes down is if his production goes down, and there's no objective basis to believe that will be the case.

And that's the way the Cards should be pitching this behind the scenes, if it is even necessary: "Nah, he's a great kid, but you know Tony, he's kind of old and fixed in his ways and not every kid that comes up can make it on a LaRussa club. So, what are you willing to give up?"

But the way that Rasmus's value could go down, even if his numbers do not, would be if he were tagged with a "character problem".  I have lived through office politics many times.  Once in a while it is that two people don't get along. More often it is one person who seeks controversy as a means to enhance their own standing.  The first time it happens, it looks like two people who don't get along.  But if each year it is someone new, and the only constant is the one 'controversy seeker', then, eventually, the person gets identified as a troublemaker and has to be shown the door.

I have no way of knowing yet whether Rasmus's problems are a conflict with La Russa or if it is more generally the case that Rasmus is a serial troublemaker.  Candid interviews with friends and coaches from high school, college, the minor leagues, might be informative.  Maybe that's where DeWitt should be spending our money, instead of market research into the fiscal impacts of not resigning Pujols.

Max wrote:

I have no way of knowing yet whether Rasmus's problems are a conflict with La Russa or if it is more generally the case that Rasmus is a serial troublemaker.  Candid interviews with friends and coaches from high school, college, the minor leagues, might be informative.  Maybe that's where DeWitt should be spending our money, instead of market research into the fiscal impacts of not resigning Pujols.

I'm not sure it has to be one or the other.  Keep in mind Rasmus was drafted out of high school.  Hearing him speak, he doesn't seem particularly smart.  That can be particularly uncomfortable and lead to insecurity.  Rasmus is also used to receiving guidance from his father, and spoke very openly about the difficulty he experienced last season when his father wouldn't speak to Colby after learning he had knocked up his high school sweetheart. 

In all likelihood, we're talking about an immature kid whose social maturity is significantly less than his age and who needs some help growing up.  LaRussa isn't the warm and fuzzy type, but if someone like Holliday is willing to take on sort of a big brother/mentor role, there may be reason to believe the situation can improve.  As you said yourself, Rasmus said all the right things in his most recent interview.  I can't say for certain that has anything to do with Holliday's influence, but it's certainly possible.

Max wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"The difference might be how much each team is paying for its stadium debt, Alz. I'm too lazy right now to look up how much the Phillies owe, but I know the Cardinals' mortgage on Baseball Heaven is pretty steep.

I thought that the big, big, big difference between teams in MLB is that local television and radio fees are not shared equally among the clubs.  So that "big mid small market" refers to television market.

That's a good point. I'm not sure, but I think the Yankees are the only team that outright owns its own network. The Red Sox, I think, have a 49 percent share of NESN. The Marlins may own Sunshine Network. I'm not sure what the deal is with the Braves now that Turner sold everything. I know Comcast is based in Philly, but I'm not sure what the relationship is with the team. I'd have to do some research.

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

I understand your Reyes theory.

One issue that is worth discussing is, when was the last time our organization traded any prospect of any real value, might it have been Haren, and if that is the case, have we become gunshy and unwilling to pull the trigger?

There was that Wallace kid they traded in the Holliday deal.  Then there was that Perez guy who had a 2 something ERA they gave up for Derosa.  I think since the Reyes deal they have went the other way and traded every minor league guy with value other than Rasmus.  I dont fault them for not trading Reyes.  When he had value the Cardinals wanted him to fill huge pitching voids and once he made it to the big league he never really had any value.  Even after the WS game I doubt he would have got much interest.

APRTW wrote:

There was that Wallace kid they traded in the Holliday deal.  Then there was that Perez guy who had a 2 something ERA they gave up for Derosa.  I think since the Reyes deal they have went the other way and traded every minor league guy with value other than Rasmus.

Good points.  My recollection is that we had a strong hunch that Perez wasn't going to be all that great, and Wallace had no place in the organization.  But, yes, we dumped them before their value peaked.  Kudos to Moz for those moves.

Stop it, Fors. You're pissing me off and I'm about two minutes away from throwing my television out the window in protest of the Giants winning.