forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Another thing to look at is Berkman cost them a couple million more then keeping Ludwick would have.

Strauss was quick to point that out.  I also noticed that Harang signed with the Padres for $4 million, making yet another back of the rotation starter who has signed for one year, for a lower annual salary than we are paying Westbrook.

Max, have you looked at Aaron Harang's numbers the last 3 seasons?  18-38 with an ERA pushing 5.  There's a reason he's making less money than Westbrook.  Harang = Cement-head.

One way to spin this is to say that what it means is that the Cards have learned the hard way, and shifted focus from throwing $4-5 million per year on gambles that a guy like Cement-head (or Brett Tomko) will be good enough to help the team to the playoffs, or that Matt Clement, Mark Mulder, or Brad Penny will be healthy enough to help the team to the playoffs, to paying twice as much money in order to get better odds of success and health from a guy like Westbrook.  Fair enough.  Now, did we need to trade Ludwick in order to do that?  Or was it another case where Mozeliak traded away chit that had some value for a player that would have been available for free, or at much reduced price, a day or a week later?  I felt all along that Ludwick would be traded, and I agree that Hawksworth was expendable.  So I have no problems with either being traded.  I just don't feel like Mozeliak got much for either, and in the case of Ludwick, it seems like he felt the need to justify the loss of Ludwick by making signing Westbrook his first priority of the offseason.

tkihshbt wrote:

That's taking the most pessimistic view, which isn't necessarily the most likely.

Remember, Jim Edmonds hit .252/.325/.403 in 2007, was 37, had all kinds of nagging injuries and was still suffering from concussion problems. He wound up hitting .256/.369/.568 with the Cubs in 85 games.

Everybody ages differently, but it's hard for me to believe that Berkman, at 35 and still a cagey hitter, can't pop 15-20 home runs playing exclusively against right-handed pitchers. He still hit them .267/.393/.453 last season.

Does the fact that he didn't hit 15 home runs last year make it any easier for you to believe?

tkihshbt wrote:

It's not unprecedented for players to be able to bounce back. I heard Scott Rolen had a pretty decent year.

That's a pretty audacious statement, even for you, Max.

Maybe it was your choice of words, TK.  I don't think it is inconceivable that he bounces back, but he didn't reach the benchmarks last year. So, it all depends what you meant by "it's hard for me to believe that Berkman, at 35 and still a cagey hitter, can't pop 15-20 home runs playing exclusively against right-handed pitchers".  Taken literally, of course it is 'hard to believe' that he can't.  He could hit 100 home runs next year.  But the inference I took was that it is hard for you to believe that he won't do worse than 15-20 HR.

"I'm just getting frustrated because people are way too gloom-and-doom on this, IMO."

I've been wrong plenty of times before, so don't take my gloominess too seriously. I just don't see how a guy whose numbers having gone precipitously downward the last three years and is going to be asked to play a position he hasn't played regularly in seven years with a bum knee is suddenly going to defy every trend and find the fountain of youth.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"In all fairness, Berkman has played the outfield in the past."

Six years ago was the last time he played more than 44 games in the OF, Fors. That's almost like saying Dennys Reyes looks fat now, but he used to be skinny when he was in high school.

The point was that it makes more sense to assume Berkman to play the outfield than Derek Lee.  Are you suggesting that Lee would have been a better gamble?

artie_fufkin wrote:

Here are Berkman's numbers the past three years, which I would say are consistent with a 35-year-old whose skills are diminishing at an age-appropriate rate:

2008: 153 games .312/29/106 .986 OPS
2009: 136 games .274/25/80  .907 OPS
2010: 122 games .248/14/58 .781 OPS

If his skills continue to diminish at that rate, you're looking at around .220/8/36 .700 guy who will play in about 110 games. For $8 million.
Even if he puts up last year's numbers, you're paying a guy without a defensive position $8 million.
The more I investigate this deal, the less I like it. This could be at or near the top of those season-ending "What were they thinking?" lists for bad deals in 2011.

Possibly, and if Berkman is injured for most of this season then I suspect you'll be correct. 

I think the issue I have with the position you and Max are taking is in the definition of "diminishing."  If, in the concept of "diminishing," you are including the risk of injury, then maybe I can see your point.  Personally, I think Berkman's skills are still there if he can stay healthy.

Berkman got a small taste of free agency this off-season--his other option was Oakland.  This may be his last shot for a World Series ring.  I don't know the man, but he strikes me as the kind of guy who might get some motivation out of that.  What if the motivation of playing on a contender, in front of 40,000+ people every night in a city that's going to welcome him with open arms simply gets him back to his 2009 numbers.

Lastly, I totally agree with something Tk said in an earlier post--I don't think they spend this $8M if they don't spend it on Berkman.  Or, if they do, they spend it on something crappy like Jason Bartlett.  Personally, I'd rather roll the dice that Berkman can stay healthy and return to his 2009 form than watch a lineup that includes Freese, Molina, Theriot, Bartlett and Jay as 5 of the 8 position players.

forsberg_us wrote:

I think the issue I have with the position you and Max are taking is in the definition of "diminishing."  If, in the concept of "diminishing," you are including the risk of injury, then maybe I can see your point.  Personally, I think Berkman's skills are still there if he can stay healthy.

Speaking for myself, it's not just 'risk of injury', but the way that nagging injuries accumulate and do not get better as one gets older.  In addition, there are things that are well-known to decline with age, such as eye sight, reflex reaction time, muscle and bone mass.  Nobody can stop the aging process, overweight guys with bad knees less so than others.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"I'm just getting frustrated because people are way too gloom-and-doom on this, IMO."

I've been wrong plenty of times before, so don't take my gloominess too seriously. I just don't see how a guy whose numbers having gone precipitously downward the last three years and is going to be asked to play a position he hasn't played regularly in seven years with a bum knee is suddenly going to defy every trend and find the fountain of youth.

Would you feel better if instead of these numbers

2008: 153 games .312/29/106 .986 OPS
2009: 136 games .274/25/80  .907 OPS
2010: 122 games .248/14/58 .781 OPS

we had these numbers?

2008: 152 games .299/37/113 .966 OPS
2009: 139 games .265/22/97  .775 OPS
2010: 136 games .251/17/69  .743 OPS


You may have already guessed it, but the second set of numbers belong to a player who will turn 33 in 2011, who has been injured each of the last 2 seasons and who was traded to San Diego to acquire Jake Westbrook.

Would you feel better if instead of these numbers

2008: 153 games .312/29/106 .986 OPS
2009: 136 games .274/25/80  .907 OPS
2010: 122 games .248/14/58 .781 OPS

we had these numbers?

2008: 152 games .299/37/113 .966 OPS
2009: 139 games .265/22/97  .775 OPS
2010: 136 games .251/17/69  .743 OPS


Yes, because I know Player B will give me better than average defense.
Another aspect of this that hasn't been mentioned, at least here, is Berkman's left-handed swing was almost perfectly suited for that stupid ballpark in Houston. How many of those 315-foot popups that ended up going off the scoreboard or into those silly Crawford Boxes are going to be popouts to the edge of the warning track?

tkihshbt wrote:

He's hit more home runs outside of MMP (173 away - 154 home). I don't think we should define Lance Berkman's entire career as being able to hit a pop-up over a 19-foot wall.

In the future, can you only cite statistics when they help MY argument?
Thank you.

If Berkman can haved gap power and a high OBP his HR dont matter to me.  His job is to get on base in front of Pujols and provide clubhouse leadership.

TLR say he wont hit Berkman in front of Pujols really only proves he will.  It is LaRussian logic.

Ty Wiggington signed a 8 million 2 year deal.  So for the same price that the Cardinals got Berkman they could have got Wiggington for 2 years.  Wiggington is younger, healther and has produced about the same as Berkman over the last 3 years.  He can fill in at 3rd comparable to what Craig would offer.  Can play second, the outfield and is a 20HR threat.  I still dont hate the Berkman deal but Wiggington seems like a better fit and even more so if TLR isnt going to bat Berkman second.  If Skip really has to be on the field signing Wiggington and moving Skip back to the outfield offers a better fielding team.

Max wrote:

FWIW, I can't see this Cardinal team hiring Wigginton, unless perhaps the only other choice is Janey Cueto.

That's the same thing I was thinking.  But maybe we could make him serve as an emergency catcher and have Yadi give him a few instructions on blocking the plate.

As far as being able to improve the club house atmosphere without making Pujols or LaRussa feel like their role is threatened, Berkman seems like about the best option anyone could hope for.  Wigginton seems like one of the worst.