Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Are we really debating F. Garcia as a usable pitcher to this team?

That's not what I'm debating.  The team has a lot of holes and I am questioning if plunking down $8.5 million for a starter, $8 million for a highly questionable RF, and then having little or nothing left over for the left side of the infield, LHP in bullpen, and bench, was the right idea.  I hope Moz was right, but I think the fact that he made a questionable trade to get Westbrook pushed him to take the next step and make a questionable FA signing that committed half of our budget flexibility to another SP.

Okay but then why bring up Garcia?

Westbrook is a safe pick.  Berkman is pretty risky.  Of course I thought Loshe was a safe pick.

APRTW wrote:

I think the Brewers beefing up there rotation, the strength of the Red pitching staff and the addition the Cubs made only make the Ludwick trade look better.

I think that the Ludwick trade looked like a failure, than and now, but the test will be in the upcoming season.  My hunch is that within the team opinions as to why the team hasn't been that successful over the past four seasons fall broadly along two lines:

1) Owners and front office are not doing enough to put a competitive team on the field.

2) Players and coaches are not doing enough to put the ingredients together to make a winning recipe.

Thus, last season the problem was either that we didn't have the fire power, bullpen, and depth at starting pitching, OR, it was that an otherwise good team was torpedoed by Brendan Ryan, who became a clubhouse poison that threatened to infect other young players like Colby Ramsus. 

So, the solution was to focus offseason efforts on solid, David Eckstein-style, low-budget homeopathic cures for clubhouse cancer, with the only serious effort to upgrade being the acquisition of Berkman and the signing of Westbrook.  Like any really smart leader with a healthy appreciation to protect his own ass, it's a win-win formula for Mozeliak that gives him a little bit of ammunition to argue that he was right regardless of how we fail next year, but it also leaves his enemies the chance to argue that he was wrong . . . unless the team is successful.  So, my guess is that having gone 4 years without one single playoff win, three of those under Mozeliak, the team has to go to the playoffs and at least look competitive in the first round, or Mozeliak's enemies will be all over him (same goes for La Russa, of course). 

APRTW wrote:

One could debate the money could have been better spent on a different pitcher but it is hard to see the Cardinals as a serious threat is Walters is in the rotation instead of Westbrook.

The same could be said about an infield of Schu, Theriot, and Freese, or an outfield with Lance Berkman, or a bench of him, somebody, and another guy, or a bullpen that is short one LHP and lacks a true closer.  My point has been that it has been surprising to me to see veteran SP go so cheaply this year, and in such quantity.  Every year, one or more of those guys will experience a come back, and the GM who picks correctly this year wins the lottery, because he will have paid maybe 0.75 - 5 million.

Last edited by Max (2/03/2011 10:18 am)

Max wrote:

I think that the Ludwick trade looked like a failure, than and now, but the test will be in the upcoming season.

Other than you, I'm not sure I know one person who would currently argue that the Ludwick/Westbrook trade was a mistake.  You're trying to make Ludwick out to be someone he isn't.  You love to point out Berkman's numbers over the last 3 seasons, but here's a fact for you to digest--in each of the last 3 seasons, which include Ludwick's career best season and Berkman's career worst, Berkman has had a higher OPS in each single season.  In fact, Ludwick's OPS and HRs have dropped at a higher rate than Berkman's, and Ludwick is only 2 years younger and didn't spend the season dealing with a knee injury.  Since you're such a big fan of tracking player decline, maybe you should analyze Ludwick.  It appears the Cardinals may have got out just in the nick of time.

Frankly your efforts to suggest that the Westbrook contract is a catostrophic mistake after two seasons of trying to argue in favor of the Lohse contract is baffling.  Westbrook was signed for half of the years at less than half of the cost of the Lohse contract.  You argue that Westbrook is the definition of average, but seem willing to overlook that at the time they signed Lohse, his W-L record was virtually identical (78-80) to Westbrook's current record (73-75) and his ERA was about half a run higher (4.67 compared to 4.29).  Lohse was coming off of a prior off-season in which no one was willing to meet his contract demands (enabling the Cardinals to sign him in the middle of spring training) and the 2008 free agent pitching class was much deeper than this year's.  You compare Westbrook to Jeff Suppan circa 2004.  I seem to remember that we laughed when Milwaukee signed Suppan to a 4 year, $40M contract.  But you've spent the last two seasons trying to justify giving Lohse a larger deal than the deal given to Suppan.

Spare me the "could have filled other holes" argument.  The 2009 Cardinals opened the season with an infield of Schumaker, Khalil Greene and Thurston/Barden, an outfield that included Chris Duncan and Jason Motte as its closer.  I think it's fair to say that the 2009 team had a few holes that could have been filled with the money they have paid to Lohse.

Last edited by forsberg_us (2/03/2011 11:55 am)

forsberg_us wrote:

Frankly your efforts to suggest that the Westbrook contract is a catostrophic mistake after two seasons of trying to argue in favor of the Lohse contract is baffling.

First of all, I haven't said 'catastrophic failure'.  I observe that success has eluded the Cardinals during the Mozeliak era and look for reasons why?  Let's look at the usual suspects:

1. cheap owners?
2. GM lacking in shrewdness?
3. bad manager? 
4. Brandan Ryan?

YEP.  YEP.  Ask again when he is elected to the Hall of Fame.  Puh-LEEEZE!

I defended Moz for the Lohse signing, and still do, not because I think it has worked out for us, but because we applauded Moz for locking up a solid, middle to back of the rotation starter for what was then the going rate.  We had suffered for years from unreliability from our SP, and Lohse looked like an economical, Jeff Suppan 2004 type of signing.  It didn't work out. Maybe Mozeliak lacks WJ's crystal ball for spotting one Abraham Nunez from another, but I don't blame Mozeliak for that signing, because it was a good one at the time, and no one knew how badly the FA market would drop for 1-2 years there.

Last edited by Max (2/03/2011 12:49 pm)

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Other than you, I'm not sure I know one person who would currently argue that the Ludwick/Westbrook trade was a mistake.

Well, maybe you live in a corporate world where people are not inclined to point out the obvious, if the obvious is also inconvenient?

Did we make the playoffs?
Was Westbrook going to be a FA at the end of the season, as per MLB rules, anyway?
Could we have traded Ludwick at the end of this season and still have signed Westbrook???

If that's your argument, the the Holliday trade was also a mistake.

The team didn't win a playoff game in 2009.
Holliday was going to be a FA after 2009
The Cardinals could have traded away Wallace, Mortenson and Shane whoever and still signed Holliday.

So tell me Max, was the Holliday trade a mistake?

Or you could look at the underlying facts that it is very common for players to develop an affection for a location after playing there, even if it's for a short period of time, thus increasing the likelihood of being able to resign them.  There's plenty of history there that goes way beyond Mozeliak.  McGwire, Edmonds, Rolen, Holliday (and I'm sure I'm missing several others) all chose to stay in St. Louis after playing here a brief period of time.  Could the Cardinals have signed any of these players when they became free agents--absolutely.  But you're fooling yourself if you don't believe the team enhanced its position by trading for them first.

Refresh my memory.  Why again did Cliff Lee choose to sign with the Phillies rather than take a longer and more valuable contract with the Yankees?

Max wrote:

I defended Moz for the Lohse signing, and still do, not because I think it has worked out for us, but because we applauded Moz for locking up a solid, middle to back of the rotation starter for what was then the going rate. 

We had suffered for years from unreliability from our SP, and Lohse looked like an economical, Jeff Suppan 2004 type of signing.  It didn't work out. Maybe Mozeliak lacks WJ's crystal ball for spotting one Abraham Nunez from another, but I don't blame Mozeliak for that signing, because it was a good one at the time, and no one knew how badly the FA market would drop for 1-2 years there.

Other pitchers signed the same offseason

CC Sabathia- 7 years, $161M
AJ Burnett- 5 years, $82.5
Derek Lowe- 4 years, $60M
Ryan Dempster- 4 years, $52M
Kyle Lohse- 4 years, $41M
Oliver Perez- 3 years, $36M
Randy Johnson- 1 year, $8M
Randy Wolf- 1 year, $5M
Andy Pettite- 1 year, $5.5M
Jon Garland- 1 year, $7.5M
Braden Looper- 1 year, $4.25M
Brad Penny- 1 year, $5M
Pedro Martinez- unsigned
Carl Pavano- 1 year, $1.5M
Mike Hampton- 1 year, $2M
Jamie Moyer- 2 years, $13M
Koji Uehara- 2 years, $10M
Freddy Garcia- Minor league contract

Unless I'm missing something, there were 5 pitching contracts for 4 guaranteed years and 6 with an AAV of more than $10M.  If you're going to argue that Lohse is comparable with either Sabbathia or Burnett, we can stop now.  Lowe was more than 20 games over .500, had an ERA under 4 (despite spending most of his career in the AL) and was coming off a pretty good year with the Dodgers during which he pitched Game 1 in both the LDS and LCS.  Dempster was coming off a career year in which he finished 6th in the Cy Young voting.  Perez was coming off of back-to-back good years with the Mets and was still only 26.

Then there's Randy Wolf.  An above .500 pitcher who had gone 12-12 with an ERA of 4.30.  But he went 6-2 in the pennant race after a trade to Houston.  He got 1 year.  Garland had gone 14-8 for the Angels.  He got 1 year. 

Tell me again how the Lohse signing was economical or in line with his market value.  Tell me again how the Cardinals paid the going rate for a middle to back of the rotation starter.  They paid Lohse the going rate for a #1 or #2 starter and he isn't anywhere near that good.

forsberg_us wrote:

Tell me again how the Lohse signing was economical or in line with his market value.  Tell me again how the Cardinals paid the going rate for a middle to back of the rotation starter.  They paid Lohse the going rate for a #1 or #2 starter and he isn't anywhere near that good.

The Loshe Contract fell in line with the previous years free agent signing that featured  Carlos Silva as the best pitcher on the market getting grossly overpaid.  The Cardinals signed Loshe before the season ended.  I dont think them or any of us had a clue what the market for pitchers would be.  The Cardinals guessed wrong.  I find it hard to blame them for that.  They were not sure what Carp's status was going to be.  Without Loshe and not being able to count on Carp the projected 2009 rotation would have been

Wainwright
Pinero
Wellemeyer
????
????

Without signing Loshe the Cardinals would have looked pretty weak.  As it turned out Carp was fine and Loshe was crap but in october 2008 nobody knew that.

I think the Cardinals were wrong to sign Loshe to the contract as well but that is pretty easy to say now.  At the time the Cardinals had spent a couple season digging in dumpsters for a rotation.  When they signed Loshe I was glad to be able to plug in a guy who over his career had been steady.  The way he responded to Duncan's teach was remarkable.  I think we forget that now that his career has turned sour.  The contract looks way to big but at the time it seemed only slightly larger then expected.  I am just giving the Cardinals the benifit of the doubt.  It isnt like they are a team that will normally spend money stupidly.

Part of what they were trying to do was stay out of the free agent pitching market.  I am sure they knew that they over paid for Loshe but they thought they knew what they were getting.  I do think you are overrating the 2008 pitching market.  Part of what I think the Cardinals wanted to do was add a long term productive pitcher to the rotation instead of having to go fishing every winter.  They knew they couldnt stay in the hunt for  CC or Burnett.  Lowe got a pretty health contract and I liked him at the time but he hasnt worked out.  Dempster got a better contract then Loshe and I never would have considered him a better pitcher then Loshe when he was signed.  That leaves Perez or some form of dumpster diving.  Hard for me to blame the Cardinals for signing Loshe when I think about it like that.

Untill Loshe got pegged in to forarm he was living up to the contract.  I think they (Duncan) liked what they saw from Loshe to the degree that they were sure he would continue to produce.  I would have ranked Perez and Dempster as worst pitchers then Loshe.  Both of their annual averages were bigger then Loshe's.  I dont think it is correct to say that the interest for Loshe wouldnt have been there or that they paid much above the going rate.  I believe the Cardinals thought they needed a long term steady starter and believed that was what they got.  Who would have guessed that Loshe would suffer a freak injury in his otherwise injury free career.  Most Cardinal fans at the time of the Loshe signing had seen enough of the Wells/Wellemeyer/Clement/Pontoon/ect moves and were ready for money to be spent to tie down the rotation.  I also dont think it is fair to compare Wellemeyer to Loshe.  Wellemeyer was being cut when the got him.  Loshe had a fairly good career going compared to a guy about to get DFA. 

I think Loshe's contract was a move that the Cardinals thought alot about and decided it was a move that had to be made.  Much like trading Ludwick for Westbrook move.  Even if I didnt agree with it I understood their point.  If he had simply put up a .500 winning% and a 4 ERA nobody would be bitching.  I believe he would have done that if not for the injury.

Last edited by APRTW (2/03/2011 6:12 pm)

APRTW wrote:

I would have ranked Perez and Dempster as worst pitchers then Loshe.

I won't argue Perez because there's too much room for interpretation.  But I'd be curious to know on what you base your opinion that Dempster was worse than Lohse following the 2008 season (Cubby stench aside).  Here were their 2008 numbers:

Dempster- 17-6, 2.96 ERA, 206.2 IP, 187 K, 1.21 WHIP, .227 BAA.
Lohse- 15-6, 3.78 ERA, 200 IP, 119 K, 1.30 WHIP, .272 BAA

Dempster pitched in the All-Star Game and finished 6th in the Cy Young voting.  Lohse was not an All-Star and did not receive a single Cy Young vote.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

First off, we did make the playoffs the year we traded for Holliday.

In one of your posts above, you pointed out that the team hasn't won a playoff game in 4 years.  You can't have it both ways.  You are the one who regularly argues that the object should be to put together a team capable of winning the World Series, not just good enough to win the division.  Which way is it?

I don't see any inconsistency.  I think that Moz IS judged by the fact that we haven't won a playoff game since he arrived.  I think that mid-season trades ARE judged by whether the team gets to the playoffs or not.

Last edited by Max (2/03/2011 9:48 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

I would have ranked Perez and Dempster as worst pitchers then Loshe.

I won't argue Perez because there's too much room for interpretation.  But I'd be curious to know on what you base your opinion that Dempster was worse than Lohse following the 2008 season (Cubby stench aside).  Here were their 2008 numbers:

Dempster- 17-6, 2.96 ERA, 206.2 IP, 187 K, 1.21 WHIP, .227 BAA.
Lohse- 15-6, 3.78 ERA, 200 IP, 119 K, 1.30 WHIP, .272 BAA

Dempster pitched in the All-Star Game and finished 6th in the Cy Young voting.  Lohse was not an All-Star and did not receive a single Cy Young vote.

Because Dempster hadnt been a good starter in damn near 10 years.  Sure he had a great year and he wasnt a bad starter 9 season prior.  However if I am going to pay a guy over 13 million dollars a year for 4 years I would rather pay a guy with a history of bening averagely good and just had a great season  then a guy who puts together a great season every 9 years.  It is easy to see fault with that now but at the time it was a different story.