Eduardo sanchez

[Fat Strat]

I don't see why having McClellan means Sanchez won't be on the team.

1. Motte
2. Rzep
3. Romero
4. McClellan
5. Lynn
6. Salas
7. Boggs

I said it might keep him off the team. We have seven bullpen spots, so that list is your likely season opening pen. McClellan pushes someone off that should be on there ahead of him... most likely Sanchez, but if you want to put Sanchez in there, then I can make the same argument about Salas or Lynn or Boggs. It's not about the individual player, it's about the amount we're paying him and the fact that there are at least equal and in some cases better options that won't be on the team because he is.

[Fan_In_NY]

It shouldn't, and McClellan is a better pitcher than Romero or Linebrink. But McClellan has never even been worth the paltry half a win needed to justify that salary, unless you're actually willing to believe his .231 BABIP and 89.6% strand rate in 2010 were sustainable (They're not). They need to find a front office who thinks McClellan is worth $2.5 million to dump him on and put the savings towards a midseason acquisition, but I'm pretty sure ours is the only front office that believes that.

There is no way that McClellan is going to repeat that strand and BABIP, but then again Sanchez had a BABIP last season of .206. Is that sustainable? Is his strand rate of 85.4% last season and 86.1% his last year in the minors sustainable? Is a guy who missed 3 months due to arm problems and a reliance of curveballs and questionable arm mechanics a good fit to be healthy for a whole season?

I don't even like McClellan, but I think he is being scapegoated for no reason. Let him come in healthy this season with a fresh arm and watch him produce adequately for a 7th inning guy. Sanchez will find his innings at the major league level. Whether you are the first one up, or break camp with the team, I think the difference will maybe be 10 innings. My guess is someone gets hurt (or stinks) from every bullpen within their 10 apperances.

[jagtrader]

1. Motte
2. Rzep
3. Romero
4. McClellan
5. Lynn
6. Salas
7. Boggs

OK, dump Boggs. Get rid of the second lefty. Put Lynn in the rotation with Carpenter out. Lots of options. Earth will continue to rotate.

[Fat Strat]

1. Motte
2. Rzep
3. Romero
4. McClellan
5. Lynn
6. Salas
7. Boggs

OK, dump Boggs. Get rid of the second lefty. Put Lynn in the rotation with Carpenter out. Lots of options. Earth will continue to rotate.

I'm not saying it won't. Have you followed my argument or are you just jumping in after the fact with quips? The money is the issue. Not the player. Literally Roy Oswalt is NOT a Cardinal because we decided to pay McClellan $2.5M.

Cards final offer -- $5M.
Oswalt's reported demands -- at least $8M

Difference - $3M
McClellan's salary - $2.5M

Do you get it now? So, unless Mo was going to quibble over half a million (or the reports we had about Roy's demands are wrong), Oswalt is not a Cardinal and McClellan is guaranteed a roster spot when we have guys who won't be on the club who can approximate McClellan's value for the league minimum. That's why this is an issue.

[Vidor]

I highly doubt any team goes through an entire season with the same bullpen at the start of the season as they do at the end of the season. Jettisoning any extra arms like McClellan for nothing really depletes the overall depth of the bullpen. Just because Sanchez doesn't break camp with the team doesn't mean that he wont see valuable innings with the squad. Someone is bound to have a sore shoulder, get hit with a batted ball, or just pitch terribly and he would be the first one up (if he doesn't make the team). It would seem foolish to during the offseason to count on a wild pitcher that had arm issues the season before and eliminate the depth they have. And people forget that McClellan was a pretty good reliever 2 years ago before he was made a starter. 2.6 K/BB batting average against was .206 and .222 the previous 2 seasons in the pen. He can be valuable. Sanchez has much better stuff but McClellan isn't the Aaron Miles of pitchers either.

Quite, and the 2011 Cardinals are an extreme example of changing bullpens. Sanchez has electric stuff. He was also prone to severe wildness last year, even before his injury. If he's the real thing, he'll pitch for the Cardinals this year.

[Vidor]

1. Motte
2. Rzep
3. Romero
4. McClellan
5. Lynn
6. Salas
7. Boggs

OK, dump Boggs. Get rid of the second lefty. Put Lynn in the rotation with Carpenter out. Lots of options. Earth will continue to rotate.

I'm not saying it won't. Have you followed my argument or are you just jumping in after the fact with quips? The money is the issue. Not the player. Literally Roy Oswalt is NOT a Cardinal because we decided to pay McClellan $2.5M.

Cards final offer -- $5M.
Oswalt's reported demands -- at least $8M

Difference - $3M
McClellan's salary - $2.5M

Do you get it now? So, unless Mo was going to quibble over half a million (or the reports we had about Roy's demands are wrong), Oswalt is not a Cardinal and McClellan is guaranteed a roster spot when we have guys who won't be on the club who can approximate McClellan's value for the league minimum. That's why this is an issue.

This still makes no sense. First, as noted many times, there is no salary cap in base all and the Cardinals were, are, and will remain free to pay Oswalt $8M. So stating the McClellan prevents them from signing Oswalt is factually incorrect. Second, even if it were true that they can't give Oswalt eight million, linking that to McClellan makes no sense. What if they paid Schumaker less, or non-tendered him? What if they'd extended Westbrook for less? Or Lohse? What if they talked Holliday into deferring four million of his 2012 salary? What if they'd handed RF to Craig instead of signing Beltran?

McClellan seems to be turning into one of those internet whipping boys. Like Aaron Miles.

[haltz]

I hope McClellan doesn't turn into a whipping boy like Aaron Miles, there was a reason for that.

[cpebbles]

This still makes no sense. First, as noted many times, there is no salary cap in base all and the Cardinals were, are, and will remain free to pay Oswalt $8M. So stating the McClellan prevents them from signing Oswalt is factually incorrect. Second, even if it were true that they can't give Oswalt eight million, linking that to McClellan makes no sense. What if they paid Schumaker less, or non-tendered him? What if they'd extended Westbrook for less? Or Lohse? What if they talked Holliday into deferring four million of his 2012 salary? What if they'd handed RF to Craig instead of signing Beltran?

McClellan seems to be turning into one of those internet whipping boys. Like Aaron Miles.

My last attempt:

No salary cap does not mean teams have no limitations on spending, no matter how many times you say it.

The Schumaker deal probably should not have been done, but at least he is a better player than the alternatives (Chambers, Robinson, Brown) for his roster position, which is not the case with McClellan.

I don't believe anyone here has denied that the Westbrook extension handcuffs the team. It's just a bad decision well in the past, whereas the McClellan contract was a bad decision made while Oswalt was available and interested. There has still been plenty of complaining about it.

It's a little ridiculous to presume that Holliday would be willing to agree to any contract revisions that decrease the present-day value of his contract by $2.5 million or so.

If they hadn't signed Beltran, they would be a significantly worse team.

[Vidor]

This still makes no sense. First, as noted many times, there is no salary cap in base all and the Cardinals were, are, and will remain free to pay Oswalt $8M. So stating the McClellan prevents them from signing Oswalt is factually incorrect. Second, even if it were true that they can't give Oswalt eight million, linking that to McClellan makes no sense. What if they paid Schumaker less, or non-tendered him? What if they'd extended Westbrook for less? Or Lohse? What if they talked Holliday into deferring four million of his 2012 salary? What if they'd handed RF to Craig instead of signing Beltran?

McClellan seems to be turning into one of those internet whipping boys. Like Aaron Miles.

My last attempt:

No salary cap does not mean teams have no limitations on spending, no matter how many times you say it.

Yes, yes it does. They do not have a limitation on spending, and saying otherwise is factually incorrect. They choose not to expand the payroll sufficiently to sign Oswalt.

The Schumaker deal probably should not have been done, but at least he is a better player than the alternatives (Chambers, Robinson, Brown) for his roster position, which is not the case with McClellan.

I don't believe anyone here has denied that the Westbrook extension handcuffs the team. It's just a bad decision well in the past, whereas the McClellan contract was a bad decision made while Oswalt was available and interested. There has still been plenty of complaining about it.

It's a little ridiculous to presume that Holliday would be willing to agree to any contract revisions that decrease the present-day value of his contract by $2.5 million or so.

If they hadn't signed Beltran, they would be a significantly worse team.

I do not cite X, Y, and Z to argue that they are better options--although the Schumaker contract was one that most seemed to dislike but is now oddly forgotten now that McC is the whipping boy--but to point out the fundamental illogic in deciding McC's $2.5M out of $110M or so is the reason we haven't signed Oswalt. Even if one pretends that we can't sign Oswalt, which of course we can. Roy Oswalt isn't a Cardinal b/c ownership doesn't want him badly enough, full stop. Whether or not they really need him is a judgment call; I think not but it would be nice.

[danh35]

Jon Morosi of Fox Sports tweeted earlier today that the Orioles are considering trading for McClellan. Link. I wouldn't mind seeing him moved.