Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
Post Reply
Fat Strat
Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie
Posts: 28050
Joined: April 17 06, 9:16 pm
Location: No. 16 on the Cards Top 15 Prospect List

Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.

Post by Fat Strat »

His signing doesn't impede the team from signing another significant long term addition if they so choose, and it doesn't stack up another long term contract to a starting pitcher on the books.
?

$14-$17 million, as you suggest, is more than the budget remaining for the Cards with a couple holes yet to fill.

User avatar
EastonBlues22
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 4799
Joined: May 7 06, 11:31 pm

Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.

Post by EastonBlues22 »

Fat Strat wrote:
His signing doesn't impede the team from signing another significant long term addition if they so choose, and it doesn't stack up another long term contract to a starting pitcher on the books.
?

$14-$17 million, as you suggest, is more than the budget remaining for the Cards with a couple holes yet to fill.
Unless you severely back-load the contract for the alternative pitcher, Pettitte is still likely to be cheaper than almost any other significant pitcher we could bring in for 2009. That means you're going to have to stretch the payroll a bit less in 2009 to make things fit...especially if you back-load the second player's contract. The best news is that the complications beyond 2009 are minimal. You've only handed out one significant long-term contract, and that was (presumably) to a position player whose production and health should be subject to less volatile swings than an equivalent pitcher's. If, on the other, you back-load the alternative pitcher's AND second player's contracts to make things friendlier in 2009, you place considerably more pressure on the financial situation down the road. You also assume the risk inherent in handing out another significant long term pitching contract to a pitcher with the sort of age/injury related questions that come with a player like Lowe, Sheets, etc.

User avatar
GatewaySnayke
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 11941
Joined: July 23 06, 11:54 pm
Location: GatewaySnaykebird

Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.

Post by GatewaySnayke »

The best move the Cardinals could make (imo) is dealing Troy Glaus, thus freeing up an extra -- what $13 million? -- and putting themselves in a position where they could make a deal for Sheets or Lowe and someone like a discounted Ollie Perez or allow Mozeliak to start cashing in on some of their prospects and get a pitcher through trade. I'm not sure what the drop-off between Glaus and Freese would be -- probably pretty big -- but they could add badly needed depth to the rotation.

This will surely not happen, but to me it's a better plan than trying to use $13 million to get two starting pitchers, a closer who has proven pixie dust and any other supplemental players they need.

EDIT: Another way to free up cap space would be to trade Joel Pineiro. It wouldn't be much since the Cardinals would surely be paying a good chunk of it, but it's just a part of a strategy I think they should be employing, which is expanding cap space and not trying to stretch it razor thin.

User avatar
clevername
Bringer of FRBG
Posts: 10385
Joined: April 16 06, 7:13 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.

Post by clevername »

maybe we should called up the Rockies before they bought Marquis. Pineiro's even cheaper.

jim
Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you
Posts: 50608
Joined: May 1 06, 2:41 pm

Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.

Post by jim »

JL21 wrote:
jim wrote:What LOOGY available is going to get you 1/2 win?
Ohman, Beimel... pretty much any LOOGY on the market will give up five fewer runs over the course of 162 games than Flores or Villone did.
Hudson I'm concerned about, I broke my wrist(left) in college and while I'm not familiar with his injury exactly I do worry about that type of injury based on my experience.
I have similar concerns, but he seems like a guy primed to last until ST or close to it for that very reason. And like the LOOGY thing, the bar isn't set very high. He has to outperform Adam Kennedy by 10 to 20 runs.
LOOGY's, utility guys, situational whizzer bang pinch hitter deluxe pixie dust dudes, .... why dick around like that when you can just go get a guy like Lowe, and keep your eyes open for other little bargains.

I fail to see why the simplest solution isn't the best.
If you get Lowe, you're done; any other little bargain to come along would have to be an NRI making league-minimum. Sheets would give you more flexibility there, but even then you won't get much. And I've got my own beefs about Lowe (his ERA/ERA+ hide the unearned runs that he gives up; his age; his prohibitive cost relative to Sheets). I like Lowe and it'd be great to see him as a Cardinal but I don't think he'd be worth the cash he'll get. If he somehow falls down to a $12M/yr deal, then we can talk. But he should fire his agent if he's not in Burnett's $16M/yr. ballpark.
Don't worry about his age ... he is a good bet to be throwing 200 IP's at age 40.

User avatar
cardsfansince82
is shooing asian children away from his fridge.
Posts: 27873
Joined: May 17 06, 10:23 pm
Location: at the gettin' place

Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.

Post by cardsfansince82 »

GatewaySnayke wrote:The best move the Cardinals could make (imo) is dealing Troy Glaus, thus freeing up an extra -- what $13 million? -- and putting themselves in a position where they could make a deal for Sheets or Lowe and someone like a discounted Ollie Perez or allow Mozeliak to start cashing in on some of their prospects and get a pitcher through trade. I'm not sure what the drop-off between Glaus and Freese would be -- probably pretty big -- but they could add badly needed depth to the rotation.
.
I've thought about trading Glaus quite a bit. He's about the only player we have that makes enough money to justify trading on that basis that teams might also want. Pineiro and Kennedy don't count. I have no idea what his trade value is or who would be interested, but the money is the most important part with several good FA's still out there.

jim
Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you
Posts: 50608
Joined: May 1 06, 2:41 pm

Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.

Post by jim »

Fat Strat wrote:
His signing doesn't impede the team from signing another significant long term addition if they so choose, and it doesn't stack up another long term contract to a starting pitcher on the books.
?

$14-$17 million, as you suggest, is more than the budget remaining for the Cards with a couple holes yet to fill.
There is no salary cap in baseball, the only thing keeping the Cards from doing a big time upgrade to the SP and patching those holes is an arbitrary number. Really, not an acceptable argument to me when there are options available that make this team a legit playoff team. Maybe I'm misjudging what they have, but if they truly believe what I believe in that they have an 82 win team right now then they may as well just dump as much payroll as possible and plan for some other year.

Because they are close with a once in a generation player on their hands, anything short of a full out blitz to the playoffs just doesn't cut it with me.

Fat Strat
Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie
Posts: 28050
Joined: April 17 06, 9:16 pm
Location: No. 16 on the Cards Top 15 Prospect List

Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.

Post by Fat Strat »

There is no salary cap in baseball, the only thing keeping the Cards from doing a big time upgrade to the SP and patching those holes is an arbitrary number. Really, not an acceptable argument to me when there are options available that make this team a legit playoff team. Maybe I'm misjudging what they have, but if they truly believe what I believe in that they have an 82 win team right now then they may as well just dump as much payroll as possible and plan for some other year.

Because they are close with a once in a generation player on their hands, anything short of a full out blitz to the playoffs just doesn't cut it with me.
Lose money just to win? I'm fine with that strategy personally, but it's not a realistic option for a corporation... Or would you prefer that we go the route of the Marlins, spend a ton and then be forced to dump everyone (probably including that once in a generation player that you mention)?

jim
Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you
Posts: 50608
Joined: May 1 06, 2:41 pm

Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.

Post by jim »

Fat Strat wrote:
There is no salary cap in baseball, the only thing keeping the Cards from doing a big time upgrade to the SP and patching those holes is an arbitrary number. Really, not an acceptable argument to me when there are options available that make this team a legit playoff team. Maybe I'm misjudging what they have, but if they truly believe what I believe in that they have an 82 win team right now then they may as well just dump as much payroll as possible and plan for some other year.

Because they are close with a once in a generation player on their hands, anything short of a full out blitz to the playoffs just doesn't cut it with me.
Lose money just to win? I'm fine with that strategy personally, but it's not a realistic option for a corporation... Or would you prefer that we go the route of the Marlins, spend a ton and then be forced to dump everyone (probably including that once in a generation player that you mention)?
I'm a fan interested in winning baseball and really don't care about corporations and such. Can you imagine a fanbase that is satisfied with the fact that we stuck to an $X budget, yet managed only 80 wins? I'm not suggesting they blow through their budget by 20% or anything like that, I'm suggesting they may want to look long and hard at stretching it out a bit this year considering the circumstances and what is available.

User avatar
cpebbles
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 8838
Joined: August 30 07, 12:28 pm

Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.

Post by cpebbles »

This may be the strongest free agent class we see over the next few years, but I'd say it's clear that this team is better poised to compete in 2010 than it will be next year, due to injuries to Carpenter and Garcia, Rasmus, Wallace, and Jones being on the verge of the majors, etc.

Post Reply